July 21, 2008
Keeping an Eye on Online Students
Technology vendors are eager to sell college officials hardware and software designed to verify the identify of online students—and thereby prevent cheating. A free article in The Chronicle describes some of the technologies that colleges are trying out to make certain that the person taking an online exam is, in fact, the student enrolled in the course. The technologies include Web cameras that watch students taking tests and scanners that capture students’ fingerprints.
A provision in a bill reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is fueling much of the interest in this issue. A paper released in February by the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications says the provision—while not onerous to most distance-learning providers—could “drive up the cost of these important education programs.”
And some online institutions fear that the provision would require them to have their students travel to distant locations to take proctored exams on paper. The result? Some states would conclude that the institutions have a “physical presence” in their states, and would subject the institutions to “a whole new set of state regulations,” says John F. Ebersole, president of Excelsior College. —Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Monday July 21, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Dutch Court Allows Researchers Who Cracked Chip to Publish Their Results
Next: Researchers Develop Free Tool to Track Stolen Laptops
I would certainly hope that folks in the DE business understand by this day and age that such technology is no more necessary than a screen-door on a submarine.
— JKW Jul 21, 04:30 PM #
It continuously amazes me – how far we are from having, across the board, truly adequate and respectable online education. I know that colleges and universities want to milk the students for the “experience,” but the reality is that there is still a largely untapped market of adult students who want to complete online degrees without nonsense.
— HCAJR Jul 21, 04:55 PM #
In my experience, which isn’t necessarily a complete one, most online courses fall somewhere between “college lite” and complete sham. I’m for anything that advances any aspect of online education. If it’s here to stay, we may as well make it a meaningful venture rather than a hollow cash cow for colleges and universities.
— DLS Jul 21, 04:56 PM #
As long as we are really in the certification business (and I have no problem with that) we owe it to our students and faculty colleagues to take reasonable precautions against cheating. No online exam can be given with confidence that cheating has not occurred unless it is given in a proctored environment such as a classroom or testing center.
That leaves few alternatives. One is to structure the assessment system so that it need not rely on traditional proctoring. This is expensive, but something many of us do all of the time when we assign written work for credit, and attempt to include class participation in grades.
I have created and taught online classes and without exception require proctored exams, even for distance students. This is not as difficult as it may seem. Public libraries are our best source of proctoring, and they usually do it for free for members. Disney and the U.S. military provide free, proctored testing for their employees and interns. The human resource divisions of many companies will also provide this service for their employees. This only scratches the surface of the options available. Most proctors are willing to receive copies of exams by e-mail and send back the results by fax.
What really irritates me is the lack of seriousness with which many of my colleagues take the problem of cheating on online exams. If we are going to be in the assessment business we have a solemn obligation to keep the testing system credible and honest. Just because some colleagues can’t find “evidence” of cheating on their online exams is weak evidence that it didn’t occur.
— bwb Jul 21, 05:58 PM #
I agree with bwb. Online institutions that envision their students having to travel to “distant” locations to find a proctor probably haven’t put much thought into their “vision.” Proctored exams are a very viable solution to the problem. Why shy away from them? Another way to go for some is to stay away from “exams” altogether. Find different ways to check attainment of the objectives.
I feel the need to add one more comment: If you’re not checking traditional students’ I.D.s on the first day of class, than you can’t really say that you know the person who’s getting the grade is the one who’s taking the class either.
Oh, you’re sure they are? Well, okay, then. That ought to be enough proof for everyone.
— Tracy G. Jul 21, 06:18 PM #
This convinces me that my no-exam policy is sound. Every class, no exceptions, has a tough question of the day, for which the total points account for 50 percent of the grade (the rest is two term papers, due well before the end of the term, on a staggered basis). No student has that many people willing to “be there” so often to accumulate the points. My final exam is a make-up worth 2% to cover absences.
— Doug Jul 21, 10:29 PM #
The “physical presence” concern raised by one reader — for a proctored final exam and thereby possibly giving some individual State the legal basis for regulation — might also be the basis for imposition of State taxes on that school.
It works the other way round, too: my employing school’s physical presence in their own home State is the basis for me (the DE faculty member) getting taxed by that State, even though my presence in that State is always “virtual”, never real.
The taxes are real enough. I don’t have to worry about verifying the identity of the colecting State…
— Larry Gillis Jul 22, 06:23 AM #
If I’m real lucky, maybe the State in which my final exams are proctored can also impose taxes on me, too. I could wind up getting taxed by all 48 States, even though I’ve never been in most of them. Why don’t my students cut out the middleman and just mail the money directly to the State capitol?
Why don’t I go back to being a ditch digger, so there’d be no doubt about my physical presence for tax purposes?
— Larry Gillis Jul 22, 06:29 AM #
What ever happened to the Sharon Bender case at Capella University where she was accused of plagiarizing a student’s work? Online instructors and schools need to be held accountable for their actions.
