How to do quick user assign in kanban in Odoo 17 ERP
Approaches to assessing students
1. Approaches to Assessing Students
While Ensuring Academic Integrity
and Student Convenience
WCET 2011 Conference, October 27, 2011
Denver, Colorado
Panelists:
April Cognato, Michigan State University (MI)
Deb Gearhart, Troy University (AL)
Mark Sarver, EduKan (KS)
Moderator:
Teresa Theisen, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MN)
Facilitator:
Scott Woods, University of Phoenix (AZ)
2. Overview
Various methods are used in distance education to
achieve a higher level of academic integrity.
In the presentations, you will learn from several
administrators who are striving to improve academic
integrity, avoid implementation obstacles, and provide
convenient methods for authenticating distance-learning
students.
Materials and activities will focus on lessons learned,
success stories, and best practices in academic integrity.
3. April Cognato
April Cognato has been an assistant professor of biology at
Michigan State University since 2006 where she is involved
in the development and implementation of traditional and
online curricula.
Concurrently, she is a contributing author to two non-
majors biology textbooks, and author of online digital
assets for McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
She has been an undergraduate biology instructor since
1996.
Cognato received her B.S. from University of California,
Davis and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Texas A & M University.
7. Academic Integrity…
…is “a commitment, even in the face
of adversity, to five fundamental
values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect,
and responsibility”
Center for Academic Integrity
8. Academic Integrity Matters
• Higher Education Opportunity Act
2008 requires that distance learning
meets the same expectations as in-
class instruction
• Requires student authentication in
distance learning
9. Academic Integrity Matters
“Without academic integrity, there can
be no trust or reliance on the effectiveness,
accuracy, or value of a University's
teaching, learning, research, or public
service activities.” –UC Davis Code of Academic Conduct
The credibility of our
academic system is at stake
10. Academic Integrity is in Crisis
Admitted to cheating at Perceived severity of
least once in the last behavior (moderate to
Dishonest behavior
year (2002-2005) serious infraction)
n = 71,071
Learning what is on a 33% 64%
test from someone who
took it
Copying from another
student
Helping someone cheat
63% 20%
10%
90% 92%
89%
Using unauthorized 8% 90%
notes
Using an 5% 90%
electronic/digital device
False excuse to delay 16% 58%
test
McCabe, D. (2005) Cheating Among College and University Students: A North
American Perspective. International Journal for Academic Integrity Volume 1, No.
11. “If it should ever come to that, and you
…”Cheating is considered dishonest. It
know no one has no proof whatsoever
counts as stealing and lying. There are
that you cheated: deny, deny, deny!
some cases, however, where cheating on
(Convince yourself as well be your
a test might be argued to as
adversaries you did not cheat,are tests
acceptable. Sometimes there remaining
firm and the result of As long as theythan
that are confident.) politics, rather can
not prove it but can only wonder or hear
practicality.”
someone else's words against your own,
you're in the clear”.
12. Our Immoral Brains
Opportunity to lie Opportunity to lie No opportunity to lie
Decision: LIE Deciding whether Decision: Honest
or not to lie
Greene, JD and JM Paxton (2009) Patterns of neural activity associated with
honest and dishonest moral decisions. PNAS 106 (30) 12506-12511
13. Moral decisions…
…depend more on the absence of
temptation than on the active resistance
of temptation.
