next »

[shamu]

IMHO, on-line delivery of material and teaching is neither worse nor better than other ways. Tests can be done in ways to minimize cheating (e.g., make material course-specific, change materials from semester to semester, time tests, do not allow backtracking, force completion, etc.). I have done traditional and on-line testing with the same results, so there is not necessarily more cheating on-line, unless the instructor allows there to be. I do questions at random from a very large pool that I change frequently so that no 2 students can take the same test, and yes, they can use the book, but you can ask questions in ways that require thinking and application. Be creative with the questions; don't just pick a question straight out of the book.

That said, I can think of a number of underlying reasons why on-line instruction makes some people uncomfortable:
1. Administration sees on-line courses as potential for cost-cutting rather than a place to invest as a new medium, which leads to
2. More work on a more limited budget. In many cases, preparing a great on-line course or activity can be a lot more time-consuming than traditional ones. To relate to Acrimone's point, a good on-line test takes a lot more planning and forethought. You can't watch who is taking the test, what they are doing, and so on. You CAN make the test very course-specific, time it, not allow backtracking, build a pool of 500 questions from which the program chooses rather than have 20 questions, and take other measures. It can be done, but to do it right takes a lot of work.
3. The instructors' lack of flexibility. Many on-line assignments require a different approach than traditional classrooms. I've seen too many instructors who teach the same course they've been teaching traditionally, ignoring the fact that some things need to be modified to accommodate electronic delivery.
4. Weak on-line programs. This has been discussed a great deal on these boards. Ironically, on-line instruction is not inherently inferior to other ways, but on average, on-line programs are not as good as traditional ones, which is then (wrongfully) blamed on the method of delivery. Before I get flamed, please note that I am referring to averages. New programs are also less established than their traditional counterparts.

I really like an eclectic approach to teaching. Whatever the best method is the one that should be used. Traditional, active learning, on-line are buzz-words. They are all legitimate ways to teach, as long as they are the best suited for the goal at hand.

[menotti]

Open invitation to anyone reading this:  I'll pass your online course for you for $1000 as long as the subject isn't Biology, Sociology, or Education.  10% discount for a Composition course, any Philosophy course, any Poli-Sci course, or any course involving legal matters.  I will take all tests, write all papers, and essentially do everything that doesn't require my sitting in front of a screen during a lecture tapping the keyboard every five minutes to verify your presence.

Now, I wouldn't actually do this because it's unethical, but the fact that I could do it is why people are sometimes wary of online courses.  It's not the instructors that are subject to skepticism, but the academic integrity of the courses themselves.

You could pay someone to take your face-to-face courses as well. 

[shamu]

Open invitation to anyone reading this:  I'll pass your online course for you for $1000 as long as the subject isn't Biology, Sociology, or Education.  10% discount for a Composition course, any Philosophy course, any Poli-Sci course, or any course involving legal matters.  I will take all tests, write all papers, and essentially do everything that doesn't require my sitting in front of a screen during a lecture tapping the keyboard every five minutes to verify your presence.

Now, I wouldn't actually do this because it's unethical, but the fact that I could do it is why people are sometimes wary of online courses.  It's not the instructors that are subject to skepticism, but the academic integrity of the courses themselves.

You could pay someone to take your face-to-face courses as well. 

Yeah, but IDs are checked at the door. I guess one could concieve of having a corrupt guard hired. Hmmm ... then what;)

[larryc]

You could not hire anyone to pass my class for $1000. There is a ton of reading, which changes each semester. Tons of requirements for writing and hard tests with very specific questions over the readings.

[dark_globe]

You could not hire anyone to pass my class for $1000. There is a ton of reading, which changes each semester. Tons of requirements for writing and hard tests with very specific questions over the readings.

Yes, based on your response to my earlier question about testing it would seem that "cheating" in your online class would be extraordinarily difficult.

It also seems that it requires a good deal of effort on your part that would not be required in a face to face class to ensure that this is the case. You go to that effort; do all the online instructors do the same?

[larryc]

Do all classroom instructors do the same? Let's not hold actual online courses against idealized classroom ones.

[dark_globe]

Do all classroom instructors do the same? Let's not hold actual online courses against idealized classroom ones.

Even an incompetent, lazy instructor can confirm that his students are not cheating in an in-class exam. That takes no effort.

[larryc]

Dark_Globe, it might be that I know of a campus where there are whole departments that encourage cheating--or at least do nothing to discourage it--to boost enrollment.  I might even know a guy who was told this outright by a faculty member in such a department, who also added that his majors "weren't smart enough" to get through college any other way.

I fear there are plenty of incompetent, lazy professors who allow all kinds of cheating, on tests but especially on written assignments. Some teach online, others don't.

