Education and Surveillance technology

Smartphones are ubiquitous through which surveillance can be carried out easily and cheaply. In the US, recipients of university athletic scholarship are required to attend classes. This aims to maintain certain level of academic performance of athletes. University class attendance, however, is not usually monitored. This presents a problem. An American company founded by a former college basketball coach developed an app that utilised bluetooth technology to monitor class attendance. Bluetooth beacons are installed in the lecture theatres. Once bluetooth-enabled smartphones are in the vicinity of a beacon for certain period of time, the system creates a ‘check-in’ recording the attendance of the owners of the smartphone. Through the university enrolment database, the system has the record of who should be attending what class, when and where. Once the smartphone owners download the app and register, the monitoring is automatic and happening in the background.

The system is currently being used in Columbia, Indiana, Missouri University and also several others. Data from Syracuse University professor suggested that students attended classes more often since the system had been installed. Students want “attendance points”. They know they are monitored and behaviourally, they change.

The data seem to demonstrate that the system improves class attendance. There are several points worth further considerations. 

Does class attendance improve academic performance? Is there any evidence? If it doesn’t, then what’s the point? Class attendance is not the aim; academic performance is. University education, however, shouldn’t be just about academic performance i.e. hard skills. It should also include soft skill developments i.e. interpersonal skill, communication, teamwork etc. Class attendance may directly or indirectly improve soft skills through student social interactions. But does it has to be in the class? Can it happen else where (sport practice/competition, any other extracurricular activities)? These might actually be better at cultivating soft skills than in-class interactions?

In addition, does class attendance ensure education? What’re the functions of classes? Information dissemination shouldn’t be the main function of classes as students can access information easily through internet or more traditionally, library. Classes should be there for discussion and debate, but if that is the case, big lecture theatre accommodating 300-400 students for which this technology is specifically designed might not suit for the purpose.

If we need to force, encourage or even gently ‘nudge’ students to attend classes, what does that say about the classes and students? Perhaps students may not see value in attending classes. Perhaps classes may be boring, uninteresting to the point that if they can skip it, they will. Educator though should think long and hard about what kind of institutions we are creating where students don’t want to show up.

If students know what they need to know, if they can do what they need to do without attending classes, do they still need to attend classes? Perhaps not? If that is the case, then we should focus on measuring academic outcomes and forget all about class attendance in general and this surveillance technology in particular.

The system developed by a former basketball coach was later on pivoted to record and analyse student movement patterns. It linked students who rarely visit library with learning difficulties leading to university early intervention. By comparing a particular student’s movement pattern to the general student population, the system also flagged a student who only left her dorm room for meals and nothing else with potential mental health issues. It’s like a canary in a coal mine, if you will.

On the other side of the coin, university students are adults and should be treated as such. Class attendance should be their choices. Adults make all kinds of decisions in life and live with the consequences. We live in a liberal society, value our freedom, like to think for ourselves, and tread our own path. Shouldn’t we leave it up to students to decide whether to attend classes? Do we really want future citizenry who can’t think and decide for themselves. Do we really want state/authority to force what is “good” upon us?

Extreme surveillance like China’s social credit system whereby CCTV, facial recognition software, AI, GPS, and smartphones work in concert to monitor every single citizen in every city. The system identifies, rewards and punishes people who behave well or badly through ‘social credit’. People who spit on the street (bad behaviour as determined by state) may not be able to buy train ticket as his/her social credit is too low. By the same token, people who voice discontent toward government on social media (bad behaviour as determined by state) may not be able to get a loan because of low social credit score. Through the system of surveillance, rewards and punishments, Chinese government hopes to shape and mould Chinese’s behaviour. System such as this sends chills down people’s spine (people in democratic societies, that is) or at the very least makes them super-uneasy. University surveillance discussed above appears innocence and harmless in comparison to the China’s. Having it, however, would familiarise if not normalise future citizenry with extreme surveillance like the Chinese system. Are we really ok with that?

Surveillance system can be a slippery slope. It can evolve into something else entirely. If we allow a “mini-surveillance” to flourish, we are practically a boiling frog. Not to mention, the intentional and unintentional misuse of our location data. How do we know for sure that our data are securely kept? How do we know that criminals cannot get their hands on our data? The only sure way is to not have that data in the first place.

Personally speaking, the evidence of surveillance benefits in improving academic performance is not yet convincing especially when associated risks are considered. There may be, however, a place for a surveillance system like this. Firstly, the system may be more palatable if it’s not mandatory. Secondly, it may be useful for certain groups of students e.g. at-risk students (with heavy sporting commitments, potential mental health issues etc.) who may easily fall through the cracks without monitoring system and without prompt interventions. We should acknowledge though that the surveillance system is not useful in and of itself. It only identifies students who may have problems. If there’s no further supporting system designed to do something about the identified problems, it’s practically useless.