— Frank Jul 22, 06:54 AM #
Online classes are a very viable way of educating. I have taught online classes for 6 years, and constantly strive to make them a better and more useful learning experience. Anyone who says these classes are “college lite” or a “sham” is beyond ignorant and way behind the times. If you don’t understand how something works, take a minute to learn about it instead of dismissing it out of hand. Aren’t we educators?
— kd Jul 22, 08:41 AM #
I remember taking the final exam for macro-economics at a large university—well before the term online even existed. Looking around the smallish auditorium I picked out 5 people that I knew were ringers and several other possibles. Whoever paid these people to take the final for them got the same 3 hours credit for the class I did, and probably got a better grade. This is not a new problem.
Exam-based online education seems like a a bit of a dodge to me. Surely quality online education is all about reading, analysing and writing, not test-taking.
— BertW Jul 22, 09:34 AM #
On-line education done right does not depend upon an exam. It depends upon many repeated interactions with students, instructors and the material. As another poster pointed out, in that scenario nobody is willing to sit in for someone else.
Additionally, when the program has a heavy written component it is easier for instructors to spot plagiarism becasue the stolen material stands out as being better writing in most cases. I have taught in an on-line program for five years and we have caught cheaters. In any educational environment – on line or not – there will be some who try to take the shortcuts. I teach both on line and in the classroom and I find it easier to spot cheating on line.
Finally, on the “college lite” comment… Our program (graduate school) requires a 1,000 word essay every week, participation in two discussion questions per week, two essay exams per seminar (a seminar is 11 weeks and there are six in the program) and a 5,000 to 10,000 word term paper at the end of each seminar. Anyone who thinks that is “college lite” might want to try staying on that program for 18 months.
Just for fun I decided to take one of our other Master’s programs as a student. I found it harder and more challenging than my PhD.
On-line done right is no more than a different delivery method for university education. The content of the course is either good or bad depending upon factors that have nothing to do with the delivery method – you can have some pretty lousy courses in a physical classroom as well and physical classes have their share of cheaters. Cheating is a problem in education – not just on-line education.
— Peter Jul 22, 09:45 AM #
The online class I tech has a proctored final – on campus for those close enough and elsewhere with an approved proctor for the rest. Photo government ID’s are checked. Yes that also can be manipulated by the student. I also check the “properties” section of any paper ANY of my students write. It tells me either who was logged in to the campus system while writing the paper or whose copy of the paper the MS word is. While students use bootleg MS word, on this campus the can get a copy for free and it is less likely to be illegal, I have nabbed a few papers not written by the student that way and so far all of them have cracked and admitted it under pressure. The creation date is useful for papers the student claimed they turned in on time but I “lost”. Most don’t think to copy and past their paper into an older document. Cheating, in all its forms, evolves as technology changes. I can only hope to keep up and catch enough of them that my students reign it in a bit.,
— anon Jul 22, 09:51 AM #
My fraternity at UGA had a pretty good “scholarship” file with past exams and syllabi from old classes.
Online, or on campus-if there is a way to not be caught, it will be done.
— Good ol' Bubba Jul 22, 09:57 AM #
We have instructors that use the online version to teach their on-campus classes. Why not monitor the instructor as well. Are they really in the class or did they write on the board, ‘go to this website’, and vanish.
They say it is a tool for teaching. I say it is a tool for NOT teaching..or grading.
If it is an online course, use it online. If it is not, teach without it.
Monitor students online and off. Monitor the instructors as well.
— DB Jul 22, 10:25 AM #
When faculty members ask me how they can deliver lectures and secure multiple choice tests online, I typically reply that the question shouldn’t be “how can I do this?” as much as it should be “should I do this?”
Student-centered models of learning and assessment can greatly reduce concerns over secure online testing. Online discussions, group projects, problem-based learning, and other active learning approaches both engage students more effectively and assess their knowledge and skills more fully (and securely!) than the lecture-and-test approach.
— Greg Jul 22, 10:32 AM #
It’s amusing to note that test security for online courses is such a concern when test security for campus classes stinks. Online courses are often being held to a much higher standard than campus classes – and it’s time campus classes were asked the same questions and held to similar standards. It’s not that hard to design online courses and tests so that oportunities for cheating are minimal, and testing usually can be designed so that it’s not a big issue. (How about open-book, open-note tests that are time limited?) If you genuinely need a proctor, why not keep the test online, use a password and send the password to the proctor? Then the student can take the test at any online location in the world. We’ve been doing this for years.
— Al Jul 22, 10:36 AM #
I’ve taken a number of online courses and unfortunately I must agree with DLS – their quality was a joke. Of course I wouldn’t extrapolate that ALL online courses are a shame, or that all traditional courses are better than their online counterparts. Nevertheless, instead of trying to prevent students from cheating (which we all know only hurts themselves), institutions must work to prevent instructors from posting their PowerPoint and checking out.
