Slashdot Mirror
Should Online Courses Film Students Taking Tests? (mypalmbeachpost.com)
Recently the Palm Beach Post noted that 20% of the academic credit awarded at Florida Atlantic University is for online courses. So how can they stop cheaters?
Where once it was enough for a professor to roam the aisles of a classroom, checking for cheat sheets and keeping an eye out for students signaling one another, proctoring today's tests often requires web cams and biometric IDs. A field of more than a dozen test-proctoring services has emerged in the past decade. Typically, the company gets some sort of visual on the test taker via a web cam and then asks the student to show the camera his or her ID. Other security layers can include software that recognizes faces or even keystroking patterns.
The next step is to monitor the student during the test. In the online proctoring world, that is done in one of three ways:
* A remote but live proctor who watches in real time.
* A record-and-review method in which a proctor watches the testing session, but not in real time.
* An automated system, in which the software is programmed to spot abnormalities and flag them.
Honorlock -- one of the record-and-review outfits -- expected to proctor roughly 100,000 tests in the 2017-2018 school year, and promises schools that their solution also searches the web for copies of the test and automatically files takedown notices for any leaked copies, according to a link shared by Slashdot reader Presto Vivace. Besides filming students during tests, it also includes patented technology that "detects and prevents searching for test answers online from any secondary device." And it even verifies the identity of test takers using "any government issued" i.d. (like a driver's license or passport) or student ID which includes a photo.
One student complained on Reddit that "This seems crazy invasive and should probably be illegal," adding "is there anything passive aggressive you want me to say into the mic?" But what do Slashdot readers think? Should professors be remotely detecting searches on handheld devices, using photo IDs to verify identities -- and filming students taking tests?
* A remote but live proctor who watches in real time.
* A record-and-review method in which a proctor watches the testing session, but not in real time.
* An automated system, in which the software is programmed to spot abnormalities and flag them.
Honorlock -- one of the record-and-review outfits -- expected to proctor roughly 100,000 tests in the 2017-2018 school year, and promises schools that their solution also searches the web for copies of the test and automatically files takedown notices for any leaked copies, according to a link shared by Slashdot reader Presto Vivace. Besides filming students during tests, it also includes patented technology that "detects and prevents searching for test answers online from any secondary device." And it even verifies the identity of test takers using "any government issued" i.d. (like a driver's license or passport) or student ID which includes a photo.
One student complained on Reddit that "This seems crazy invasive and should probably be illegal," adding "is there anything passive aggressive you want me to say into the mic?" But what do Slashdot readers think? Should professors be remotely detecting searches on handheld devices, using photo IDs to verify identities -- and filming students taking tests?
You have them still take tests in person.
From students showing their student photo ID to enter an exam room and sitting down to do the exam in front of a person. Over a set time.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Basically are a joke.
Most of the students coming into my classes having done the prerequisite online have about as much awareness of the material they are deemed to have understood as does a âoehappy meal.â Itâ(TM)s not as bad with the rest, but they have their own issues - essentially being interested in getting an âoeAâ but with mostly little or no interest in the material.
These days you're almost guaranteed to graduate if you enroll for the "right" courses anyway.
And more than a few people passed off bought papers as their own, and got away with it. No "online" about it. Except for buying the paper, perhaps. So going biometric is really only there to make a good show, not to actually weed out anyone. Why would they? The only objective these days is to inflict as much college debt as possible, nothing else.
How can you even think this is even up for discussion?
I think you actually know exactly what is right and wrong. We just lived in this madness for long enough, to get used to the daily ass rape. Beause numbing is the only thing you can do, when it feels like an insurmountable wave.
But it only *feels* like it. Because everyone follows along, because everyone feels like you.
Which also means everyone agrees that it is fucked-up too.
I, for one, am stopping that shit right now, right here. Nobody wants this. Period. All we have to do, is say it.
Professors and teachers and proctors get to watch people taking tests to make sure they aren't cheating. Remote? A video camera and microphone is to be expected.
When you grow up, you'll learn about video conferences and industry certifications you can only take at certain test centers. So quit whining about the monitoring; if you don't like it go find a city dumb enough to try UBI and live in a cardboard box under a bridge.
I'm not sure students have access to a an 8mm or something similar. Do the testers have to send the processed celluloid to the school for verification? Do the schools have a film projector to watch the show?
