Group items tagged

Summary and Conclusions This study reports three principle findings.  First, from a survey of student opinion it is reported that 59% believe that the frequency of cheating is the same in both the online and the f2f instructional format. The proportion is significantly greater than 50% at the .05 level. It is also reported that the responses to the question of cheating and instructional format are significantly different depending on whether the student came from an online class or a f2f class, but only at a p-value of .1060.  Recalling the literature review in Table 1, which reported mixed findings by previous empirical studies, an interesting implication for future research is whether student experience with each instructional format influences student perceptions of differences in the frequency of cheating. Second, on proctoring and the frequency of cheating on essay exams and multiple choice exams, it is reported that roughly half of the respondents perceive unproctored assessments as having greater cheating risk than the same assessment in a proctored format, and half think they have equal cheating risk. These findings are consistent with the conventional perception that in a side by side comparison of two courses with comparable content and predominately multiple choice exam assessments, the course with unproctored exams is viewed as having greater cheating risk. Third, in our analysis of assessment design in 20 online courses it is reported that 70% base roughly half the course grade on unproctored multiple choice exams.     These findings imply that online courses, which have unproctored multiple choice exams, can reduce perceived cheating risk by proctoring some of their multiple choice exams without significantly altering the original mix of assessment types. Gresham’s Law suggests that online courses debased by assessment designs with high cheating risk will displace courses with relatively lower cheating risk. Institutions of higher education tone deaf to the issue of proctoring online multiple choice assessments may understandably find other institutions reluctant to accept these courses for transfer credit.  The benefit of proctoring is not without cost.  A proctored exam limits the spatial and the asynchronous dimensions of online instruction, which may have been the core reason the student enrolled in the online. These costs can be mitigated to some extent by early announcement of the time and date of the exam, by allowing for some flexibility of time of exam, and by permitting use of alternate certified proctoring centers. The costs to individual instructors are formidable but there are potentially significant economies of scale to be realized by integration of online courses with an existing system that administers proctoring of exams for f2f classes.  Proctoring of some multiple choice exam assessments will reduce cheating risk. The elephant in the room, however, is the cheating risk on non-exam unproctored assessments (for example term papers, essays, discussion, and group projects). These are widely used in f2f instruction and, as online instruction evolves, will likely become equally widely used in online courses. These assessments are valuable because they encourage learning by student-to-student and student-to-faculty interactions, and because they measure Bloom’s higher levels of learning. These assessments have higher cheating risk than proctored multiple choice exams. These assessments, more so than multiple choice exams, challenge the ability of faculty and administration to inspire students to behave ethically and to refrain from academic misconduct.

When I think about my own learning in this course, I realize that even though I may not have direct contact with my classmates or the instructor, I am following those interaction patterns in this course.  I am working with the concepts and ideas introduced in each module, researching, relating, and making connections.  Then I bring my work back to the community to share.  My classmates or the instructor will absorb my contributions and perhaps push it further with suggesting alternate views, or things I have not considered.

Now we are discussing how we are using text based environments to create intimacy in learning environments.  Perhaps, it is not all that different

I now believe that a teacher is someone who can create an environment where students are able to gain knowledge through interaction and experience.  This may be through reviewing materials or engaging in activities, but that seems less important to me now.  The crucial part is now designing the interactions. 

Now I understand that asking the students to articulate what they want to get out of the course is an important start to getting them to reflect on their learning and progress throughout the course.

Mastery learning provides an approach that recognizes that aptitude for learning may be more closely linked to time and perseverance than to ability (Bloom, 1971; Melton, 2008)

The technique of scaffolding and the use of levels in games provides visual progress to the student and maintain interest in the instruction as the student moves from level to level having different experiences and achieving success as they progress toward the ultimate goal. In gamification, the levels usually become more difficult and challenging as the student moves toward the end and the skills they exhibit at the final level would not be possible without the experience of playing the preceding levels. This idea is embodied in Merrill’s application principle that “instruction should provide coaching, which should be gradually withdrawn to enhance application” (Merrill, 2009, pp. 42).