Examination monitoring support method, examination monitoring support program, and examination monitoring support apparatus

Abstract

To make a proper monitoring person monitor an examinee required to be monitored.SOLUTION: The present invention is directed to an examination monitoring support program for supporting monitoring a wrongful act in an online examination. The program causes a computer to execute the steps of: if information indicating a kind of an act suspected for a wrongful act of an examinee is acquired, by referring to a storage unit storing information of kinds of wrongful acts monitored by each monitoring person in association with a plurality of monitoring persons monitoring wrongful acts, extracting a monitoring person satisfying a predetermined condition from monitoring persons associated with a kind of a wrongful act corresponding to the acquired kind of act; and displaying, on a display unit viewable by the extracted monitoring person, a video relating to the examinee who carried out an act suspected as the wrongful act.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 11

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a test monitoring support method, a test monitoring support program, and a test monitoring support device. [Background technology]

[0002] Since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a demand to change the testing method, and an increasing number of organizations and institutions are conducting online tests that can be taken at home. In order to conduct online tests fairly, it is necessary for test supervisors or security agents to remotely monitor the camera footage of the test takers and the footage of the screens operated by the test takers to check whether the test takers are cheating.

[0003] For example, a proctor is in charge of one room with 6-12 examinees, identifies examinees who are suspected of cheating, and requests a security agent to monitor the identified examinees. The security agent then monitors the examinees who have been requested to monitor by the proctor, and makes the final decision on whether or not they are cheating. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] Patent Publication No. 2022-29113 [Patent Document 2] JP 2022-31184 A [Patent Document 3] JP 2020-197778 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] Traditionally, one security agent was responsible for multiple rooms and monitored test takers at the request of the test supervisors in the rooms within his / her jurisdiction.

[0006] However, if the scope of responsibility is set in advance, the load may be unevenly distributed among some security agents, which may affect the monitoring accuracy. Also, there is a risk that the appropriate examinees may not be assigned to the security agents.

[0007] In one aspect, the present invention aims to provide a test monitoring support method, a test monitoring support program, and a test monitoring support device that enable an appropriate monitor to monitor an examinee who needs to be monitored. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] In one aspect, the exam monitoring support method supports monitoring of cheating in an online exam, and when information indicating a type of behavior suspected of cheating by an examinee is acquired, the method executes a process in which a computer refers to a storage unit in which information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors monitoring the cheating is stored in association with each of the monitors, extracts monitors who satisfy predetermined conditions from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating that corresponds to the acquired type of behavior, and displays video of the examinee who has engaged in the suspected cheating behavior on a display unit viewable by the extracted monitor. Effect of the Invention

[0009] Candidates who require supervision can be supervised by an appropriate supervisor. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0010] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a schematic configuration of a test system according to an embodiment. [Diagram 2] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the relationship between examinees, exam supervisors, and security agents. [Diagram 3] FIG. 3(a) is a diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of a server, and FIG. 3(b) is a diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of an examinee's terminal. [Figure 4]FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of the hardware configuration of an exam supervisor terminal and an agent terminal. [Diagram 5] FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of a server, a test supervisor terminal, and an agent terminal. [Figure 6] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of an examinee information table. [Figure 7] FIG. 7(a) shows an example of the fraud table, and FIG. 7(b) shows an example of the fraud detection table. [Figure 8] FIG. 8(a) is a diagram showing an example of an allocation table, FIG. 8(b) is a diagram showing an example of a skill table, and FIG. 8(c) is a diagram showing an example of an experience table. [Figure 9] FIG. 1 shows the fraud check screen. [Figure 10] FIG. 2 shows the fraud check screen (part 2). [Figure 11] FIG. 3 shows the fraud check screen. [Figure 12] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a confirmation screen. [Figure 13] 13 is a flowchart showing server processing (part 1). [Figure 14] 13 is a flowchart showing a second process of the server. [Figure 15] 13 is a flowchart showing a third process of the server. [Figure 16] 16 is a flowchart showing the process of step S70 in FIG. 15. [Figure 17] 16 is a flowchart showing the process of step S74 in FIG. 15. [Figure 18] 13 is a flowchart showing a fourth process of the server. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0011] An embodiment will be described in detail below with reference to Figures 1 to 18. Figure 1 shows a schematic configuration of an examination system 100 according to an embodiment. The examination system 100 of this embodiment is a system used by organizations or groups that conduct online examinations and examinees who take the examinations, and is a system that conducts online examinations and checks for any cheating by examinees to ensure that the examinations are conducted fairly.

[0012] 1, the exam system 100 includes a server 10 as an exam monitoring support device, an examinee terminal 60, an exam supervisor terminal 70, and an agent terminal 80. The server 10, the examinee terminal 60, the exam supervisor terminal 70, and the agent terminal 80 are connected to a network NW such as the Internet.

[0013] In this embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2, multiple examinees (for example, about 6 to 12 people) are assigned to each room, and about one exam proctor is assigned to each room. Furthermore, in this embodiment, a security agent exists in addition to the exam proctors. The exam proctor has the role of notifying the security agent of examinees in the room he or she is responsible for who are judged to be highly likely to be cheating. Meanwhile, the security agent has the role of monitoring examinees who are judged by the exam proctors in each room to be highly likely to be cheating, and officially judging whether or not cheating has occurred.

[0014] (Server 10 Overview) The server 10 communicates with the examinee's terminal 60 and executes the processes required to conduct the test. The server 10 also acquires video of the examinee (video of the examinee's face and video of the screen the examinee is operating, etc.) from the examinee's terminal 60 and generates screens (cheating check screen and confirmation screen) to be provided to the exam supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80. The server 10 also uses AI to monitor the video of the examinee and confirms (checks) whether the examinee is engaging in any behavior suspected of cheating (predetermined behavior). Behavior suspected of cheating includes the examinee's gaze continuously looking up for a certain period of time or performing suspicious operations on the test screen.

