November 11, 2008
Is That Online Student Who He Says He Is?
To comply with the newly reauthorized Higher Education Act, colleges have to verify the identity of each of their online students. Several tools can help them do that, including the Securexam Remote Proctor, which scans fingerprints and captures a 360-degree view around students, and Kryterion’s Webassessor, which lets human proctors watch students on Web cameras and listen to their keystrokes.
Now colleges have a new option to show the government that they’ll catch cheating in distance education. Acxiom Corporation and Moodlerooms announced this month that they have integrated the former’s identity-verification system, called FactCheck-X, into the latter’s free, open-source course-management system, known as Moodle.
“The need to know that the student taking a test online is in fact the actual one enrolled in the class continues to be a concern for all distance-education programs,” Martin Knott, chief executive of Moodlerooms, said in a written statement.
FactCheck-X, which authenticates many online-banking transactions, requires test takers to answer detailed, personal “challenge” questions. The information comes from a variety of databases, and the company uses it to ask for old addresses, for example, or previous employers.
The new tool requires no hardware and operates within the Moodle environment. Colleges themselves control how frequently students are asked to verify their identities, Acxiom says, and because institutions don’t have to release information about students, the system fully complies with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. —Sara Lipka
Posted on Tuesday November 11, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: U. of Texas Kicks Football Player Off Team for Anti-Obama Comment on Facebook
Next: New Google Services Could Burden Networks, Benefit Scholars
Where’s the concern about whether that student in the large course on campus is who he says he is? How many schools really card students before exams are given in those courses?
— Steve Foerster Nov 11, 04:52 PM #
My sentiments exactly, Steve! I am surprised at the shift in thinking that somehow online students are more likely to cheat than those who appear for exams onsite!
— Born to teach Nov 11, 05:03 PM #
I’ve been teaching online for five years, and I have found cheating to be much more prevalent in the online environment. Most institutions use proctors for high stakes testing, and student identification is presented. For purely online initiatives, however, it simply doesn’t make sense to ask these students to come to campus for assessments. No LMS currently addresses this legislation to my knowledge, so it is interesting to consider the options for compliance.
— C. Wyatt Nov 11, 05:15 PM #
In October, WCET hosted a symposium on this topic, archived here:
https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/jwsdetect/playback.jnlp?psid=2008-10-01.1008.M.31ED1FF6F672C98DC29674A39C3EDB.vcr
— Jay C. Nov 11, 05:34 PM #
C. Wyatt: More prevalent in online courses? What’s your measure? How many students? Did you catch people? What happened? How long did you teach f2f classes? Are these undergraduate courses? Highly competitive? Using just traditional tests? Using only objective tests?
I’m just surprised because the discipline and self-efficacy required, at least in online grad courses, often discourages students who are looking for an easy out.
— Sam Nov 11, 05:46 PM #
Also check out pupilcity.com’s new service called ProctorU. Started at Andrew Jackson University, this proctoring service uses acxiom, webcams, and screen watching software to proctor students from anywhere.
If anyone would like to contact me about this alternative, contact me: jmorgan@pupilcity.com
— Jarrod Morgan Nov 11, 05:46 PM #
Online only seems more prevalent because its so easy to catch cheating online. But contrast it very hard to catch cheating in traditional class rooms. Online you know if they copied something using programs like turn-in-it and digital copies make it easy to check every paper even before you grade it. Term papers that are pruchase shine out like a flashing light online. By contrast it is much more difficult to check physical papers and few do unless that suspect something.
Really suspect fewer students cheat online, its just that a much higher percentage is likely to get caught at versus in a regular classroom environment.
— tom Nov 11, 07:43 PM #
Many online instructors will point to the use of timed tests, randomization of questions, synchronistic chat, and software to identify plagiarized work as ways to ensure the academic integrity of a class. These measures do not address the fundamental problem of determining that the person performing the task, indeed, is the student who is registered for the course. I think it would be very difficult to find a proxy who is willing to sit in a classroom for 45 credit hours and pretend to be the person registered for the class. Cheating in an online class presents no real problem to the student who is inclined to do so except, perhaps, to find someone to complete the required assignments. Without proctored assessments with firm identification, anyone may sit in front of the computer and do the work for the class. Quite obviously a friend, friends, parent, husband, wife, significant other or even someone paid by the student may be performing the task.
— Eugene Thompke Nov 11, 10:45 PM #
I agree we need to do a better job in monitoring work online. Some of my colleagues were surprised when I insisted that students in my online class this past summer take their exams in a proctored environment. They did not believe that students would do such a thing.
My response is that, even if they wouldn’t, how can we prove to any accrediting organization that they didn’t cheat? When grades are awarded, there needs to be some system to assure the veracity of the system.