Greene, JD and JM Paxton (2009) Patterns of neural activity associated with
honest and dishonest moral decisions. PNAS 106 (30) 12506-12511
16. Remote Proctor Pro
A Comprehensive Proctoring Solution
Dr. April Cognato, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
ac@msu.edu
17. Online Course
• Fundamentals of Genetics
o Fully online
o 150 students
o Single summer session (7 weeks)
o Not proctored, remote
• Assessments
o Problem Sets, short answer, word problems
o Summative assessments, weekly “mid-term” like
exams
18. Academic Dishonesty
Infractions included:
• Plagiarism from internet sources
• Copying answer key (verbatim!!) provided
by other students
• Submitting, obtaining the key, resubmitting
with the key (LMS bug)
Suspected many; failed 6 students in 2009, 2010
19. A Comprehensive Remote
Proctoring System
Desired End User Desired System
Features Features
1. Flexible 1. Authenticates student
2. Cost-effective identity
3. Easy to employ for 2. Monitors student
faculty and students activity
4. Tech support 3. Secures computer
access
5. Customer support
4. Compact, portable
5. LMS compatible
20. Remote Proctor Pro Solution
Authenticates
o Biometric data
Secures computer
o Lockdown browser
Monitors students
o 360° camera
Compact & portable
o Desktop, USB, disassembles
Records
o Video record of exam session
Reports
o Exam policy violations
21. Remote Proctor Pro
How it Works
1. Assembly
2. Enrollment
3. Authentication
4. Assessment
5. Post-assessment Review
24. Remote Proctoring Solutions
Provided students with two options:
• Remote Proctor Pro (RPP)
• National College Testing Association (NCTA),
Consortium of College Testing Centers
(CCTC) In-person Proctoring
25. RPP vs. Testing Center
Feature RPP CCTC
Authentication X X
System
Monitoring X X
Browser security X Human
Compact/portable X
Convenient X
End-user
Cost-effective X
User friendly X X
Tech support X
Customer support X X
26. Cost Comparison
Testing Center Hours Fee CTCC 2011 RPP
MSU M 8AM-5PM $30/exam
$180
W 12PM-5PM
Ferris State M 9AM-4PM $20/hour
University
$240
W 9AM-4PM
Grand Rapids CC M 7:30AM-7:30PM $10/hour
W7:30AM-7:30PM
$120
Kalamazoo CC M 8:30AM-9PM $20/test
$120 $100
W 8:30AM-9PM
Central Michigan M 9AM-1AM $30/test
University
$180
W 9AM-1AM
Lake Superior State M 8:30AM-4PM $15/hour
$180
W 8AM-12PM
Southwestern $20/exam
Michigan College
M 8AM-5PM $120
W 8AM-5PM
27. Remote Proctored Exams
• 86 students opted to use the RPP
• 6 exams over 7 weeks
• Semi-synchronous exam periods
• 2 hour time limit
• Multiple choice, short answer, essay (word
problems)
• Survey of proctoring experience delivered for credit
at the end of the course
28. Remote Proctor Pro
Protects Integrity
LMS Bug
4% 4%
8% Impossible/Diffic
ult to Cheat
Easy to Cheat
Knows someone
84%
who cheated
No reponse
29. Student Testimony
“It’s a great way to have the freedom to take the exam on
your own time in whatever setting you want”
“It’s easy to use and you can take [the test] when you want”
“The remote proctoring device was easy and convenient…you could
take your exam in your own home and at whatever time you wanted.”
“You couldn’t cheat and I took my test in the comfort of my own home.”
“Remote proctoring tech support was VERY NICE and HELPFUL.”
“The lowered cost compared to the in-person proctoring exam was a plus.”
“It looks like something out of Star Wars!”
30. Take Home Points
• Remote Proctor Pro system effectively protects
academic integrity
• RPP is a comprehensive proctoring system
o Authenticates student identity
o Monitors student activity
o Secures computer
o Records exam session
o Reviews and Reports
• RPP meets the needs of the end user
o Easy to use (faculty and students)
o Convenient
o Cost effective
o Responsive tech support
o Attentive customer service
31. Future Best Practices
• Inform students of proctoring requirement (and
associated costs) at the time of registration.
• Deploy device at least 2 weeks prior to beginning
of course.
• Require a practice assessment the first week.
• Institute a backup exam plan.
• Establish good communication with your CMS IT.
• Provide students with clear instructions for
Technical Support.
• Anticipate technically challenged students!
32. Pedagogical Best Practices
• Tutorial on academic
integrity
• Synchronized
assessments
• Question pools
• Random delivery of
questions and answers
• Exam review controlled
Testing center at the University • Required exam
of Central Florida
NY Times July 5, 2010
proctoring
35. Deb Gearhart
Deb Gearhart is the director of eCampus for Troy University.
Previously Gearhart served as the founding director of E-
Education Services at Dakota State University in
Madison, South Dakota and was there for the 11 years.
Before joining Dakota State she spent 10 years with the
Department of Distance Education at Penn State.
She earned a M.Ed. in Adult Education with a distance
education emphasis and an M.P.A. in Public
Administration, both from Penn State. Gearhart completed
her Ph.D. program in Education, with a certificate in
distance education, from Capella University.