If people want to waste the opportunity by cheating, should anyone else care? How far is anyone going to get in life after cheating through college? And if they do get far, what does that say about life (and college)?
As has been pointed out over and over this week, it is a private company. Unless it was not revealed when you signed up you have no cause of action.
You damn well better expect to have strict anti-cheating regulations.
Nobody would or should respect any course where the student can have their uncle take the test with nobody the wiser.
You shouldn't be concerned if you're among the 95% of generally honest folks. But there is a need to protect against the 5% of people who lie through their teeth and steal anything that's not bolted down.
They do not want o be known as the college where the shit employees cone from.
Which is very understandable, although egocentric and missing the point.
Of course, by doing it in this psycho way, they teach students a certain mindset of being a total psycho asshole to other people, that will cause them to fail any psychological recruitment test (at least outside of the US corporate world).
So I would never hire anyone from there on principle, and would openly communicate that too.
For example:
Masters Level Nursing Courses via the University of Texas ( Arlington ) require that you have a webcam enabled where
you and your computer / desk are in full view at all times during any test. ( It is monitored in real time during the test )
Before the test even starts, you will show your StudentID to the camera so they can verify you are who you claim to be.
You must then pan the room with the webcam to show you are alone and that nothing is on or around your desk you can
use to cheat. You are not allowed to leave the room once the test starts and you cannot talk with anyone.
Even though you can do all of your coursework and testing remotely via the above method, the certification tests ( NCLEX )
will require you to test at one of their approved locations.
I thought is was Saran-wrapping students to their chairs during the test.
I held the record at a for profit college for the most number of academic violations. I filled out at least one on 75% of the class every course. The cheating is rampant. One student turned in my masterâ(TM)s thesis as their own work once. In person, the cheating was about 25% and usually less egregious. (One person did turn in the section of an ibm manual) Traditional colleges were more like 33% in person. Online is fucking rampant. We caught a business people were paying to âoetake classesâ for them.
Whats the point? Online courses are all open-book tests. Who will monitor? Students take the test at their leisure. The last Online course I taught had students all across the nation, and in the far & middle east all at the same time. Monitoring the test would be a joke. There in lays the whole problem of online courses, the student does not have to learn, they can just use references and put in the time. Also, in my decades of work in the real world, the smartest people I knew, were the ones that knew were to look up the information they needed was. The problem with online courses, is that they do not teach the fundamentals that you for that.
Such snooping is insulting and unfortunate but necessary. Large scale cheating is widespread at tier one universities. ( I can personally document.) Not to stop it is to disadvantage the honest student and enable the rot that now consumes business and politics.
your tests are too easy.
...should be a film or video (depending the specific class).
I've done a couple of online masters degrees at Russell Group (i.e. first rank) universities. The cheating problem is addressed by having most or all of the assessment for a module be by proctored exam. You can take the exams at the university or at the British Council in around 100 countries.
If people want to cheat, let them cheat. It's supposed to be about learning, not about entry into some sort of exclusive aristocratic order.
No one will value your institution's credential any higher if you take an extra step to foil cheaters. Most graduates of most institutions are mediocre anyway. You're not going to fool employers into accepting your credentials as the first and last word on someone's capabilities, regardless.
The issue here isn't the filming, it's the requirement that a student install a closed source package that is essentially spyware on their personal (non-school-supplied) computer.
If the school supplies the computer, then by all means, require anything you want. If it's the student's computer, I wouldn't install a package that intrusive.
Cut a deal with one of those national "testing center" companies, and require students to sit for exams at one of their locations. They're not everywhere, but they're distributed widely enough that most students won't have a very long drive.
I don't mind the monitoring but I can't concentrate when someone puts a camera 16" from my face while I'm trying to take an exam. Everybody knows the NSA intercepts this stream, or, the school or private company gives them the stream especially when you are on a watch list.. Your school privacy.. gone..
Just make the tests really hard, and make it open book and take home. Hell, that’s the way my electromagnetics final was in grad school. Take it home for three days, and team up with a partner. It was only 4 problems, and they were TOUGH.
I'm the Canvas admin (course management system) and the guy that integrates HonorLock, ProctorU and all the other LTIs we use - off hand, TurnItIn is the only other one we have designed to catch "cheating".