Example: I am taking an online, four-week intensive course right now and 25% through the course the instructor has made one – ONE! – seven word comment!
— bg Jul 22, 11:04 AM #
Real world facts: (i) using a ringer who attends all sessions is WELL WITHIN the budget of students chasing elite degrees. (ii) high writing/interaction component is therefore not at all a guarantee of identity. (iii) proctoring is often NOT feasible, partly because of time differences, sometimes cost. (iv) consider using video (Skype is free), with whiteboard, and check handwriting sample as well as faces against photos, at random test times. (v) any written work, online or onsite, should be liable to an oral cross-examination of ID-checked author, at random times (within long at-home scheduled hours). (vi) at least require attendance at campus for a final exam (full day) before any DEGREE is awarded, with questions on every course taken, and double check on ID then; the prospect of this is best deterrent for use of ringers. (vii) preannounced use of random checking of IDs at onsite exams is long overdue. (As are a few other things such as required justification by instructor of costly texts, especially if written by them!) Security is an absolute requirement of validity and justice (of your grades and degrees), which are part of the alleged values of higher education; yes, there’s a time cost, but no-one said security was free.
Scriven
— scriven Jul 22, 01:19 PM #
Scriven: You’re absolutely right about everything you said.
— losborne613 Jul 22, 02:10 PM #
I think there is an interesting parallel to this issue and discussion and another recent thread regarding student athletes. Those working in the trenches in higher ed like to tout that the school’s “mission” is simply higher education, when in fact many if not most of our students have another mission in mind, whether it is job training, pursuit of athletics, getting out of the house, or whatever.
Colleges thrive because our “customers” have been convinced that what we offer is necessary for their success, and we seem to have no problem taking their (or the taxpayers’) money, even when our students’ goals greatly differ from ours.
So if we’re going to conspire in the deal, then it seems we’re left with no choice but the following:
1. Direct our teaching efforts not toward the students we wish we could have, but instead the students we do have, whether they are athletes, career-chasers, adults tuning in online, or whoever. It doesn’t mean we should not expect them to learn the material. But we may have to accept the fact that they will not necessarily “get it” as easily as we’d like them to.
2. With that in mind, we need to recognize, (as others here have pointed out), that there are different (better?) methods of teaching AND assessing students than lectures and tests, and adjust our game plans to suit the educational environment, whatever it might be.
— JS Jul 22, 02:52 PM #
Query: Does anyone know of a good study that attempts to estimate the extent of cheating that currently occurs among students in on-line courses? Ideally, the study would also compare cheating in on-line courses to estimates for traditional classroom settings.
— DJ Jul 22, 05:16 PM #
I teach on-line courses (along with traditional ones.) Our community college does not even require a final exam in a proctored testing location (although I do), something that I think should be required to catch those who have been cheating on the on-line exams during the semester. It’s simply up to each instructor’s discretion and some simply don’t want the extra “hassle.” One iinstructor responded “It’s not my problem if they cheat—it will catch up to them sooner or later.” True, but what about the academic integrity of his course and of the institution? Where is that instructor’s professional self-respect?
— Brian Jul 23, 10:58 AM #
Colleges have long required distance learning students to undergo “proctored” exams: usually at a local library or under the eye of a corporate HR officer who can verify identity and proctor the exam simultaneously.
This idea is not new and was widely used in distance learning in the 1970s: the Univeresity Without Walls Era.
A moore compelling question for discussion: many distance learning programs purposefully encourage a different type of learning, and therefore a different type of assessment than the old multiple choice, fact based, memory drill method that goes with this type of face proctoring.
The better distance learning programs use “authentic assessment” assignments. These assignments require distance students to partipate in analytically advanced exercises, such as writing papers or creating journals that assess howthey see theoretical ideas being employed in their everyday environments.
Authentic assessment encourages higher level learning and constantly measures the same.
A one-shot test of factual information measures very little — aside from memory.
This type of assessment is often a poor choice if your goal is to teach and measure analytical skill and advanced thinking abilities.
Proctored exams?
Nothing new; and usually not the best choice for distance learning; though they are cheap and easy to administer. These qualities make them idea for cost-cutting for-profits.
Vicky Phillips
GetEducated.com
— Vicky Phillips Jul 28, 11:58 AM #
Great discussion, above. Nobody has said much about consequences… consequences of getting caught cheating, face-to-face or online. Most schools have policies that spell out the consequences. Where there are no consequences, or where the consequences are perceived as Too Much Trouble (however defined) to warrant catching cheaters, cheaters will not be detected.
Fran Fuller, UNC Pembroke
— Fran Fuller Jul 30, 12:46 PM #