[0015] FIG. 3(a) shows an example of the hardware configuration of the server 10. As shown in FIG. 3(a), the server 10 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 90, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 92, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 94, a storage (HDD (Hard Disk Drive), SSD (Solid State Drive)) 96, a network interface 97, and a portable storage medium drive 99. These components of the server 10 are connected to a bus 98. In the server 10, the CPU 90 executes a program (including a test monitoring support program) stored in the ROM 92 or the storage 96, or a program read by the portable storage medium drive 99 from the portable storage medium 91, thereby realizing the functions of the components shown in FIG. 5. The functions of the components in FIG. 5 may be realized by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array). Details of the components in FIG. 5 will be described later.

[0016] (Overview of examinee terminal 60) Returning to FIG. 1, examinee terminal 60 is a terminal that can be used by an examinee, such as a PC (Personal Computer), a tablet terminal, or a smartphone. The examinee uses examinee terminal 60 to access server 10, answer exam questions on the exam screen provided by server 10, and transmit the answers to server 10. While the exam is being conducted, examinee terminal 60 captures video of the examinee's face and its surroundings and transmits the video to server 10. Examinee terminal 60 also transmits video of the screen (exam screen) that the examinee is operating to server 10.

[0017] Fig. 3(b) shows an example of the hardware configuration of the examinee terminal 60. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the examinee terminal 60 includes a CPU 190, a ROM 192, a RAM 194, a storage 196, a network interface 197, a display unit 193, an input unit 195, a camera 189, and a portable storage medium drive 199. These components of the server 10 are connected to a bus 198. The display unit 193 is a liquid crystal display or an organic EL display, and the input unit 195 includes a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, and the like. The camera 189 is provided near the display unit 193 and is capable of capturing an image of the examinee's face and the vicinity thereof.

[0018] (Overview of the exam supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80) The test supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80 are terminals such as PCs that can be used by the test supervisor or security agent. FIG. 4 shows an example of the hardware configuration of the test supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80. As shown in FIG. 4, the test supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80 are equipped with a CPU 290, a ROM 292, a RAM 294, a storage 296, a network interface 297, a display unit 293, an input unit 295, and a portable storage medium drive 299. The components of the test supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80 are connected to a bus 298. In the test supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80, the CPU 290 executes a program stored in the ROM 292 or the storage 296, or a program read by the portable storage medium drive 299 from the portable storage medium 291, thereby realizing the functions of the components shown in FIG. 5.

[0019] Next, the functions of the server 10, the exam supervisor terminal 70, and the agent terminal 80 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0020] (About Server 10 functions) As shown in FIG. 5, the server 10 has a test execution section 12, an image acquisition section 14, a screen generation section 16 as a display processing section, a fraud detection section 18, a table update section 20, and an allocation section 21 as an extraction section.

[0021] The test implementation unit 12 communicates with the examinee terminal 60 and executes the processes required to execute the test. For example, when an examinee logs in to the server 10 using the examinee terminal 60, the test implementation unit 12 makes the examinee a subject of management in the examinee information table 22. In addition, the test implementation unit 12 provides a test screen to the examinee terminal 60, and when it receives the examinee's answer results from the examinee terminal 60, it compares the answer results with the correct answers and performs grading. In addition, when the service agent determines that the examinee has committed fraud, the test implementation unit 12 executes processes such as notifying the examinee of the determination result and canceling the examinee's test.

[0022] The video acquisition unit 14 acquires video relating to the examinee sent from the examinee terminal 60 (video of the examinee's face and video of the screen being operated by the examinee) and stores the video in the video DB 24. The video acquisition unit 14 also transmits the acquired video to the screen generation unit 16. The video DB 24 is a database that stores video relating to the examinees, and each video is stored in association with the examinee's information (examination number, etc.).

[0023] The screen generating unit 16 uses the video acquired by the video acquiring unit 14 to generate a screen to be provided to the exam supervisor terminal 70 (a cheating check screen shown in FIG. 9 etc.) and a screen to be provided to the agent terminal 80 (a confirmation screen shown in FIG. 12). At this time, the screen generating unit 16 generates each screen based on the video of the examinee acquired from the video acquiring unit 14, information stored in various tables, video stored in the video DB 24, etc. The screen generating unit 16 also provides the generated screen to the exam supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80. The specific processing of the screen generating unit 16 will be described later.

[0024] The fraud detection unit 18 uses AI to monitor videos of examinees stored in the video DB 24, identifies examinees who have engaged in behavior suspected of fraud and the type of behavior, and stores the identified behavior in the fraud detection table 28. The fraud detection unit 18 refers to the fraud table 26 when storing information in the fraud detection table 28. The fraud detection unit 18 also updates the examinee information table 22 based on the information stored in the fraud detection table 28.

[0025] When the table update section 20 receives operation information from the exam supervisor terminal 70 and the agent terminal 80, it updates the examinee information table 22, the fraud detection table 28, the allocation table 30 and the experience table 34 based on the received operation information.

[0026] When a test supervisor issues a request to a security agent to monitor an examinee, the allocation unit 21 extracts a security agent to assign the examinee to and notifies the screen generation unit 16. When extracting a security agent to assign an examinee to, the allocation unit 21 refers to the examinee information table 22, the allocation table 30, the skill table 32, and the experience table 34.

[0027] Here, each table included in the server 10 will be explained.

[0028] (Exam taker information table 22) FIG. 6 shows an example of examinee information table 22 for Room 1. Note that the examinee information table 22 in FIG. 6 is generated for each room. However, this is not limited to the above, and the information of all examinees may be stored in the examinee information table 22. When the information of all examinees is stored, the examinee information table 22 may store room information in association with each examinee. Note that which room each examinee is assigned to may be determined in advance before the start of the exam, or examinees may be assigned to each room in the order of login.

[0029] As shown in FIG. 6, examinee information table 22 has the following fields: "examinee number," "name," "finish flag (finish)," "fraud detection flag (FD)," "suspected fraud flag (doubt)," "monitoring request type," "waiting flag," and "illegal act confirmation flag (illegal_act)."

