Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The cool thing is that I was able to show him some things that Alex showed me that he didn’t know, I looked like a rock star:)

research

Research is a difficult topic to entice high school student with.

I think the digital age is reducing the amount of human interaction and students are losing out on the social aspects of school.

Right now I am very frustrated. I have tried very very hard to listen to all of Alex’s comments throughout the semester and make changes based on her criticisms. My course when reviewed needed a lot of work but she expressed being frustrated that I didn’t take her advice when I am always careful to do that. I am not sure if I misunderstood or maybe it was the way things were worded. She had mentioned changing the names of my module’s during one of the previous assignments but in my course review she said she was frustrated because I didn’t listen about changing names of discussions and forums, when in fact, I changed the names of the modules like we had discussed. We never discussed discussion or forum names. I think these issues are issues that need to be addressed when learning about teaching online. Without having a face to face discussion misconceptions are not always cleared up right away and could cause problems later.

I believe my list of assumptions can get very long, knowing how unpredictable this age group can be.  Now that I am not assuming anything, I can move on to the next step at planning this awesome astronomy course.

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.