Proctorio Blog

As more courses move online, decisions about proctoring have become both more common and more complicated. Unfortunately, many of the strongest opinions about online proctoring are shaped by personal stories, assumptions, or fears, not by research.

Students sometimes say they feel watched, judged, or unsure about what might trigger a flag. These feelings are real and should be taken seriously. But when institutions base policy on generalizations, the consequences can unintentionally harm students who rely on flexible testing options.

Below are some of the most common myths surrounding online proctoring, myths repeated so often that they sound true, even though the data tells a more nuanced story.

Myth #1: “Webcam proctoring makes students more anxious.”

Some students say that having a camera on them feels stressful or intrusive. But one of the more substantial studies on webcam-based proctoring, Kolski & Weible (2018), does not support this claim.

The researchers reviewed 3,983 webcam-proctored exams, observing anxiety-related behaviors and matching them to each student’s baseline test anxiety. They found a few things:

• Students with low test anxiety did not show increased stress during webcam-proctored exams.
• Students with high test anxiety did show signs of stress, but there was no evidence that the webcam caused or increased that anxiety.

In short: the technology did not appear to be the source of measurable anxiety.

Myth #2: “Feeling anxious during online proctoring will lower students’ scores.”

Students often assume that if online proctoring makes them nervous, their performance will drop. That fear is understandable, but the data doesn’t clearly support that outcome.

Woldeab and Brothen (2021) conducted a survey of 237 undergraduate students at a public land-grant research university in the upper Midwest who completed their exams using Proctorio. While some students expressed concern about being wrongly flagged, the study found that this worry did not negatively affect their exam performance. As the authors note, “We further find that worry over being wrongly flagged did not directly impede students’ exam performance.”

Anxiety may feel like a barrier, but in this study it did not translate into lower scores.

Myth #3: “The way to reduce stress is to eliminate online proctoring.”

This assumption shows up frequently in student comments, but research suggests that uncertainty, not technology, is what drives most anxiety.

A recent study by Ruzgar & Chua-Chow (2023) found that stress decreased significantly when students knew what to expect. The authors notes “Providing students with a practice test and clear instructions before the exam reduced anxiety associated with online testing.” They also observed that “Student anxiety decreased when the exam structure was familiar and when expectations were clearly communicated.”

This suggests that preparation, clear instructions, practice opportunities, and transparent expectations, has a much stronger impact on reducing anxiety than removing online proctoring tools.

Myth #4: “Students prefer in-person exams.”

This assumption often reflects traditional academic norms but not the reality of online learners.

In a study of 245 online students, McEdwards & Underhill (2021) found:

• 64% chose AI proctoring as their first choice,
• and only 4% selected in-person exams.

Students weren’t choosing based on novelty, they were choosing based on feasibility. Many online learners have work demands, caregiving responsibilities, disabilities, long commutes, or unreliable transportation. For them, in-person testing isn’t just inconvenient, it may be impossible.

What Institutions Should Really Be Asking

Instead of relying on anecdotes or assumptions, institutions should ask:

• Are students getting enough preparation before a proctored exam?
• Do they understand how the system works and what to expect?
• Are our decisions grounded in evidence, or in repeated myths?

The Bottom Line

The research shows:

• Webcam proctoring does not raise measurable anxiety for most students.
• Anxiety, when it appears, does not reduce performance.
• Students overwhelmingly prefer online options because they fit the realities of their lives.
• Clear preparation and communication reduce stress far more effectively than switching tools.

When institutions rely on anecdotes rather than data, they risk making decisions that unintentionally disadvantage the very students they want to support. A better approach is flexible, predictable, and grounded in evidence: offer multiple proctoring formats, prepare students thoroughly, and let them choose the environment where they can do their best work.

References

• Kolski, T., & Weible, J. (2018). Examining the Relationship Between Student Test Anxiety and Webcam-Based Exam Proctoring.
  https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1191463
• McEdwards, T., & Underhill, G. (2021). The Element of Choice: Online Students’ Perceptions of Online Exam Proctoring.
  https://ojdla.com/articles/the-element-of-choice-online-students-perceptions-of-online-exam-proctoring
• Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2021). Video Surveillance of Online Exam Proctoring: Exam Anxiety and Student Performance.
  https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1313313
• Ruzgar, N. S., & Chua-Chow, C. (2023). Perception of Students on Online Exams and How Sequential Exams and the Lockdown Browser Affect Student Anxiety and Performance.
  https://doi.org/10.37394/232018.2023.11.9