The Cheatability Factor (2009)

1,654 views

Published on

Jared Stein, Marc Hugentobler, and John Krutsch discuss the problem of online cheating, and the problems of proposed solutions. They propose a self-check rubric for teachers, especially those who teach in an online environment.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,654
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Problem: cheating, spec. in online environnments, whether REAL or PERCIEVED For: faculty, instructional designers, administrators who only care when cheating is reported We’ll consider both approaches to dealing with cheating: “search and destroy” (seek cheating, use technology to expose, and punish), and “hearts and minds” (convince students of the value of real learning, the pointlessness/detractions of cheating, and foster a community [fuuuzzzzy] of ethical scholarship [gag]) Tackle the question of how we deal with cheating in online learning environments We can learn something about perceptions and realities of online cheating by looking at emerging “solutions.”
  • Give and ask for difficult cheating examples or scenarios How you define cheating may vary depending on your role and your teaching philosophy. Does technology and this shifting internet culture change how we define cheating? Does it change how students define cheating? “ I copied this from Wikipedia, so it’s not plagiarism.” “ I wrote this in Wikipedia before I turned it in.” “ Because it was online I thought it was open-book.” “ I posted it to my Web site so I guess some one could have copied it.” “ I thought you wanted us to collaborate.” Your answer WILL affect how you interpret the information in the rest of the presentation.
  • JARED How prevalent do you think it is? This is a difficult question, because it requires us to either DETECT or get students to ADMIT. If we could detect with reliability, accuracy, and ease you wouldn’t be sitting here So how prevlent is cheating, in any environment?
  • Surprisingly, When polled most faculty say it is not a significant problem. But nobody wants to be the chump who concedes that students cheat in his/her class! Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C. (2003, June). Addressing student cheating: definitions and solutions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 172-184. Would you admit to cheating? Survey data of students show as many as 75% of students cheat at least once during their academic career. We don’t know if this is habitual or isolated. If habitual: are students less ethical (one survey shows faculty think so), is school just too hard, are the classes poorly designed, is cheating too easy to do? If isolated: does that indict the course or the assessment, is it just a rare alignment Of those cheaters, 95% cheated and were not caught! That’s a lot of cheating.
  • Why? If habitual: are students less ethical (one survey shows faculty think so), is school just too hard, are the classes poorly designed, is cheating too easy to do? If isolated: does that indict the course or the assessment, is it just a rare alignment of the stars?
  • 23% of undergrads were born after Pac-Man.
  • Some research of cheating suggests that predeliction to cheat increases as students get older, at least as old as 25, if not 30. Remember that theory of load? Is online education attractive to non-traditional students?
  • JARED Give (3) reasons why it’s easier online Now give (3) reasons why it’s no easier than face-to-face Can we effectively reproduce f2f assessments online? Or does the online environment need different approaches to assessment? Some anecdotal research suggests it’s less pervasive but why? Early adopters/top-tier learners? More authentic assessments? More engaged instructors? “ So far, quality online education has demanded small class sizes and interactivity between students and teachers,” Dr. Wallace K. Pond
  • Who’s responsible for online cheating? Is it the instructor or students? David Wiley “If your students can cheat on you, then you deserve it” Does cheating happen in YOUR courses? How would you know? How can you determine if it is happening? Cheating is a huge topic. We could spend all day exploring ways to cheat and ways to thwart cheating. Instead we’re going to focus on things we can easily control, and we do so by trying to measure the cheatability of an online course.
  • Recognize these students? Neither does their instructor. How can you know if your students are cheating if you can’t identify them? But if you get to know your students online, and learn their interests, writing styles, habits, and you individualize assessments, their ability—and more importantly their DESIRE—to cheat will diminish. Personally meaningful assessments. One common idea we will return to is using individualized assessments that are personally meaningful to the students. These are powerful in so many ways. They can be authentic, relating directly to the professional world in which they operate, they are personal allowing the instructor to get to know and recognize the students. They are personally meaningful, which increases student’s motivation in succeeding for their own sake, and happens to increase retention of information in memory.
  • Now venn diagrams are very possible amongst educators, in fact I think the latest requirement for teaching certification in some states is to create a venn diagram. Another favorite amongst educators is the rubric, so we built our tool as an easy-to-answer, 35q rubric. Our rubric is just one tool that can help faculty measure these three area’s influence on the cheatability of an online course. All of this is the educational environment Technology = technical: Could technology capacitate/enfranchise/empower OR inhibit cheating? Examples of enabling These tools are FIRE. You have to be careful or you’ll get burned. Course Design = learning design: Static: Could the constructed educational environment capacitate/enfranchise/empower or inhibit cheating? Pedagogy = teaching (children, but remember nontraditional, adults; remember LOAD): Active: Could the pedagogical practices of the instructor capacitate/enfranchise/empower or inhibit cheating? As you can see this is very big, it affects both Technical and Design aspects. It’s the daily practice that insists that good design works or fails, that technology assists or enables.17 measurable areas
  • General Online exams or quizzes (proctored or unproctored) as % of total course assessments Papers or projects as % of total course assessments Participation/discussions (hard to measure, low of possibility and impact = not worth the time) I’ve talked enough, so instead of explaining all the the assessment items and criteria, Instead I’m going to walk you through the rubric. In fact, we’ll take one lucky participant through the rubric from start to finish, interrupting you to explain each item or criteria.
  • So, if you (1) teach an online course (2) actually know what’s in that course, and (3)are brave, willing to answer frank questions about your course design and teaching, raise your hand and volunteer.
  • Here’s the URL. Everyone else is welcome to complete the rubric on their own for their own online course, or if you can’t get a connection, follow along here with us. This is open and available to anyone, so feel free to take this back to your institution and give it a try. Go out to the rubric and walk through it, explaining criteria and matching it back to earlier audience responses and research.
  • The scale is out of 100, but let me tell you no one has yet broken 80. 100 is really the holy grail, the impenetrable online course. Don’t expect to get a 90. This is not a test. One suggestion: percentile of rubric users. How accurate is this? Does that matter? Do we care what that number means? (participants should point out that this is a process, a dialogue starter, a way to get faculty to look objectively at cheating without intimidating them. They can do this in isolation or as part of a workshop) Is whole worth more than the sum of it’s parts? future research could compare the accuracy of this to anonymous class surveys and technical detection of cheating in course. This formula is based on our research and it’s weights may be subjective. It is in not meant to be an actual, valid score.
  • Here’s that URL again…
  • If we have time, talk about how this act is NOT REALLY AN ISSUE. This is what most of us use anyway.
  • If broken Web site. HML Y/N
  • The Cheatability Factor (2009)