[0030] The "Exam number" and "Name" columns store the exam number assigned to the examinee and the examinee's name. The "Finish flag (finish)" column stores "0" if the examinee is taking the exam, and "1" if the examinee has finished the exam. The "Fraud detection flag (FD)" column stores "1" if the fraud detection unit 18 detects behavior suspected of fraud from video footage of the examinee, and stores "0" if no fraud is detected.

[0031] The "Suspected cheating flag (doubt)" column stores "1" if the exam proctor judges that there is a high possibility that cheating is occurring (if a monitoring request has been issued to a security agent), and stores "0" otherwise. The "Monitoring request type" column stores the type of monitoring request selected by the exam proctor when issuing the monitoring request. The "Waiting flag" column stores "1" if the exam proctor has issued a monitoring request but has not been assigned to a security agent (if in waiting state), and stores "0" otherwise. The "Confirmed illegality flag (illegal_act)" column stores "1" if the security agent has finally judged that cheating is occurring, and stores "0" otherwise.

[0032] (Fraud Table 26) FIG. 7(a) shows an example of the fraud table 26. As shown in FIG. 7(a), the fraud table 26 has the items of "fraud code", "fraud target", "fraud type", and "fraud level". The "fraud code" field stores identification information for each type of behavior suspected to be fraudulent. The "fraud target" field stores a judgment target (such as gaze, person, electronic device, screen, etc.) for judging whether a suspicious behavior has been performed. The "fraud type" field stores information on the case in which the judgment target corresponds to a suspicious behavior. For example, a suspicious behavior of the fraud code "0001-001" is when the gaze continues to face upward (or downward) for a certain period of time. The "fraud level" field stores a score determined for each type of behavior suspected to be fraudulent. In this embodiment, the higher the value of the "fraud level", the more serious the fraud.

[0033] (Fraud Detection Table 28) FIG. 7(b) shows an example of the fraud detection table 28. Note that the fraud detection table 28 in FIG. 7(b) is generated for each room. However, this is not limited to this, and the fraud detection table 28 may store information on examinees in all rooms. The fraud detection table 28 stores information on suspected fraudulent behavior detected by the fraud detection unit 18. As shown in FIG. 7(b), the fraud detection table 28 has the following fields: "Fraud detection No.", "Examination number", "Fraud detection start time", and "Fraud code".

[0034] The "Fraud Detection No." column stores a serial number assigned in the order in which suspected fraudulent behavior is detected. The "Examination Number" column stores the examination number of the examinee who committed the suspected fraudulent behavior. The "Fraud Detection Start Time" column stores information about the time when the suspected fraudulent behavior was committed. The "Fraud Code" column stores identification information indicating the type of suspected fraudulent behavior.

[0035] (Allocation Table 30) Fig. 8(a) shows an example of the allocation table 30. The allocation table 30 stores information on whether or not an examinee is assigned to each security agent, and information on which examinee is assigned to which security agent. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 8(a), the allocation table 30 has the following items: "agent number," "name," "examinee in charge," and "monitoring status."

[0036] The "Agent Number" column stores the identification information of the security agent. The "Name" column stores the name of each security agent. The "Assigned Candidate" column stores the test number of the test taker currently assigned to each security agent. The "Monitoring Status" column stores "1" if a test taker is currently assigned, and "0" if no test taker is assigned.

[0037] (Skill Table 32) Fig. 8(b) shows an example of the skill table 32. The skill table 32 stores information about what type of fraud each security agent is good at monitoring. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 8(b), the skill table 32 has an "agent number" field and fields indicating the types of fraud, such as "PC screen fraud," "camera screen fraud," and "exam question fraud."

[0038] The "agent number" field stores the identification information of the security agent. The "PC screen fraud" field stores "1" if each security agent is good at monitoring fraud on the PC screen (fraud on the operation screen), and stores "0" otherwise. The "camera screen fraud" field stores "1" if each security agent is good at monitoring fraud on the camera screen, and stores "0" otherwise. The "exam question fraud" field stores "1" if each security agent is good at monitoring fraud specific to exam questions, and stores "0" otherwise. Note that the skill table 32 in FIG. 8(b) stores information on whether or not the security agent is good at monitoring three types of fraud (PC screen fraud, camera screen fraud, exam question fraud), but is not limited to this. For example, information on whether or not the security agent is good at monitoring four or more types or two or less types of fraud may be stored. The skill table 32 is a table that is created in advance based on the results of a questionnaire given to each security agent, etc.

[0039] (Experience Table 34) Fig. 8(c) shows an example of the experience table 34. The experience table 34 stores information on what type of cheating each security agent has monitored and how many times in the past, and information on how many times cheating has been monitored in the currently ongoing exam (how many examinees have been assigned). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 8(c), the experience table 34 has items such as "agent number", "PC screen cheating", "camera screen cheating", and "exam question cheating" indicating the type of cheating, and "current exam monitoring count".

[0040] The "Agent Number" column stores identification information assigned to security agents. The "PC Screen Tampering," "Camera Screen Tampering," and "Exam Question Tampering" columns store values ​​indicating the number of times each security agent has monitored each type of tampering in the past. The "Current Exam Monitoring Count" column stores a value indicating the number of times they have monitored tampering in the currently ongoing exam. The "Current Exam Monitoring Count" value is reset to "0" each time a new exam starts.

[0041] (Functions of the test supervisor terminal 70) Returning to FIG. 5, the test supervisor terminal 70 includes a screen update unit 72, an input reception unit 74, and a notification unit 76.

[0042] The screen update unit 72 displays the cheating check screen transmitted from the screen generation unit 16 on the display unit 293. The cheating check screen is as shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Fig. 9, the cheating check screen is provided with a first display area A1 that displays individual screens of all examinees in the room, and a second display area A2 that is used to examine the examinees' actions in detail.