— Steve Silver Nov 12, 07:43 AM #
Bush signed this crap into law as usual added to the $700 billion bail out. Obviousluy no one in higher education used anything remotely scientific to determine if this was really necessary or fair to online schools that are under attack from traditional schools because they have the ability to enroll their former geographic potential students. Another stupid law put there by those who can afford lobbyists. What a shame.
— Richard Nov 12, 08:00 AM #
Establishing the identity of the person doing the assignments and taking the tests is a problem. I did away with test cheating by eliminating ‘tests’. Students must write answers to short questions each week (or two). The questions are drawn from lectures (or online lesson materials) and the textbooks, and collaboration is encouraged.
The Identity thing however, is a bugaboo no matter where we go, and no knee-jerk legislation is going to make my life any easier. I feel that we should take steps to address identity verification, but more because it is the ‘right’ thing to do as opposed to the ‘legal requirement’.
The problem with laws such as this is that someone somewhere invariably demands immediate compliance. These things take time, and money. Expenditures need to be budgeted, and by the time the budget is approved, the technology has changed, and so have the costs.
— Frank Page Nov 12, 08:17 AM #
I agree with 11. If you think that students are cheating in your online class- then redefine your assessments. Students have to learn to collaborate these days to be successful in the workplace. This applies to face-to-face classes as well. I have a number of collaborative assessments in my f2f classes. I watch to see who does the work and who does not. Typically, we will do problems in the group and then I pick the person who puts the problem on the board and explains it to the class. I will help them, but they have learned that I am not kidding when I say everyone has to participate.
— me Nov 12, 08:26 AM #
I also agree with Frank (#11). Testing has always been the easy way to cheat. A good instructor will use more robust evaluation methods. Any F2F instructor who thinks online students cheat more often, has a room full of students who are pulling the wool over his/her eyes. No study has ever found that online students cheat more often than F2F students. As far as authentication, I have classrooms full of students that I assume are who they say they are. That means no authentication for F2F students. This piece of legislation was pushed by college instructors who are fearful of change and companies who are selling “solutions” to the “problem”.
— Mark Nov 12, 09:10 AM #
[quote #8] Cheating in an online class presents no real problem to the student who is inclined to do so except, perhaps, to find someone to complete the required assignments. [endquote]
Duh. I’d say that’s a pretty real problem. Seriously, how many people are going to hire someone else to go to school for them? My guess would be the same for online as in-classroom students: Approximately zero.
To the extent this problem exists at all, it must be enabled by courses that were not designed or were poorly designed for online education.
— BertW Nov 12, 09:21 AM #
Any system will help if it takes away the sense of getting something for nothing. Some forms of testing (e.g., bullet tests) are easy to cheat on; others, considerably less so. Whatever system is used, there will always be the prospect of there being a “hired gun” doing the heavy lifting whether by cell-phone, internet connection, or other means. It isn’t a question of which mode of delivery makes cheating easier. Since cheaters have always been and always will be with us, reasonable steps that seek to ensure the integrity of evaluations are simply something that must be taken, whether the environment is on-line or f2f.
— CW Nov 12, 09:30 AM #
It amazes me that college educators will use the excuse that there is cheating going on in f2f classes that is not caught and, since no effort is made to check the ID of students in large lecture classes, that somehow justifies doing nothing to insure the academic integrity of web courses. Instructors should take whatever measures they feel are necessary to insure the academic integrity of BOTH types of courses. As a faculty member who has taught both f2f and web courses, I find cheating more common and easier to do in the web courses. Of course, I teach in a community college where classes never exceed 40 students and thus, we can easily recognize a student in a f2f class who doesn’t belong there.
— Brian Nov 12, 10:19 AM #
Brian(#16) has a point. In a large lecture class, it’s easy to just never show up for class, and hire a ringer for the exams. Even when large service courses are broken into small sections, exams are ofen administered as common exams, with multiple rooms of 400+ students. Not so hard to hire someone to take your exams in this situation. I’ve had grad students decide to randomly check ID’s and uncover rinigers in this situation.
— Sue Nov 12, 10:45 AM #
The vast majority of people who enroll in online courses do so to accommodate their schedule – it does not mean they are any less serious a student or any less honest than the onsite student. Following that logic, we could say that people who drive pick up trucks are speeders, while those who drive cars are not. People enroll in schools to learn, and unless the school is a known diploma mill, one cannot assume DE students are absent the same proclivity for learning as f2f students. That said, online instructors should be sure online interaction is so intricate, intense, personal, and voluminous, that the only way someone could have been cheating would have been for the cheater to “stand-in” for a person the entire semester. Online instructors may have to refresh their way of thinking about how learning takes place. Beyond that, we have to believe that the faceless persons interacting with us on the other side of the computer screen are who they say they are – just as onsite instructors have to believe those sitting in desks answer “present” to their real names when called. I think we should have a little more belief in, and much less cynicism about, our students.
