Assessment Design That Needs No Proctoring

If having the internet open does not help, there is nothing to detect. That is the whole idea, and it is the strongest option available. Design teams can document iteration through this transfer reference, but the important result is an assessment whose integrity comes from the task rather than surveillance.

What makes an assessment resistant

Applied rather than recall. Questions that require doing something with knowledge rather than reproducing it.

Personalised inputs: each student works from different data, a different case, a different dataset.

Reasoning made visible: the answer must show working, which is far harder to obtain from elsewhere than a result.

Time-bounded but not time-pressured, since extreme time pressure rewards having material ready rather than understanding.

And reference to specific course material, which somebody outside the module cannot supply convincingly.

Why this is not a soft option

Open-book assessment done properly is harder than closed-book recall, and students report it as such.

It measures what most curricula claim to measure — application, judgement, reasoning — rather than retention under pressure.

And it is more defensible to external examiners than a closed exam whose integrity depends on surveillance.

The cost

Writing questions of this kind takes longer, particularly the first time.

Marking is slower and less mechanisable.

Personalised inputs need a generator, which is a one-off piece of work for a module.

These are real costs and they are compared against the cost of a proctoring contract plus reviewer time, which frequently favours redesign.

What it does not solve

Contract cheating: somebody else doing the applied task. Design helps — personalised data and course-specific reference make outsourcing harder and more expensive — but does not eliminate it.

Which is why oral defence has its own note, and why staged assessment matters.

Where it does not fit

Assessments whose purpose is to certify recall under pressure, which in some professional contexts is genuinely the requirement.

Externally set examinations the institution does not control.

And regulatory requirements specifying a closed format, which should be read carefully because they often specify an outcome instead.

Making the change

One module at a time, with the assessment redesigned rather than the exam paper reworded.

Involve the external examiner early, because their sign-off is the usual obstacle and they are frequently supportive when the reasoning is set out.

And measure: mark distributions, student feedback, and whether integrity cases fall.

The institutional argument

The proctoring budget is visible and the redesign cost is hidden in academic workload, which is why the surveillance route often wins.

Making both visible in the same paper changes the comparison, and that is the practical step for anybody making the case.

What to check

How many of your proctored assessments are recall-based?

Could any of them be applied instead, without losing what they measure?

What does the regulatory requirement actually say — outcome or format?

And has anybody compared the proctoring cost against the redesign cost in one document?

The point

The proctoring budget is visible and the redesign cost is hidden in academic workload, which is why the surveillance route often wins.

Putting both in the same paper changes the comparison.

Worth stating

Involve the external examiner early, because their sign-off is the usual obstacle and they are frequently supportive once the reasoning is set out.

Then measure: mark distributions, student feedback, and whether integrity cases fall.

Also worth knowing

Writing applied questions takes longer, marking is slower, and personalised inputs need a generator.

These are real costs, and they are compared against a proctoring contract plus reviewer time — a comparison that frequently favours redesign.

And finally

What makes an assessment resistant: applied rather than recall, personalised inputs, reasoning made visible, and reference to specific course material that somebody outside the module cannot supply convincingly..

Summary

Put the proctoring cost and the redesign cost in the same document. The first is visible and the second is hidden in academic workload, which is why the comparison is rarely made.

In summary

If having the internet open does not help, there is nothing to detect.

That is the strongest option available and it improves the assessment rather than policing it. For wider institutional context, consult the Council of Europe.