[0043] The individual screens in the first display area A1 in FIG. 9 are arranged in order of examinee number, with the examinee number increasing in the order of top left → top center → top right → bottom left → bottom center → bottom right. In addition, in the first display area A1, if the fraud detection unit 18 of the server 10 detects an examinee who has engaged in behavior suspected of fraud, the individual screen of that examinee is displayed in a different manner (for example, a thick frame) from the others. Each examinee's individual screen is provided with an image P1 of the examinee's face and its vicinity, an image P2 of the screen the examinee is operating, a "fraud check" button, and a "monitoring request" button. The images P1 and P2 are real-time images. In addition, the individual screen displays the examinee's examinee number, name, and level of fraud. In the example of FIG. 9, nothing is displayed in the second display area A2.

[0044] Fig. 10 is a diagram showing a screen that is displayed when the exam proctor presses the "cheating check" button on the individual screen of "Kobayashi Tetsuro" in the first display area A1 on the screen of Fig. 9. When the "cheating check" button is pressed, the screen update unit 72 notifies the screen generation unit 16 of that fact. The screen generation unit 16 then obtains necessary data from the cheating detection table 28 and the video DB 24, updates the second display area A2, and transmits it to the screen update unit 72. Note that the second display area A2 displays video of "Kobayashi Tetsuro" engaging in suspicious cheating behavior in the past, as well as information about the suspicious cheating behavior.

[0045] The input receiving unit 74 acquires information (operation information) input by the exam supervisor via the input unit 295 on the fraud check screen as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, and transmits it to the screen updating unit 72 and the notification unit .

[0046] Here, when the proctor judges that an examinee is cheating, he / she presses the "Monitoring request" button on the examinee's individual screen to have the service agent check the examinee. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing a state in which the proctor presses the "Monitoring request" button on the examinee's individual screen "Kobayashi Tetsuro" and the monitoring request screen PU pops up. In addition to the examinee's examination number and name, the monitoring request screen in FIG. 11 has buttons for "No monitoring content specialization", "PC screen cheating specialization", "Camera screen cheating specialization", and "Exam question cheating specialization". The proctor presses one of the buttons based on the behavior of the examinee "Kobayashi Tetsuro". For example, if the proctor judges that the examinee has cheated on the PC screen (operation screen), he / she presses the "PC screen cheating specialization" button. Also, if the proctor finds that cheating has been done on the camera screen, he / she presses the "Camera screen cheating specialization" button. Also, if the proctor judges that the examinee has cheated specifically for exam questions, he / she presses the "Exam question cheating specialization" button. On the other hand, if the proctor determines that the examinee has engaged in a type of cheating other than the three types mentioned above, or if he or she is unable to determine what type of cheating it was, he or she presses the "No specialization of monitoring content" button. In other words, by pressing the button, the proctor specifies (inputs) the type of behavior suspected to be cheating by the examinee.

[0047] When the test supervisor presses the ``Monitoring Request'' button on the individual screen of any of the examinees, or presses any button on the monitoring request screen PU, the notification unit 76 sends information about the monitoring request for that examinee to the table update unit 20 of the server 10.

[0048] (Agent terminal 80) 5, the agent terminal 80 has a screen update section 84, an input reception section 86, and a processing section 88. The screen update section 84 receives the confirmation screen (see FIG. 12) generated by the screen generation section 16, and displays it on the display section 293 of the agent terminal 80.

[0049] The confirmation screen in Fig. 12 is provided with an individual screen display area A11 and a cheating check area A12. The individual screen of the examinee who pressed the "monitoring request" button on the exam supervisor terminal 70 is displayed in the individual screen display area A11. The individual screen in Fig. 12 is provided with an image P1 of the examinee's face and its surroundings, an image P2 of the screen being operated by the examinee, an "cheating" button, and an "no cheating" button. Furthermore, the cheating check area A12 on the confirmation screen in Fig. 12 displays images of when "Kobayashi Tetsuro" engaged in behavior suspected of cheating in the past, and information about the behavior suspected of cheating.

[0050] The input receiving unit 86 acquires information (operation information) about the button pressed by the security agent on the confirmation screen, and transmits it to the screen updating unit 84 and the processing unit 88 .

[0051] When the processing unit 88 receives information from the input receiving unit 86 that the "Fraud has occurred" button has been pressed, it transmits that information to the table updating unit 20 of the server 10. At this time, the table updating unit 20 updates the examinee information table 22 (fraud confirmed flag (illegal_act)) based on the information received from the processing unit 88. In addition, when the processing unit 88 receives information from the input receiving unit 86 that the "No fraud" button has been pressed, it transmits that information to the table updating unit 20 of the server 10. Based on the information received from the processing unit 88, the table updating unit 20 deletes the record of the examinee from the fraud detection table 28 and updates the examinee information table 22 (fraud detection flag (FD), suspected fraud flag (doubt)).

[0052] (About processing) Next, the processing of each device will be described in detail with reference to a flowchart.

[0053] (Server 10 processing (part 1)) The process (part 1) of the server 10 will be described in detail below with reference to the flowchart in FIG. 13. The process in FIG. 13 is assumed to start when at least one examinee has logged in and the test start time has arrived. At the stage when the process in FIG. 13 starts, the "finish flag (finish)" in the examinee information table 22 (FIG. 6) is set to "0" for an examinee who has logged in, and "1" for an examinee who has not logged in. All other fields are initialized to "0" or "-". At the stage when the process in FIG. 13 starts, the fraud detection table 28 (FIG. 7(b)) is initialized (all data erased). Furthermore, at the stage when the process in FIG. 13 starts, the examinee in charge column in the assignment table 30 is set to "-", the monitoring status column is set to "0", and the current test monitoring count column in the experience table 34 is set to "0".

[0054] When the process of FIG. 13 is started, first, in step S10, the fraud detection unit 18 starts a fraud detection process (monitoring process) using AI.

