Ayush Srivastava
Preeti Singh
Alka Singh
- Student, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Babu Banarasi Das Engineering College, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
- Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Babu Banarasi Das Engineering College, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
- Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Babu Banarasi Das Engineering College, Lucknow, Assistant Professor, Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract
This research focuses on the effects of online proctoring in facilitating the online test procedure for prospects, as well as how these tools affect engagement and learnability, as well as a retrospective investigation of other online examinations now in demand and a comparison of both. As a researcher, we learned that online proctoring is essential not only for a smooth examination process, but also for the cautious management of a student’s career. This study was conducted as a result of the trends in the field of online examinations, which necessitates mentorship for students so that they remain aware of the importance of the knowledge they require for their careers and provide an honest exam. This is also the motivation for this study; for each student to perform well in exams, they must acquire knowledge; and for that, strict proctoring is necessary. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the capacity to efficiently proctor an online exam is a necessary feature for future scalability in the education and assessment fields. Human proctoring is also an expensive and time-consuming option. We offer a method that does automatic online proctoring without the need for human intervention in this research.
Keywords: Proprietary, open-source, examination, software, COVID-19, pandemic
[This article belongs to International Journal of Mobile Computing Technology(ijmct)]
Browse Figures
References
- Hollister KK, Berenson ML. Proctored versus unproctored online exams: Studying the impact of exam environment on student performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2009 Jan;7(1):271–94.
- Casey BJ, Getz S, Galvan A. The adolescent brain. Dev Rev. 2008 Mar 1; 28(1): 62–77.
- Piette MA, Kinney SK, Haves P. Analysis of an information monitoring and diagnostic system to improve building operations. Energy Build. 2001 Oct 1; 33(8): 783–91.
- Geeks for Geeks. (2020). Difference between Open-source Software and Proprietary Software. [Online]. Available from: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-open-source-software-and-proprietary-software/
- Schryen G, Kadura R. Open source vs. closed source software: towards measuring security. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing. 2009 Mar 8; 2016–2023.
- BBC. Cons of Proprietary Software. [Online]. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ zhx26yc/revision/11
- iTech India. (2019). Pros and Cons of Open Source vs Proprietary Software. [Online]. Available from: https://itechindia.co/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-open-source-vs-proprietary-software/
- Alessio HM, Malay N, Maurer K, Bailer AJ, Rubin B. Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning. 2017 Mar; 21(1): 146–61.
- Naha P. (2023). 15 Best Online Proctoring Software and Services to Look Up in 2023. [Online]. Software Suggest Blog. Available from: https://www.softwaresuggest.com/blog/best-online-proctoring-software/#
- Hylton K, Levy Y, Dringus LP. Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Comput Educ. 2016 Jan 1; 92–93: 53–63.
- Yadav K, Thareja R. Comparing the performance of naive bayes and decision tree classification using R. Int J Intell Syst Appl. 2019 Dec 1; 11(12): 11–19.
- George N. Mastering Django: Core. UK: Packt Publishing Ltd; 2016 Dec 23.
| Volume | 01 | |
| Issue | 01 | |
| Received | June 27, 2023 | |
| Accepted | June 30, 2023 | |
| Published | August 3, 2023 |