Below is an imaginary assignment that may be used in a course, workshop, or speaking context aimed at resisting the use of remote proctoring software. This assignment aims to support participants in reflecting on ethics, advocacy, and resistance in the context of educational technology. Feel free to use/reuse.

Laura Czerniewicz argues that one way to respond to the “new normal” of higher education is through resistance. Such resistance, for example, may involve individual faculty members avoiding remote proctoring and surveillance software in particular; students petitioning the institution to stop using such tools or requesting alternative assessments; and institutions abandoning these tools or letting such  contracts end.

But what are some good alternatives to remote proctored exams and how do institutions implement them? How would “resisting” remote proctoring work at an institution? The case study describing the decision to avoid remote proctoring at the University of Michigan–Dearborn ends with the following quote: “We invite further writing and discussion of strategies for limiting the use of remote proctoring in different contexts with the goal of developing a robust, people-centered toolkit for supporting remote assessment in a diversity of campus contexts.” In response to this call, your task is to create a persuasive artifact aimed at encouraging faculty or administrators to avoid using remote proctoring tools. Your persuasive artifact may take many forms. It can be in the form of an email directed at the Center for Teaching and Learning or administrators at your institution encouraging rethinking decisions to adopt these tools; or it can be an infographic for social media distribution; or a leaflet for posting on campus; or a video that you create to raise awareness amongst a specific group of stakeholder; or a petition distributed to the faculty association or faculty council.