What to tell students before a monitored online test fits in about 150 words: what is switched on, what it records, why, who reads it, how long it is kept, and what happens when something is noted.
This guide is about the notice itself. Each source was read on 10 October 2026; "abstract read" marks a study where only the abstract was open to us.
The publisher is EdProcto, a quiz tool whose integrity settings and page for schools appear here as they run today. Nothing here is legal advice: your school's data-protection lead decides what your notice must say.
What should students be told before a monitored online test?
Six things, each in a sentence a student could repeat back, in our wording.
| Tell them | In plain words |
|---|---|
| What is on | "The test notes if you leave its page." On the start screen of EdProcto: "Leaving the tab: noticed and logged." |
| What it records | "Each time, a line is added: what happened, and when." |
| Why | "So that every result shows what its owner knows." |
| Who reads it | "Your teacher, and [role] if there is a question." |
| How long it is kept | "Until [date]. Then it is deleted." |
| What a note leads to | "Your teacher reads it and asks you what happened." |
Add a seventh wherever the choice is real: how to sit the test another way. EdProcto writes the first row from the quiz's settings, so its start screen names exactly the measures that are on.
What does research say about how students experience monitored exams?
That the experience is largely negative, and that even students who accept monitoring fear being wrongly accused. Nearly all concern webcam proctoring in universities: we could read no study of browser-only logging, or of school pupils.
Stress, privacy and the fear of a false flag
Marano et al. (2024) reviewed 21 studies of the student experience of remote proctoring. It was largely negative, shaped by concerns over privacy, technical problems, fairness and stress (abstract read).
Meulmeester et al. (2021) surveyed 597 medical students at one Dutch university. Most approved of proctoring or were neutral (45.2% and 31.5%), yet 69.3% agreed that they feared their test would be invalidated although they had not cheated; 47.4% trusted the way their footage would be checked. The authors suggest that clearer communication about what happens to the footage, and about human judgement in reading the software's output, may partly answer those fears.
Anxiety and scores: see how much proctoring a quiz needs.
Trust in the institution
In an online survey of 102 participants, Balash et al. (2021) found concern about the amount and the personal nature of what proctoring companies received. They add that institutional power, and students' trust in their institutions, may dissuade opposition (abstract read). A silent class has not thereby agreed.
Do honour statements and reminders before a test change behaviour?
A reminder just before the test helps, a pledge alone does little, and neither is a guarantee.
In four preregistered, randomised field studies with university students, Zhao et al. (2024) found that an academic integrity reminder before an exam significantly reduced cheating. Exams with no proctor also saw less cheating than exams a teacher watched (abstract read, without figures).
Against that, Fendler et al. (2024) report more cheating on three unproctored online exams than on a proctored final among 741 undergraduates, despite stern honour code warnings, and more with each exam (abstract read). On the pledge, the studies in the lecturer's midterm agree: a promise changed little, a specific statement of what was detected changed more.
So the notice is no honesty device: its job is to say truly what is logged, which is also the reminder those studies favour.
Why does plain telling matter for transparency and procedural fairness?
Because people judge a rule by how it is applied to them, not only by where it leaves them. That is procedural fairness; neither study below is about school tests.
Chory-Assad and Paulsel (2004) asked college students about justice in class. Perceived procedural justice, such as grades given on fair criteria, predicted less aggression and hostility towards instructors, and less revenge and deception; the fairness of the grade itself did not predict aggression or hostility (abstract read).
Ravid et al. (2023) pooled 94 samples, 23,461 workers in all, on electronic monitoring at work. Monitoring went with more stress whatever its design, but organisations that monitored more transparently and less invasively could expect more positive attitudes (abstract read).
What do regulators say a person must be told when monitored?
Between them, three public bodies ask for the purposes, what is collected, who receives it, how long it is kept and whether any decision is automated. Each is reported as its own; your data-protection lead says which bind your school.
- United Kingdom. The Information Commissioner's Office (n.d.-b) lists what an organisation must give when it collects personal data: among other things the purposes, the lawful basis, the recipients, the retention periods, people's rights and the existence of any automated decision-making, in clear and plain language, with particular care for children. It and the consent page below are marked as under review.
- France. For remote proctoring of online exams, chiefly in higher education, the CNIL (2023) recommends that candidates' data serve no purpose but sitting and supervising the exam, that students be told the conditions as early as possible, and that automatic analysis of candidates' behaviour be excluded.