We have an agreement with the other 28 non-research state colleges in Florida for in-person proctoring at on-campus testing centers. We offer proctoring on campus, and our online instructors can schedule entire sections or have students come in by appointment.
I help faculty design courses. I encourage project based grading when it is appropriate. Some things really do come down to multiple choice testing. In that case, we encourage shorter time limits, like 45 seconds to a minute per question with a couple of extra minutes added. A second exam with a separate time limit for a few short essay questions and you have something workable if not ideal.
I teach classes - both face to face and online. Again, I use project based grading, and exams are done online, un proctored, and come to 20-35% of the final grade depending on which class. Exam scores average out to 85% if you take out the 0s from students who forgot to take the exam...
I'm taking online classes, and most of the major grades have been project based or written papers, not multiple choice exams. Most of the "traditional" type exams I've taken in online courses have been small quizzes designed to make sure we are doing the textbook reading. Often graded discussion is used for this as well.
As for using services like this, I'm of two minds. Plenty of other options for having an exam proctored - if I had to take a proctored exam I would use a testing center. And I understand how some may not be able to do so. However, I would like to see more effort made to inform students of exactly what the software does, and how to totally disable it and remove it and reset any other settings it tweaked when it is no longer needed. Even to set up the LTIs I had to install a chrome extension that did some pretty serious spying - did it on a lab machine with Deep Freeze on it so I could reboot and be sure it was all removed.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Some already do.
I know of one that makes you spin your camera around the room first.. so they can see if someone is there helping you behind the machine..
Some thing that requires more than selecting an option or regurtitating something. or replace tests with projects, reports, etc. that requires original input.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Caveat: My only experience is in the for-profit education sector, but it probably applies elsewhere.
The requirement would quickly become a pointless exercise.
An instructor would not be able to monitor between 10-1000 students simultaneously, assuming tests are delivered at the same time temporally. If students are taking the test at the time of their choosing, itâ(TM)s an unreasonable requirement for the instructor(s) to have drop whatever they are doing whenever the test is initiated.
The expense of staffing instructors/observers in sufficient numbers to monitor all the test takers would make not just the tests but the course uneconomical with either delivery method, and thatâ(TM)s not even addressing mediation when someone is suspected of cheating.
On its own. A cursory search for how to do disappearing illusions (such as how they made the Statue of Liberty disappear) will give more than enough information to allow a person to hide objects for cheating. I mean hell, to put a notecard under your keyboard and slide it out takes no effort.
The better way is timed testing. first, it adds a pressure to the student, increasing the likelyhood of incorrect answers if they do not know the material. Next, if each question has a time limit, then taking time to scan through notes or get the answer form someone else is much more difficult, simply because now they have to spend time reading aloud the question and answers.
Add to this the standard browser detection stuff to insure the tab and window remained in focus, and it becomes much harder to cheat, especially if the test is a series of randomly assigned questions from a database of questions instead of a single "test" written 2-3 different ways. For a given 50 question test, it might pull from a database of 1500 questions on the subject, for example. Then, so what if your test gets out, they still have to study 1500 questions! It'd be way easier just to study the material until you understand it then.
I do my online courses on the train without internet. I download the tests and then take them while I sit on the train. Sometimes it takes me a few hours to do the tests. I store all my notes on a separate emacs document where I do all my writing, and then copy and paste my answers when I'm finally done. Then i put them online when I'm finally done.
This is just the beginning folks. This is meant to become all pervasive all invasive, in every aspect of life, you are not meant to be a moment out of sight or out of their control
If cheating is this big a deal, make the fucking test physical. This is invasive to user's computers and devices. It's not acceptable. Especially when the far less invasive alternative of "physical test" is available.
If you want proof you learned something, try building it, not taking a test.
In the real world, everyone has their phone on them and can look up most anything they could possibly need to know. Even doctors look up drug reactions or best courses of treatment, because it's simply unrealistic for them to have every possibility memorized. We have a wealth of human knowledge at our fingertips, and it's kinda stupid not to use it. Tests should honestly place more value on people's ability to find the answer than simply regurgitate it, because 3 years down the line, knowing how to find an answer is more valuable than having memorized an old way to do something.
Tests were only ever used because teachers could not continuously monitor student work. Therefore, periodic checks were needed. Once student work goes online, their progress can be monitored minute by minute. We need to reconsider why we have tests at all, and what other, probably more effective, measures could be used to replace them.
Should we english?