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,
Andrew Jackson view of proctoring
Approaches to assessing students
Approaches to Assessing StudentsWhile 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)
OverviewVarious methods are used in distance education toachieve a higher level of academic integrity.In the presentations, you will learn from severaladministrators who are striving to improve academicintegrity, avoid implementation obstacles, and provideconvenient methods for authenticating distance-learningstudents.Materials and activities will focus on lessons learned,success stories, and best practices in academic integrity.
April CognatoApril Cognato has been an assistant professor of biology atMichigan State University since 2006 where she is involvedin the development and implementation of traditional andonline curricula.Concurrently, she is a contributing author to two non-majors biology textbooks, and author of online digitalassets for McGraw-Hill Higher Education.She has been an undergraduate biology instructor since1996.Cognato received her B.S. from University of California,Davis and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Texas A & M University.
One Falsehood Spoils a Thousand Truths --Ashanti Proverb April Cognato, Ph.D. Michigan State University
Academic Integrity……is the very principle upon whichcolleges and universities are built
Academic Integrity……is “a commitment, even in the faceof adversity, to five fundamentalvalues: honesty, trust, fairness, respect,and responsibility” Center for Academic Integrity
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
Academic Integrity Matters“Without academic integrity, there canbe no trust or reliance on the effectiveness,accuracy, or value of a Universitysteaching, learning, research, or publicservice activities.” –UC Davis Code of Academic Conduct The credibility of ouracademic system is at stake
Academic Integrity is in Crisis Admitted to cheating at Perceived severity of least once in the last behavior (moderate toDishonest behavior year (2002-2005) serious infraction) n = 71,071Learning what is on a 33% 64%test from someone whotook itCopying from anotherstudentHelping someone cheat 63% 20% 10% 90% 92% 89%Using unauthorized 8% 90%notesUsing an 5% 90%electronic/digital deviceFalse 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.
“If it should ever come to that, and you…”Cheating is considered dishonest. Itknow no one has no proof whatsoevercounts as stealing and lying. There arethat you cheated: deny, deny, deny!some cases, however, where cheating on(Convince yourself as well be youra test might be argued to asadversaries you did not cheat,are testsacceptable. Sometimes there remainingfirm and the result of As long as theythanthat are confident.) politics, rather cannot prove it but can only wonder or hearpracticality.”someone elses words against your own,youre in the clear”.
Our Immoral BrainsOpportunity 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
Moral decisions……depend more on the absence oftemptation than on the active resistanceof temptation.Greene, JD and JM Paxton (2009) Patterns of neural activity associated withhonest and dishonest moral decisions. PNAS 106 (30) 12506-12511
Our Responsibility• Remove temptation• Provide a secure testing environment
Remote Proctor ProA Comprehensive Proctoring Solution Dr. April Cognato, Ph.D. Michigan State University email@example.com
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
Academic DishonestyInfractions 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
A Comprehensive Remote Proctoring System Desired End User Desired System Features Features1. Flexible 1. Authenticates student2. Cost-effective identity3. Easy to employ for 2. Monitors student faculty and students activity4. Tech support 3. Secures computer access5. Customer support 4. Compact, portable 5. LMS compatible
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
Remote Proctor Pro How it Works1. Assembly2. Enrollment3. Authentication4. Assessment5. Post-assessment Review
Remote Proctoring SolutionsProvided students with two options:• Remote Proctor Pro (RPP)• National College Testing Association (NCTA), Consortium of College Testing Centers (CCTC) In-person Proctoring
RPP vs. Testing Center Feature RPP CCTC Authentication X XSystem Monitoring X X Browser security X Human Compact/portable X Convenient XEnd-user Cost-effective X User friendly X X Tech support X Customer support X X
Cost ComparisonTesting Center Hours Fee CTCC 2011 RPPMSU M 8AM-5PM $30/exam $180 W 12PM-5PMFerris State M 9AM-4PM $20/hourUniversity $240 W 9AM-4PMGrand Rapids CC M 7:30AM-7:30PM $10/hour W7:30AM-7:30PM $120Kalamazoo CC M 8:30AM-9PM $20/test $120 $100 W 8:30AM-9PMCentral Michigan M 9AM-1AM $30/testUniversity $180 W 9AM-1AMLake Superior State M 8:30AM-4PM $15/hour $180 W 8AM-12PMSouthwestern $20/examMichigan College M 8AM-5PM $120 W 8AM-5PM
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
Remote Proctor Pro Protects IntegrityLMS Bug 4% 4% 8% Impossible/Diffic ult to Cheat Easy to Cheat Knows someone 84% who cheated No reponse
Student Testimony“It’s a great way to have the freedom to take the exam onyour 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 couldtake 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!”
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
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!
Pedagogical Best Practices • Tutorial on academic integrity • Synchronized assessments • Question pools • Random delivery of questions and answers • Exam review controlledTesting center at the University • Required exam of Central Florida NY Times July 5, 2010 proctoring
Deb GearhartDeb Gearhart is the director of eCampus for Troy University.Previously Gearhart served as the founding director of E-Education Services at Dakota State University inMadison, South Dakota and was there for the 11 years.Before joining Dakota State she spent 10 years with theDepartment of Distance Education at Penn State.She earned a M.Ed. in Adult Education with a distanceeducation emphasis and an M.P.A. in PublicAdministration, both from Penn State. Gearhart completedher Ph.D. program in Education, with a certificate indistance education, from Capella University.
• On average eTROY proctors over 7500course exams a term• A need to assist students withproctoring options• Adopted an academic operatingprocedure for online course proctoring in2008.• Needed both human and technologybased proctoring options.
The educational-technology firm istrusted by over 100colleges, universities andcorporations as the best way toreduce incidents of academicdishonesty by connecting studentsface-to-face with a human proctor.
See the student See what they are doing Know who they are
• 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.
Mark SarverMark Sarver has served in many capacities in highereducation. He is the CEO of EduKan, the onlineeducation consortium for the six western communitycolleges in Kansas. Sarver has taught courses inleadership, organizationalbehavior, accounting, international business, franchisedevelopment, marketing and management. Sarversexperience in higher education strategy andassessment spans virtually all aspects of institutionalmanagement from admissions and marketing, tofinancial analysis, to program and course assessment.
Troy UniversityNorthwestern UniversityThe University of Florida The University of ArizonaThe University of IllinoisBob Jones UniversityChaminade University of HonoluluKansas State UniversityLawson LearningNational American UniversityOregon State UniversitySaint Louis UniversityThomas Edison State CollegeThe University of West FloridaThe University of Louisiana at LafayetteThe University of MississippiThe University of New EnglandThe University of Tennessee Health SciencesWashington State UniversityNorthern Virginia Community College (ELI)Others…