[0055] Next, in step S11, the screen generation unit 16 generates a cheating check screen (FIG. 9) and transmits it to the exam supervisor terminal 70. As a result, the cheating check screen (FIG. 9) for the room in which each exam supervisor is in charge is displayed on the display unit 293 of the exam supervisor terminal 70.

[0056] Next, in step S12, the test execution unit 12 judges whether or not there has been entry or exit (login / logout). If the judgment in step S12 is positive, the process proceeds to step S14.

[0057] When the process proceeds to step S14, the test implementation unit 12 changes the finish flag (finish) in the examinee information table 22. For example, if an examinee whose finish flag (finish) was "1" logs in, the test implementation unit 12 changes the finish flag (finish) to "0." Also, if an examinee whose finish flag (finish) was "0" logs out, the test implementation unit 12 changes the finish flag (finish) to "1." Also, in step S14, the screen generation unit 16 updates the cheating check screen. Specifically, the screen generation unit 16 displays individual screens of examinees whose finish flag (finish) is "0" in the order of their examination numbers in the first display area A1 of the cheating check screen. After step S14, the process proceeds to step S16. Note that if the determination in step S12 is negative, the process proceeds to step S16 without passing through step S14.

[0058] When the process proceeds to step S16, the test implementation unit 12 refers to the examinee information table 22 and determines whether or not all the end flags are "1" or the test has ended. If the determination in step S16 is positive, the entire process in Fig. 13 ends. On the other hand, if the determination in step S16 is negative, the process proceeds to step S18.

[0059] In step S18, the fraud detection unit 18 judges whether or not fraud has been detected. If the judgment in step S18 is negative, the process returns to step S12.

[0060] On the other hand, if the determination in step S18 is positive, the process proceeds to step S20, where the fraud detection section 18 sets the fraud detection flag (FD) of the examinee detected to be engaged in fraud to "1" in the examinee information table 22.

[0061] Next, in step S22, the fraud detection unit 18 determines the type of fraud and updates the fraud detection table 28 and the examinee information table 22 by referring to the fraud table 26. For example, if the examinee "HONDA Satoru" performs an action that is suspected to be fraud using the fraud code "0001-001", the data shown in the first line from the top of Fig. 7(b) is stored in the fraud detection table 28. Also, in the examinee information table 22, the fraud detection flag (FD) is changed from "0" to "1" as shown in Fig. 6.

[0062] Next, in step S24, the screen generating unit 16 updates the cheating check screen based on the examinee information table 22. That is, on the cheating check screen of Fig. 9, the screen generating unit 16 displays the individual screens of examinees who have engaged in behavior suspected of cheating in a different format (for example, with a thick frame) from the individual screens of examinees who have not engaged in such behavior. Thereafter, the process returns to step S12, and the processing and judgments of steps S12 to S24 are repeated, and when the judgment of step S16 is positive, all the processing of Fig. 13 ends.

[0063] (Server 10 processing (part 2)) Next, the process (part 2) of the server 10 will be described in detail with reference to the flowchart of Fig. 14. Note that the process of Fig. 14 is executed simultaneously in parallel with the process of Fig. 13.

[0064] When the process of FIG. 14 is started, first, in step S50, the screen generating unit 16 judges whether or not it has received information from the screen updating unit 72 of the test supervisor terminal 70 that the "cheat fraud" button has been pressed. If the judgment in step S50 is negative, the process proceeds to step S54. In step S54, the table updating unit 20 judges whether or not it has received information from the notification unit 76 of the test supervisor terminal 70 that the "monitoring request" button has been pressed and a button has been pressed on the monitoring request screen PU (FIG. 11). If the judgment in step S54 is negative, the process returns to step S50. Thereafter, steps S50 and S54 are repeatedly executed until the judgment in either step S50 or S54 is positive.

[0065] If the result of repeatedly executing steps S50 and S54 is that the determination in step S50 is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S52. When the process proceeds to step S52, the screen generator 16 updates the second display area A2 of the cheating check screen. For example, when the "cheat cheat" button on the individual screen of the examinee "Tetsuro Kobayashi" is pressed on the cheating check screen of FIG. 9, the screen generator 16 extracts the record of the examinee number "Cbt0004" of "Tetsuro Kobayashi" from the cheating detection table 28 of FIG. 7(b). Then, the screen generator 16 acquires an image corresponding to the "cheat cheating start time" of the extracted record from the image DB 24 (for example, an image of a predetermined time before and after the cheating detection start time). Furthermore, the screen generator 16 generates a screen that displays the acquired image, the cheating detection start time, and information that can be identified from the cheating code, and updates the second display area A2 using the generated screen. As a result, the cheating check screen is updated as shown in FIG. 10.

[0066] The proctor can check what actions the examinee has taken in the past by referring to the cheating check screen (second display area A2) in Fig. 10. If the proctor determines as a result of this check that cheating is highly likely and would like a security agent to make a final decision on whether or not cheating has occurred, he or she presses the "Monitoring Request" button on the individual screen in the first display area A1.

[0067] On the other hand, if the result of repeatedly executing steps S50 and S54 in FIG. 14 is that the judgment in step S54 is positive (the "monitoring request" button is pressed and a button is pressed on the monitoring request screen PU), the process proceeds to step S56. When proceeding to step S56, the table updating unit 20 changes the suspected cheating flag (doubt) in the examinee information table 22 from "0" to "1." The table updating unit 20 also stores the content of the button pressed on the monitoring request screen PU in the monitoring request type column of the examinee information table 22.

[0068] Thereafter, the above-mentioned processing is repeatedly executed, and when the processing in FIG. 13 ends, the processing in FIG. 14 also ends.

[0069] (Server 10 processing (part 3)) Next, the process (part 3) of the server 10 will be described in detail with reference to the flowchart of Fig. 15. Note that the process of Fig. 15 is executed simultaneously in parallel with the processes of Figs. 13 and 14.