— Born to teach Nov 12, 11:48 AM #
The reference in #8 to friends and family members helping a student with course work is an age-old problem that begins in kindergarten. Almost every grade school teacher has grappled with the problem of projects completed only partly by the student and mostly by overly enthusiastic parents. Nothing about these new security systems will prevent a student from submitting online a paper or project completed by someone else.
Furthermore, the history of technology suggests that every time a new policing technology is put into use, a criminal element will seek out ways to bypass that technology. We would do better to spend limited resources on developing course assessments that engage students in a way that minimizes the need to cheat.
— Anne Hird Nov 12, 12:22 PM #
I teach a large class (over 1,000 students each term). We give 4 major exams each semester, assign students to exam rooms by their designated group, which are then proctored by TA’s and PhD students. We do check picture ID’s when students come in (to verify that they have one before the exam starts), then verify their picture ID against the person handing in the exam and the name on their scantron and the information they have filled in on the front page of their exam, which we then also collect to verify exam codes, etc.
— T Nov 12, 12:53 PM #
I challenge you to look at the transcripts of hundreds of students as I do every month. It becomes quite obvious that something is going on with online classes in many cases. Students with solid C-D grades will suddenly have all A’s in everything online. Back in f2f classes, back to C-D grades. The onus is on DE supporters to verify that cheating is no more prevalent than it is in f2f, given greater ease of cheating. That it’s POSSIBLE to cheat in f2f does not address the issue. Look online—there will be entire cadre of “DE class takers” available for hire, if not now, soon. We are all too willing to look the other way and rationalize because DE can fill our coffers.
— Advisor Nov 12, 01:38 PM #
I pity those who cheat while in school, any school. In the end, their fake degrees will be useless in finding and keeping a rewarding real job.
— Jack Mac Nov 12, 02:17 PM #
I think it is just an interpretation that on-line studens must be verified. Many might not agree with the interpretation and certainly it is not done in the classroom.
— T Adams Nov 12, 03:09 PM #
Our transcripts do not distinquish between classroom and on-line classes. Some schools use a different course number?
— T Adams Nov 12, 03:11 PM #
Regarding Advisor’s (#21) assertion that “students with solid C-D grades suddenly have all A’s in everything online”, how sure are we it is the student and not the instructor responsible for this change in fortune? Would not a student who feels a need to cheat find a way – whether f2f or online?
I agree with Anne Hird (#19): “We would do better to spend limited resources on developing course assessments that engage students in a way that minimizes the need to cheat.”
— Born to teach Nov 12, 05:41 PM #
T Adams (#24),
Many schools assign a specific section number or extension to online courses. For example, my institution assigns “080x” to online sections of courses.
— L. Richardson Nov 12, 06:03 PM #
In the Outcomes-based South African Higher Education context, support and mentorship from parents and peers are encouraged from as early as the early childhood years.
It would then not be fair for us to expect students to ignore the wealth of mentorship and support available to them at higher education level as they would have built up considerable networks and learning styles for themselves over the years.
And… there will always be the dishonest cheaters who exploit and manipulate situations to their own advantage. Let’s not make it easy for them.
Lets focus our energies on designing assessments which has no focus on dishonesty. Lets find out what inspires and motivates our students to give of their best, then focus our energies only on providing an environment which stimulates that.— Coleen Jaftha Nov 13, 04:09 AM #
I’m a college professor. I have found that cheating is rampant rather on-line or in class. Professors can try to cut out some of it, but it is very difficult and time consuming. Also colleges do not adequately punish students that cheat, so it continues. I do arrange for all of my exams, online or inclass, to be proctoroed.
— Marie Smith Nov 13, 12:03 PM #
There are many ways to explain the difference in grades for the same student between online and f2f courses, and cheating is only one of them. Online courses tend to be more writing intensive than traditional courses and the material is presented differently. The mode of class participation is also different. Some students may be more encouraged to participate in online discussions than in f2f classroom discussions. Perhaps the learning styles for some students make them more successful online than in a traditional classroom. No doubt there are students who get similar grades both online and in class, and those who get worse grades online than in class, too. Give us all the data.
Nevertheless, cheating is a serious problem in academia, and I am in favor of any and all reasonable efforts to limit and detect cheating in all learning environments. Big brother watching the computer may be reasonable for online students. What about big brother in the dorm room, to discover that Johnnie’s roommate wrote his term paper for him?
— Tracy Gies Nov 14, 10:45 AM #