[dark_globe]

Dark_Globe, it might be that I know of a campus where there are whole departments that encourage cheating--or at least do nothing to discourage it--to boost enrollment.  I might even know a guy who was told this outright by a faculty member in such a department, who also added that his majors "weren't smart enough" to get through college any other way.

I fear there are plenty of incompetent, lazy professors who allow all kinds of cheating, on tests but especially on written assignments. Some teach online, others don't.

Sad, but probably true. OK, you win.

[j_source]

Open invitation to anyone reading this:  I'll pass your online course for you for $1000 as long as the subject isn't Biology, Sociology, or Education.  10% discount for a Composition course, any Philosophy course, any Poli-Sci course, or any course involving legal matters.  I will take all tests, write all papers, and essentially do everything that doesn't require my sitting in front of a screen during a lecture tapping the keyboard every five minutes to verify your presence.

Now, I wouldn't actually do this because it's unethical, but the fact that I could do it is why people are sometimes wary of online courses.  It's not the instructors that are subject to skepticism, but the academic integrity of the courses themselves.

I know of a case where a student did exactly this, only it was a f2f class at a huge university.  Student A paid Student B $1500 to go to class, do all the homework, write the papers, take the tests, and pass with at least a B.  With 40,000 students on a campus there's no way  the instructor or most of the other students would know what was happening or even suspect anything was amiss.  True story. 

[j_source]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason.

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

This is what we do.  Every student has a picture ID.  When a proctored exam is required we choose, and pay, the proctor - usually the testing center at a local cc or high school or the librarian at the local public library.  We send the exam with all the test-taking requirements and a copy of the picture ID to the proctor.  The proctor verifies the identity of the test-taker and sets hu up in an area where hu can be monitored during the exam.  The proctor makes sure all the testing requirements are followed.  The proctor collects the exam and sends it back to us with a signed statement affirming the integrity of the testing procedure.

So Dark Gobe, when in classes of 400 do you check picture  ID before handing on an exam?

[twofish]

It also seems that it requires a good deal of effort on your part that would not be required in a face to face class to ensure that this is the case. You go to that effort; do all the online instructors do the same?

At the University of Phoenix, you pretty much have to since that is part of the pedagogical model.  One other factor that kills cheating is peer pressure.  Basically, the students are divided into cohorts which go through the same classes together, making it very, very difficult for someone to pay someone else to just take one class without being detected.

Also if the students in the learning group get the sense that one student is taking unfair advantage of them, they will probably complain.  Part of the classroom management involved dealing with these sorts of disputes which involved perceived laziness rather than cheating.  I'd imagine that the knives would really come out if the students believed that one among them was cheating.

Finally with a small class, you really start to know each students strengths and weaknesses, so I'm pretty sure that if someone paid someone else to take one test or do one homework, that would become pretty obvious, from the pattern of mistakes that a student makes.

[acrimone]

You could not hire anyone to pass my class for $1000. There is a ton of reading, which changes each semester. Tons of requirements for writing and hard tests with very specific questions over the readings.

True, you couldn't hire just anyone.... but I bet I could pull it off.

[dark_globe]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason.

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

This is what we do.  Every student has a picture ID.  When a proctored exam is required we choose, and pay, the proctor - usually the testing center at a local cc or high school or the librarian at the local public library.  We send the exam with all the test-taking requirements and a copy of the picture ID to the proctor.  The proctor verifies the identity of the test-taker and sets hu up in an area where hu can be monitored during the exam.  The proctor makes sure all the testing requirements are followed.  The proctor collects the exam and sends it back to us with a signed statement affirming the integrity of the testing procedure.

So Dark Gobe, when in classes of 400 do you check picture  ID before handing on an exam?

I already conceded to Larry.

[shamu]

At the University of Phoenix, you pretty much have to since that is part of the pedagogical model.  One other factor that kills cheating is peer pressure.  Basically, the students are divided into cohorts which go through the same classes together, making it very, very difficult for someone to pay someone else to just take one class without being detected.

Also if the students in the learning group get the sense that one student is taking unfair advantage of them, they will probably complain.  Part of the classroom management involved dealing with these sorts of disputes which involved perceived laziness rather than cheating.  I'd imagine that the knives would really come out if the students believed that one among them was cheating.

Finally with a small class, you really start to know each students strengths and weaknesses, so I'm pretty sure that if someone paid someone else to take one test or do one homework, that would become pretty obvious, from the pattern of mistakes that a student makes.

I'm a big fan of the honor system when it works, but the kind of intrusive, mind-everyone-but-your-own-business snitch system you describe is despicable. There are better ways to control cheating. Having students spy and snitch on the other is pretty low. Are there snitch bonuses? "Teacher, teacher, Johnny pulled out a piece of paper from his cap." What's this world coming to?