[0070] When the process of Fig. 15 is started, first, in step S60, the allocation unit 21 refers to the examinee information table 22 and determines whether or not there is an examinee whose suspected cheating flag (doubt) has become 1. If the determination in this step S60 is negative, the process proceeds to step S62, where the allocation unit 21 refers to the examinee information table 22 and determines whether or not there is an examinee whose waiting flag is 1. If the determination in this step S62 is negative, the process returns to step S60. Thereafter, steps S60 and S62 are repeatedly executed until the determination in either step S60 or S62 is positive.

[0071] If the determination in step S60 is positive (i.e., the processing in step S56 in FIG. 14 is performed) as a result of repeatedly executing steps S60 and S62, the process proceeds to step S64. In step S64, the allocation unit 21 refers to the examinee information table 22 and determines whether the "monitoring request type" of the examinee whose suspected cheating flag (doubt) has become 1 is "no specialized monitoring content." If the determination in step S64 is positive, the process proceeds to step S66.

[0072] In step S66, the allocation unit 21 refers to the allocation table 30 to determine whether or not there is a security agent whose monitoring status is "0" (i.e., who is not monitoring any examinees). If the determination in step S66 is negative (if there is no security agent to which an examinee can be assigned), the process proceeds to step S68, where the allocation unit 21 sets the waiting flag in the examinee information table 22 to "1". Then, the process returns to step S60.

[0073] On the other hand, if the determination in step S66 is positive, the subroutine of allocation process (1) in step S70 is executed.

[0074] In step S70, processing is performed according to the flowchart in Fig. 16. When the processing in Fig. 16 is started, first, in step S80, the allocation unit 21 refers to the experience table 34 and extracts the security agent with the least number of current test monitoring counts from among the security agents whose monitoring status in the allocation table 30 is "0". If there are multiple security agents with the least number of current test monitoring counts, the security agent with the smallest agent number (the one located at the top of the allocation table) is extracted. If there are multiple security agents with the least number of current test monitoring counts, one of them may be extracted at random.

[0075] Next, in step S82, the allocation unit 21 sets the monitoring status of the extracted security agent in the allocation table 30 to "1."

[0076] Next, in step S84, screen generator 16 generates a confirmation screen for the security agent extracted by allocation unit 21, and transmits the generated confirmation screen (FIG. 12) to agent terminal 80 used by that security agent. When the processing in FIG. 16 ends as described above, the process returns to step S60 in FIG. 15.

[0077] On the other hand, if the determination in step S64 in FIG. 15 is negative, that is, if the monitoring request type is other than "no specialization of monitoring contents", the process proceeds to step S72.

[0078] Proceeding to step S72, the allocation unit 21 judges whether or not there is a security agent that can handle the monitoring request type and has a monitoring status of 0. Specifically, the allocation unit 21 judges whether or not there is a security agent in which "1" is stored in the column for that monitoring request type in the skill table 32 and whose monitoring status in the allocation table 30 is "0". If the judgment in step S72 is negative (if there is no security agent to which to assign the examinee), the allocation unit 21 proceeds to step S68 and sets the waiting flag in the examinee information table 22 to "1". Then, the process returns to step S60.

[0079] On the other hand, if the determination in step S72 is positive, a subroutine of allocation process (2) in step S74 is executed.

[0080] In step S74, processing is performed according to the flowchart in Fig. 17. Specifically, when the processing in Fig. 17 is started, first, in step S90, the allocation unit 21 extracts a security agent who is capable of handling the monitoring request type and has a monitoring status of 0, and has the most experience with the monitoring request type. Specifically, the allocation unit 21 identifies security agents in which "1" is stored in the column for the monitoring request type in the skill table 32 and whose monitoring status in the allocation table 30 is 0. Then, from among the identified security agents, the security agent who has the most experience with the monitoring request type in the experience table 34 (has the most experience). Note that, if there are multiple security agents with the most experience, the security agent with the smallest agent number is extracted. Note that, if there are multiple security agents with the most experience, one of them may be randomly extracted.

[0081] Next, in step S92, the allocation unit 21 sets the monitoring status of the extracted security agent in the allocation table 30 to "1."

[0082] Next, in step S94, screen generator 16 generates a confirmation screen for the security agent extracted by allocation unit 21, and transmits the generated confirmation screen (FIG. 12) to agent terminal 80 used by that security agent. When the process in FIG. 17 ends as described above, the process returns to step S60 in FIG. 15.

[0083] Returning to step S60, steps S60 and S62 are executed repeatedly, and if the determination in step S62 is positive (if there is an examinee whose waiting flag is 1), the process proceeds to step S64. When the process proceeds to step S64, the processes from step S64 onwards are executed as described above, and the process of assigning examinees whose waiting flag is 1 to security agents is executed.

[0084] Thereafter, the above-mentioned processing is repeatedly executed, and when the processing in FIG. 13 ends, the processing in FIG. 15 also ends.

[0085] (Server 10 processing (part 4)) Next, the process (part 4) of the server 10 will be described in detail with reference to the flowchart of Fig. 18. Note that the process of Fig. 18 is executed simultaneously in parallel with the processes of Figs. 13, 14, and 15.

[0086] 18 is started, first, in step S100, the table updating unit 20 judges whether or not it has received information from the processing unit 88 of the agent terminal 80 that the "fraud has occurred" button has been pressed. If the judgment in this step S100 is negative, the process proceeds to step S104, where the table updating unit 20 judges whether or not it has received information from the processing unit 88 of the agent terminal 80 that the "no fraud" button has been pressed. If the judgment in this step S104 is negative, the process returns to step S100. Thereafter, steps S100 and S104 are repeatedly executed until the judgment in step S100 or S104 is positive.

[0087] If the determination in step S100 is affirmative (the "cheating" button is pressed on the confirmation screen) as a result of repeatedly executing steps S100 and S104, the process proceeds to step S102. If the security agent confirms the display of the individual screen in the confirmation screen and the cheating check area A12 and finally determines that the examinee has cheated, the security agent presses the "cheating" button on the examinee's individual screen. When the process proceeds to step S102, the table update unit 20 changes the cheating confirmation flag (illegal_act) in the examinee information table 22 from "0" to "1". Furthermore, the test implementation unit 12 notifies examinees whose cheating confirmation flag (illegal_act) in the examinee information table 22 is "1" that cheating has occurred, or performs a predetermined process such as canceling the test for that examinee. Then the process proceeds to step S108.

