Sacramento City College’s Academic Senate has held two discussions around adding a proctored testing center for online students during their meetings on April 22 and May 6. The concept of the testing center has not been approved yet.
“We haven’t even made a decision to go forward with it yet,” Shantra Muther, Academic Senate member and City College professor, said. “There would be a vote to pursue or develop this policy, so it’s really in the beginning stages.”
A date for a vote on adding a proctored testing center has not been set.
The intent of a proctored testing center would be to prevent cheating and ensure test integrity, and to make sure students master the course content of their online classes. Math and biology faculty highlight the importance of proctored testing centers so that students do not rely on AI.
When the Academic Senate presented this idea to the academic divisions, it gained support from the Language Arts and Library Division along with students, Muther said. Muther also pointed to some of the logistical challenges that could arise, such as funding, training, operating hours and staffing that will come with the proctored testing center.
“Scheduling could be an issue, so there are tons of logistical issues that would need to be worked out for sure,” Muther said.
Laura Gillies-Doherty, a City College chemistry professor and one of the Academic Senators who represents the Natural Science Division, brought this idea to the Senate’s meeting. Doherty said that a proctored testing center would provide faculty flexibility in how quizzes and exams are given to students, so they can pick the best method for their class and ensure students’ learning objectives are met.
“This makes our classes better and gives students more variety when looking for a class modality and instructor style that fits with the student’s learning style and schedule,” Gillies-Doherty said. “A proctored testing center would alleviate some of the challenges of online modalities by providing options for instructors to have their students take a quiz or exam in a more controlled and fair testing environment.”
However, a proctored testing center will need to be flexible to students’ schedules. Muther acknowledges the logistical issue of how a proctored testing center would need to respect students’ course schedules and availability to come to campus to take exams.
“I’m assuming that if we did something like this, there would have to be a reasonable limit on how many times students would be expected to come to campus,” Muther said.
With the proposal being in early stages, the Academic Senate will need to prioritize how to fund a building for a proctored testing center. But they’re not at that point yet.
“Right now the Academic Senate is focusing on assessing the level of need and interest in a potential proctored testing center,” Gillies-Doherty said. “I think we all feel strongly about utilizing resources responsibly and keeping student success a focal point. There are a lot of possibilities for how a proctored testing center could be integrated into our campus.”
While faculty views proctored testing centers as a way to preserve academic integrity, student perspectives vary, especially among fully online students. Navdeep Kaur, a business major and online student, expressed concern over the idea.
“I personally don’t like the idea of taking a test in person,” she said. “I definitely would prefer to be able to take the test at home or where I’m most comfortable.”
