[I’m very grateful to Heidi Young for raising the questions and concerns set out in this article. Following the publication of the article, Jeffery Sperling and I met with Heidi and other students to discuss these issues. Over the summer, we will work on addressing these issues, and in September, Heidi and I plan to co-author an article for Obiter Dicta setting out the resolutions and responses to the article’s concerns. If students have any additional concerns about our format for remote exams which are not raised in this article, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. – Karen Drake, Associate Dean (Students)]
In our first week of 1L, during ELGC, the class of 2023 was cautioned that sometimes speeches about equity and access are mere “virtue signaling” – all flourish and no substance. Some institutions might hold public events and have written policies and teach classes on equity and access, but act in a way that does not match those pretty words. University is still big business, and no matter how fond we may each be of the one we’ve chosen to attend, it is important to remain critical of policies that may be convenient for the administration but have a negative impact on students. I would argue that this is especially the case when access issues (particularly those involving technology) have been exacerbated by a worldwide pandemic.
Last semester, 1L Section A did not use Examplify for a single exam. They received exams that ranged from hours to days in length, but all of the exams were assigned and turned in via the Online Assignment Drop Box, as Word files. This semester, it seems likely that Section A will join the other sections in being exposed to the perils of Examplify.
I will briefly address the positives to using Examplify. First, using an off-the-shelf solution might possibly be more convenient for professors and administration than using the Drop Box. Second, because Examplify automatically ends the exam and submits it when time runs out, students may feel less pressure than when they must manage deadlines themselves with Drop Box. Finally, for the same reason, students may avoid having their marks docked or facing other consequences as a result of their failure to submit their exams to the Drop Box on time.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of potential negative consequences for students. These mostly fall into three categories: access/equity issues, practical issues, and security issues.
Access/Equity Issues
First, it seems that not all devices respond equally well to Examplify. Windows 10 is required at a minimum, and the device used must have at least 4 GB of RAM. In addition, there have been reports that devices running on other operating systems (besides Windows) have crashed or failed to run the program properly. Besides the apparent disadvantage to low SES students who have an older device and may not easily be able to afford a higher-end replacement, there is also a significant advantage for high SES students – namely, many high SES students have or can easily afford to buy multiple devices. When Examplify is used only to prevent students from accessing the Internet on their device while writing an exam, in practice students with multiple devices do not face this restriction. (When video and audio recording features are switched on in an attempt to prevent this, it becomes a security issue. In addition, there have been reports that students can still cheat by positioning a secondary device near their screen, out of sight of the camera.)
There are also concerns relating to the anonymity of the exam for students who require accommodations. One concerned 1L informed me:
“I probably won’t have to use Examplify. I have to consult my accommodations, but I need spell checker and formatting and things like that. It makes me a little uncomfortable knowing that the Professor will know by looking at my exam that it’s an accommodated exam. I have always written my exams on a computer, since about grade 4, and I liked that in law school, I was on the same level as everyone else for the first time.”
Practical Issues
There are several practical issues resulting from the use of Examplify, as well. For example, the “AI” Examplify apparently relies on to proctor test takers (when that feature is enabled) is unlikely to be highly sophisticated. In general, technology in this area is not perfect. According to a recent University of Essex study, the facial recognition used by MET police is incorrect about 80% of the time. Even a much lower false positive rate would be unacceptable in a program meant to identify whether students are cheating on remote exams.
In addition, there have been many reports of Examplify crashing or causing devices to crash. In that case, students have been instructed to complete the exam in Word or in handwriting, and then send an email asking how to turn in that portion of their exam at the exam end time. Naturally, students who have to switch to Word or handwriting mid-exam are still at a very significant disadvantage because they are unable to access the portion of the exam that they have already written. On average, people handwrite much more slowly than they type, so there may be additional time loss there as well.
Security Issues
Online, people have reported that Examplify has very high-level permissions on your device, taking control of WIFI access and capturing video footage and audio information from the user (at least when those settings are enabled). Some have also reported that because of this elevated system access, the fact that users often need to disable their antivirus so as not to interfere with Examplify, and the multiple intrusion points that result from its cloud-based communications, using Examplify could leave students’ computers open to hackers. It is also worth noting that Examplify, which captures a lot of user data, is a closed-source, foreign-developed program.
Last year, over 1800 supporters signed a UWA student petition against the mandatory use of Examplify software for exams. It seems the petition and student complaints based on issues of security and access worked to some extent, because UWA allowed students new to Examplify in 2020 to opt out and complete an alternative assessment or write exams on campus instead.
While Examplify might possibly be more convenient for administration and might save some students the stress and potential consequences of managing deadlines themselves, I would argue that the access/equity issues, practical issues, and security issues involved outweigh those minor benefits. An opt-out option like UWA’s would allow students to decide for themselves whether they would rather face these risks or manage the deadline themselves through Drop Box.
Osgoode Hall (and York by extension) is characterized by many as a school that is focused on equity and access. To deserve that characterization, Osgoode should “practice what it preaches” and focus on equity issues when dealing with students. In my opinion, for these reasons, requiring students to use Examplify when doing remote open-book exams (or closed book exams, considering the multiple-device exploit) despite the known problems is unconscionable.