[0088] On the other hand, if the result of repeatedly executing steps S100 and S104 in FIG. 18 is that the determination in step S104 is positive (the "No Cheating" button is pressed on the confirmation screen), the process proceeds to step S106. If the security agent checks the display of the individual screens in the confirmation screen and the cheating check area A12 and ultimately determines that the examinee has not committed any cheating, the security agent presses the "No Cheating" button on the examinee's individual screen. When the process proceeds to step S106, the table update unit 20 deletes the information (record) of the corresponding examinee in the cheating detection table 28. The table update unit 20 also resets (sets to "0" or "-") the cheating detection flag (FD), suspected cheating flag (doubt), and monitoring request type in the examinee information table 22. After that, the process proceeds to step S108.

[0089] When the process proceeds to step S108, the table update section 20 deletes the examinee in charge from the allocation table 30, sets the monitoring status to 0, and updates the experience table 34. For example, if the security agent has checked for PC screen fraud, the value in the "PC screen fraud" column in the experience table 34 is incremented by 1, and the value in the "current test monitoring count" column is also incremented by 1. Also, for example, if the security agent has checked for "no specialized monitoring content" fraud, only the value in the "current test monitoring count" column in the experience table 34 is incremented by 1.

[0090] Thereafter, the above-mentioned processing is repeatedly executed, and when the processing in FIG. 13 ends, the processing in FIG. 18 also ends.

[0091] In this embodiment, the allocation table 30, the skill table 32, and the experience table 34 are included to realize the function of a storage unit.

[0092] As described above in detail, according to this embodiment, when it is detected from the video of an examinee that the examinee has engaged in a behavior suspected of being fraudulent (when the "Request confirmation" button is pressed on the fraud check screen), the table update unit 20 acquires information indicating the type of behavior (information on the button pressed on the confirmation request screen) (FIG. 14: S56). Furthermore, the allocation unit 21 refers to the skill table 32 that stores information on the types of fraud in association with each security agent, and extracts a security agent associated with the type of fraud corresponding to the acquired type of behavior. Then, the screen generation unit 16 displays the video of the examinee who engaged in the behavior suspected of being fraudulent on a confirmation screen that can be viewed by the security agent extracted by the allocation unit 21. This makes it possible to have a security agent suitable for checking examinees who have engaged in behavior suspected of being fraudulent check the video of the examinee. In this way, the load on each security agent can be reduced and monitoring accuracy can be improved.

[0093] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the allocation unit 21 extracts, from among security agents who can check the actions performed by the examinee, a person who satisfies a predetermined condition (for example, the condition that the person is not currently checking other examinees and has the most experience), which makes it possible to have the most appropriate security agent check the examinee.

[0094] In this embodiment, the allocation unit 21 extracts the security agent who has monitored the current exam the least number of times as the security agent who checks for cheating by examinees with "no specialized monitoring content." This allows the checking work to be allocated evenly to each security agent, thereby preventing uneven load distribution.

[0095] In the above embodiment, the case where the security agent stops the test of the examinee when it determines that cheating has occurred once has been described, but this is not limited to this. For example, when the security agent determines that cheating has occurred once, it may warn the examinee, but continue the test and monitoring, and when cheating is determined to have occurred a second time, it may stop the test of the examinee and end monitoring.

[0096] In the above embodiment, the case where the server 10 notifies the examinee terminal 60 to stop if the security agent determines that fraud has occurred has been described, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, if chat or telephone conversation is possible between the agent terminal 80 and the examinee terminal 60, the security agent may communicate a warning or a notice of stop to the examinee via chat or telephone conversation.

[0097] In the above embodiment, for example, when the fraud detection unit 18 detects an examinee who has engaged in a behavior suspected of fraud, the allocation unit 21 may allocate the examinee to an appropriate exam supervisor based on the type of behavior. In this case, a table for storing information on the exam supervisors (tables similar to the allocation table 30, skill table 32, and experience table 34) may be prepared, and the allocation unit 21 may execute the same process as in FIG.

[0098] The above processing functions can be realized by a computer. In that case, a program is provided that describes the processing contents of the functions that the processing device should have. The above processing functions are realized on the computer by executing the program on the computer. The program that describes the processing contents can be recorded on a computer-readable storage medium (excluding carrier waves).

[0099] When a program is distributed, it is sold in the form of a portable storage medium on which the program is recorded, such as a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc), a CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read Only Memory), etc. The program can also be stored in a storage device of a server computer and transferred from the server computer to other computers via a network.

[0100] A computer that executes a program stores, for example, a program recorded on a portable storage medium or a program transferred from a server computer in its own storage device. The computer then reads the program from its own storage device and executes processing in accordance with the program. The computer can also read the program directly from a portable storage medium and execute processing in accordance with that program. The computer can also execute processing in accordance with the received program each time a program is transferred from the server computer.

[0101] The above-described embodiment is a preferred example of the present invention, but the present invention is not limited to this embodiment and can be modified in various ways without departing from the scope of the present invention.