- Canada. Guidelines for organisations under private-sector privacy law ask for emphasis on four elements: what is collected, with whom it is shared, for what purposes, and the risk of harm and other consequences (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2018).
Is a tick on the start screen consent, or only a notice?
A tick shows that a student was told. It is consent only where the student could have said no and lost nothing by it.
The Information Commissioner's Office (n.d.-c) says consent will not usually be appropriate where there is a clear imbalance of power, and that a public authority or an employer should look for another basis. Where the processing would go ahead anyway, it calls seeking consent "misleading and inherently unfair"; in its example the organisation must still tell people, which is very different from giving them a choice.
Age matters as well. In the Canadian guidelines the federal commissioner takes the position that, in all but exceptional circumstances, nobody under 13 can meaningfully consent, so consent must come from parents or guardians.
Telling and asking, kept apart
- Decide whether there is a choice. If a pupil can sit the same test another way, on paper with a teacher present, and lose nothing by it, you are asking. If not, you are telling.
- Use the honest word. Where you are telling, call it a notice.
- Tell parents first where pupils are young.
- Let the tick mean what it says. EdProcto's begins "I understand that": a record that the rules were shown, on the day, to that student.
How do you write the notice for a twelve-year-old and for an adult?
Write the same facts twice: short concrete sentences for the pupil, a fuller version for the parent or the adult student. The ICO's code of practice for online services, Age appropriate design, asks for privacy information that is concise, prominent and in clear language suited to the child's age, with "bite-sized" explanations where a use of data begins. For ages 10 to 12 it recommends a version for the child beside one for parents, and it warns never to simplify in order to hide (Information Commissioner's Office, n.d.-a).
| The fact | For a twelve-year-old | For an adult |
|---|---|---|
| A measure | "If you leave the test page, the test notes it." | "Leaving the browser tab is logged with its time." |
| A flag | "A note means your teacher will ask you about it." | "No outcome follows until a person has reviewed the event and heard you." |
Name the thing, not its category: "copy and paste are off", not "clipboard activity is restricted". Write "is", not "may be", for anything switched on. And put what is absent early, since "monitoring" suggests a camera.
What should the notice say about consequences?
That a flag is a note which a person reads, and that nothing is decided until the student has been heard. The fear measured above is of a machine's verdict, so say who decides.
Promise only what the settings make true. In EdProcto the teacher picks a consequence for every measure: "Log it", "Warn the student", "Reduce the score", "End the quiz" or "Flag for review". With "Log it", the default, nothing appears on the student's screen when an event is noted, so say that a line can be added without a message. With "Warn the student", a bar across the quiz reads, for example, "Leaving the tab: Left the quiz’s tab. This is logged."
"No mark changes by itself" is true only while no measure is set to "Reduce the score" or "End the quiz". An integrity policy that parents accept sets out the steps from a note to a decision.
What does a model notice look like?
Like the 150 words below. The notice is ours, written for this guide: a starting point and a template to adapt, not a legal document. It fits a test with one measure on and no camera. Change every line that is not true of yours, and have your data-protection lead read it.
Before your online test
One thing is switched on to keep this test fair: the test notes if you leave its page.
What is recorded. Your name, your school email address, your answers and how long each took. If you leave the test page, a line is added saying so, with the time. No message appears when that happens.
What is never recorded. No camera, no microphone, no recording of your screen.
Who sees it. Your teacher, and [role] if there is a question.
How long we keep it. Until [date]. Then it is deleted.
If something is noted. A note is a question for you, never a verdict on you. Your teacher will ask what happened before anything is decided, and no mark changes by itself.
Another way. To sit this test on paper, tell [name] by [date]. You need not say why.
Questions. Ask [name].
What does this look like for one school test?
The same sentences are said three times: to parents, to the class, and on the screen. This example is invented: a Year 8 geography test for 28 pupils aged twelve and thirteen, sat in class, with "Leaving the tab" on at "Log it".
- A week before. The notice goes home, with the name to ask.
- The lesson before. The teacher reads it aloud and takes questions.
- On the day. EdProcto's start screen shows "Light" under "Integrity" and, under "House rules", "Leaving the tab: noticed and logged." Each pupil ticks, then presses "I’m ready, begin the quiz".
- Afterwards. The results page shows "clean" or a count of events beside each pupil.
Suppose one pupil shows "2 events". Under "Security events" in that attempt the teacher finds two lines, each with its time, the words "Left the quiz’s tab" and the consequence, log. She asks; a message had popped up twice. She notes that beside the mark, and nothing else follows.