37. • On average eTROY proctors over 7500
course exams a term
• A need to assist students with
proctoring options
• Adopted an academic operating
procedure for online course proctoring in
2008.
• Needed both human and technology
based proctoring options.
38. The educational-technology firm is
trusted by over 100
colleges, universities and
corporations as the best way to
reduce incidents of academic
dishonesty by connecting students
face-to-face with a human proctor.
40. • Students interact with a live proctor in
real time.
• Our identity authentication method is
the strongest in the industry.
• ProctorU is easy to use for students
and faculty.
• Students enjoy the convenience of
testing at home and instructors rest
easy knowing the integrity of their
exam is secure.
41.
42.
43. Mark Sarver
Mark Sarver has served in many capacities in higher
education. He is the CEO of EduKan, the online
education consortium for the six western community
colleges in Kansas. Sarver has taught courses in
leadership, organizational
behavior, accounting, international business, franchise
development, marketing and management. Sarver's
experience in higher education strategy and
assessment spans virtually all aspects of institutional
management from admissions and marketing, to
financial analysis, to program and course assessment.
45. Troy University
Northwestern University
The University of Florida
The University of Arizona
The University of Illinois
Bob Jones University
Chaminade University of Honolulu
Kansas State University
Lawson Learning
National American University
Oregon State University
Saint Louis University
Thomas Edison State College
The University of West Florida
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette
The University of Mississippi
The University of New England
The University of Tennessee Health Sciences
Washington State University
Northern Virginia Community College (ELI)
Others…
What we are really here to talk about today is the preservation of academic integrity. I doubt that anyone in this audience involved in online learning would argue that integrity is an issue of concern, one that as faculty we wrestle with each semester. Why do we concern ourselves with academic integrity? What is our role as academics to ensure that academic integrity is upheld?
We should care about academic integrity because it is the very principle upon which academia is built. The quality of our institution, the respect of our degree programs, hinges upon academic integrity.
What is academic integrity? In addition to these 4 attributes I would also like to add accountability. Only if we hold ourselves accountable for our own actions can we safeguard integrity.
Why should we implement safeguards against academic dishonesty? First, we are required to do so by the government. Clearly institutions will have to find a solution to the proctoring of assessments in their distance learning programs. We do it because we have to.
But perhaps we should take a philosophical approach to academic integrity, and safeguard it not because we have to, but because we should. From my philosophical perspective, all that I have worked for my entire career, and all that I invest in my students is of little value if I do not safeguard the integrity of higher education. Otherwise, I have a $70000 piece of paper worth absolutely nothing. Even of more concern is the inability to trust the expertise of colleagues. We are building the future of our next generation on a fallacy.
Dondald McCabe is well-known for his surveys of cheating among college students. His work began in the mid 1990s, and has continued through today. In this time period he has amassed a large amount of data (a sample size the envy of any scientist) that shows the frequency of academic dishonesty by infraction type and the perceived severity of this infraction. Note that values are the percent of students who admitted to the behavior at least once in the last year. One in five students admitted to copying from another student, while one in three admitted to getting information about an exam from their peers who already took it.
Brain regions exhibiting increased activity in the Opportunity condition, as compared with the No Opportunity condition, broken down by group (honest vs. dishonest) and outcome type (win vs. loss). BA, Brodmann area. fMRI data are projected onto a reference anatomical image. (A) Increased activity in bilateral DLPFC is associated with decisions to lie (Opportunity Wins > No-Opportunity Wins) in dishonest subjects. (B) Increased activity in bilateral ACC/SMA, DLFPC, VLPFC, DMPFC, and right parietal lobe is associated with decisions to refrain from lying (Opportunity Losses > No-Opportunity Losses) in dishonest subjects. (C) Increased activity in bilateral VLPFC is associated with decisions to accept honest wins (Opportunity Wins > No-Opportunity Wins) in honest subjects. No significant effects were observed in association with decisions to refrain from lying (Opportunity Losses > No-Opportunity Losses) in honest subjects.According to the “Will” hypothesis, honesty results from the active resistance of temptation, comparable to the controlled cognitive processes that enable the delay of reward. According to the “Grace” hypothesis, honesty results from the absence of temptation,