[0102] In addition, the following supplementary notes are disclosed in relation to the above-described embodiment. (Supplementary Note 1) A method for supporting monitoring of cheating in an online exam, comprising: when acquiring information indicating a type of behavior suspected of being cheating by an examinee, referring to a storage unit in which information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors who monitor for cheating is stored in association with each of the monitors, and extracting monitors who satisfy a predetermined condition from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating corresponding to the acquired type of behavior; displaying the extracted video of the examinee who engaged in the suspected fraudulent behavior on a display unit viewable by the monitor; A test monitoring support method, characterized in that the processing is executed by a computer. (Note 2) The storage unit stores information on types of fraud monitored by each of the multiple monitors who monitor the fraud, and information on the number of times each monitor has monitored each type of fraud, The monitor who satisfies the predetermined condition is the monitor who has the most experience of monitoring the same type of misconduct as the suspected misconduct committed by the examinee among the monitors associated with the type of misconduct corresponding to the acquired type of behavior. 2. A test monitoring support method according to claim 1, (Appendix 3) The storage unit stores a number of times that the cheating has been monitored in the online test in association with each of a plurality of monitors who monitor the cheating, The test monitoring support method described in Appendix 1, characterized in that if the type of behavior suspected of being fraudulent committed by the test-taker is other than the types stored in the storage unit, or if the type is not specified, the extraction process extracts one of all monitors who has the fewest monitoring counts stored in the storage unit. (Appendix 4) A test monitoring support method described in any of Appendices 1 to 3, characterized in that a monitor who satisfies the specified condition is a monitor who is not monitoring for fraud at the time the extraction process is executed. (Appendix 5) A test monitoring support program for supporting monitoring of cheating in an online test, comprising: when acquiring information indicating a type of behavior suspected of being cheating by an examinee, referring to a storage unit in which information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors who monitor for cheating is stored in association with each of the monitors, and extracting monitors who satisfy a predetermined condition from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating corresponding to the acquired type of behavior; displaying the extracted video of the examinee who engaged in the suspected fraudulent behavior on a display unit viewable by the monitor; A test monitoring support program that causes a computer to execute a process. (Appendix 6) A test monitoring support device that supports monitoring of cheating in an online test, comprising: an extraction unit which, when acquiring information indicating a type of behavior suspected of being cheating by an examinee, refers to a storage unit which stores information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors who monitor for cheating, in association with each of the monitors, and extracts monitors who satisfy a predetermined condition from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating corresponding to the acquired type of behavior; a display processing unit that displays the extracted video of the examinee who engaged in the suspected fraudulent behavior on a display unit viewable by the monitor; A test monitoring support device comprising: (Note 7) The storage unit stores information on types of fraud monitored by each of the multiple monitors who monitor the fraud, and information on the number of times each monitor has monitored each type of fraud, The monitor who satisfies the predetermined condition is the monitor who has the most experience of monitoring the same type of misconduct as the suspected misconduct committed by the examinee among the monitors associated with the type of misconduct corresponding to the acquired type of behavior. 7. A test monitoring support device according to claim 6, (Appendix 8) The storage unit stores the number of times that the cheating has been monitored in the online test in association with each of the multiple monitors who monitor the cheating, The test monitoring support device described in Appendix 6 is characterized in that, if the type of behavior suspected of being fraudulent by the test-taker is other than the types stored in the storage unit, or if the type is not specified, the extraction unit extracts one of all monitors who has the fewest monitoring counts stored in the storage unit. (Supplementary Note 9) The test monitoring support device according to any one of Supplementary Notes 6 to 8, characterized in that a monitor who satisfies the specified condition is a monitor who is not monitoring for fraud at the processing timing of the extraction unit. [Explanation of symbols]

[0103] 10 Server (Test monitoring support device) 12 Testing Department 14 Video acquisition section 16 Screen generation unit (display processing unit) 18 Fraud Detection Unit 21 Allocation section (extraction section) 22 Exam taker information table 30 Allocation table (storage section) 32 Skill Table (Storage) 34 Experience Table (Storage) 60 Exam-taker terminals

Claims

1. 1. A method for supporting monitoring of cheating in an online exam, comprising: when acquiring information indicating a type of behavior suspected of being cheating by an examinee, referring to a storage unit in which information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors who monitor for cheating is stored in association with each of the monitors, and extracting monitors who satisfy a predetermined condition from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating corresponding to the acquired type of behavior; displaying the extracted video of the examinee who engaged in the suspected fraudulent behavior on a display unit viewable by the monitor; A test monitoring support method, characterized in that the processing is executed by a computer.

2. the storage unit stores information on types of fraud monitored by each of the multiple monitors monitoring the fraud, and information on the number of times each monitor has monitored each type of fraud; The monitor who satisfies the predetermined condition is the monitor who has the most experience of monitoring the same type of misconduct as the suspected misconduct committed by the examinee among the monitors associated with the type of misconduct corresponding to the acquired type of behavior.

2. The test monitoring support method according to claim 1.

3. the storage unit stores a number of times that the cheating has been monitored in the online test in association with each of a plurality of monitors who monitor the cheating, The test monitoring support method described in claim 1, characterized in that if the type of behavior suspected of being fraudulent committed by the test-taker is other than the types stored in the storage unit, or if the type is not specified, the extraction process extracts one of all monitors who has the fewest monitoring counts stored in the storage unit.

4. A test monitoring support method described in any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that a monitor who satisfies the specified conditions is a monitor who is not monitoring for fraud at the time when the identified process is executed.

5. An exam monitoring support program for supporting monitoring of cheating in an online exam, comprising: when acquiring information indicating a type of behavior suspected of being cheating by an examinee, referring to a storage unit in which information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors who monitor for cheating is stored in association with each of the monitors, and extracting monitors who satisfy a predetermined condition from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating corresponding to the acquired type of behavior; displaying the extracted video of the examinee who engaged in the suspected fraudulent behavior on a display unit viewable by the monitor; A test monitoring support program that causes a computer to execute a process.

6. 1. A test monitoring support device that supports monitoring of cheating in an online test, comprising: an extraction unit which, when acquiring information indicating a type of behavior suspected of being cheating by an examinee, refers to a storage unit which stores information on the type of cheating monitored by each of a plurality of monitors who monitor for cheating, in association with each of the monitors, and extracts monitors who satisfy a predetermined condition from among the monitors associated with the type of cheating corresponding to the acquired type of behavior; a display processing unit that displays the extracted video of the examinee who engaged in the suspected fraudulent behavior on a display unit viewable by the monitor; A test monitoring support device comprising:

Images