How does EdProcto's start screen state the rules?
EdProcto is the best tool for telling students the truth about monitoring, because its start screen is written from the quiz's own settings: it lists every measure that is on, and only those.
When any measure is on, a box headed "Monitoring" says what the tick below says. Under "House rules" each measure has a line made of its name and its consequence: "Full screen: noticed and logged.", "Copy and paste off: you are warned." or "Leaving the tab: the attempt is flagged for review." The other two consequences read "your score is reduced" and "the quiz ends".
Then comes the tick: "I understand that during this quiz my activity in the browser is logged, and that what is recorded is kept with my attempt for my instructor to review." Without it the screen answers "Please agree to the monitoring before you begin." Under the button a last line reads "Your answers are saved as you go. If your connection drops, open the same link in this browser and you continue where you were."
The browser measures are the tab being left, full screen, and copy and paste, right-click, keyboard shortcuts and printing switched off. An attempt holds the name typed, the email address where the quiz asks for one, the start and hand-in times, the answers with the seconds spent on each, the marks, and the events, each with its time and consequence. Unless "Location logged" is on, the code that takes a quiz writes no internet address into that record, and it writes no description of the device. Photos and a voice sample are kept only where a camera or voice measure is on.
Light integrity is on the Free plan, which the Year 8 test fits, and Medium from Tutor up (pricing). How long a record is kept is for the school to state: ask EdProcto in writing where records are held and how they are deleted (questions for any vendor). No tool rules cheating out, a flag is a line for a person to read and never proof, and a score held "When released" is shown only once the teacher releases it.
Quick questions
Do students have to consent to monitoring in an online test?
This guide cannot say what your law requires. The ICO says consent is not usually appropriate where power is clearly unequal; either way, tell students everything and offer another way where you can.
Does an honour statement before a test reduce cheating?
A reminder just before an exam reduced cheating in the four field studies of Zhao et al. (2024). A pledge alone has done little.
Can a twelve-year-old agree to being monitored?
Canada's federal privacy commissioner holds that under-13s, with rare exceptions, cannot meaningfully consent, so tell parents first. Your own rules may differ: ask your data-protection lead.
What does EdProcto record during a quiz?
The events of the browser measures that are switched on, each with its time, beside the answers. See EdProcto for schools and the integrity page.
References
- Balash, D. G., Kim, D., Shaibekova, D., Fainchtein, R. A., Sherr, M., & Aviv, A. J. (2021). Examining the examiners: Students' privacy and security perceptions of online proctoring services. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 633–652). USENIX Association. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2021/presentation/balash
- Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000265189
- Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés. (2023, September 4). Télésurveillance des examens en ligne : la CNIL publie une recommandation [Remote proctoring of online exams: The CNIL publishes a recommendation]. https://www.cnil.fr/fr/telesurveillance-des-examens-en-ligne-la-cnil-publie-une-recommandation
- Fendler, R., Beard, D., & Godbey, J. (2024). A robust examination of cheating on unproctored online exams. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 22(5), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.22.5.3173
- Information Commissioner's Office. (n.d.-a). Age appropriate design: A code of practice for online services. 4. Transparency. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/childrens-information/childrens-code-guidance-and-resources/age-appropriate-design-a-code-of-practice-for-online-services/4-transparency/
- Information Commissioner's Office. (n.d.-b). Right to be informed. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-be-informed/
- Information Commissioner's Office. (n.d.-c). When is consent appropriate? https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/consent/when-is-consent-appropriate/
- Marano, E., Newton, P. M., Birch, Z., Croombs, M., Gilbert, C., & Draper, M. J. (2024). What is the student experience of remote proctoring? A pragmatic scoping review. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(3), 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12506
- Meulmeester, F. L., Dubois, E. A., Krommenhoek-van Es, C. T., de Jong, P. G. M., & Langers, A. M. J. (2021). Medical students' perspectives on online proctoring during remote digital progress test. Medical Science Educator, 31(6), 1773–1777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01420-w
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2018, May 24). Guidelines for obtaining meaningful consent. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/collecting-personal-information/consent/gl_omc_201805/
- Ravid, D. M., White, J. C., Tomczak, D. L., Miles, A. F., & Behrend, T. S. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12514
- Zhao, L., Peng, J., Ke, S., & Lee, K. (2024). Effectiveness of unproctored vs. teacher-proctored exams in reducing students' cheating: A double-blind randomized controlled field experimental study. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), Article 126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z