    1. 1. The Cheatability Factor Jared Stein
    2. 11. Cheating? Photo by Travis Begay, http://flickr.com/photos/5tein/tags/cheatability/
    3. 12. Prevalent? Photo by Alex Southgate, http://flickr.com/photos/southgate/154386139/
    4. 13. <ul><li>Most faculty unaware </li></ul><ul><li>75% of students admit it </li></ul><ul><li>95% undetected </li></ul>Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C. (2003, June). Addressing student cheating: definitions and solutions . ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 172-184. Kaczmarczyk, L. (2001). Accreditation and student assessment in distance education: Why we all need to pay attention . Proc. 6th Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Canterbury, UK, 113-116.
    5. 14. Why? Photo by collective nouns, http://flickr.com/photos/collectivenouns/405141223/
    6. 15. undergrads U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002). The Condition of Education.
    7. 16. <ul><li>% of nontraditional in DE </li></ul><ul><li>Prediliction to cheat increases with age </li></ul>
    8. 17. margin = power / load Day, M., & James, J. (1984). Margin and the adult learner. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education , 13(1), 1-5.
    9. 18. Easier online? Photo by Travis Begay, http://flickr.com/photos/5tein/tags/cheatability/
    10. 19. On my watch? Photo by Travis Begay, http://flickr.com/photos/5tein/tags/cheatability/
    11. 21. Cheatability <ul><li>3 Affectors </li></ul>Technology Course Design Pedagogy educational environment
    12. 22. measurable areas <ul><li>General </li></ul><ul><li>Online exams or quizzes </li></ul><ul><li>Papers or projects </li></ul><ul><li>Other* </li></ul>
    13. 24. <ul><li>http://learningfield.org/cheat/ </li></ul>
    14. 25. now what?
    15. 26. rubric <ul><li>http://learningfield.org/cheat </li></ul>
    16. 27. <ul><li>more stuff </li></ul><ul><li>flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/pres/cheatability </li></ul>
    17. 28. <ul><li>Marc Hugentobler </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Twitter: diamond_mind </li></ul></ul>
    18. 29. <ul><li>John Krutsch </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Twitter: johnkrutsch </li></ul></ul>
    19. 30. <ul><li>Jared Stein </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Twitter: jstein </li></ul></ul>
    20. 31. References <ul><li>Callahan, David. (2004). The Cheating Culture: Why more Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead . San Diego, CA: A Harvest Book </li></ul><ul><li>Caron, M. D., Whitbourne, S. K., and Halgin, R. P. (1992). Fraudulent Excuse Making Among College Students. Teaching of Psychology , 19(2), 90-93. </li></ul><ul><li>Center for Academic Integrity - Research. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2005 from http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp </li></ul><ul><li>Charlesworth, P., D. D. Charlesworth, and C. Vlcia. 2006. Students' perspectives of the influence of web-enhanced coursework on incidences. Journal of Chemical Education 83 (9): 1368-75. </li></ul><ul><li>Cizek, Gregory J. (2003). Detecting and Preventing Classroom Cheating: Promoting Integrity in Assessment . Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Clark, Ruth Colvin, Frank Nguyen, & John Sweller. (2005). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load . Pfeiffer. </li></ul><ul><li>Coates, D., B. R. Humphreys, J. Kane, and M. A. Vachris. 2004. 'No significant distance' between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review 23 (6): 533-546. </li></ul><ul><li>Day, M., & James, J. (1984). Margin and the adult learner. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education , 13(1), 1-5. </li></ul><ul><li>Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C. (2003, June). Addressing student cheating: definitions and solutions . ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 172-184. </li></ul>
    21. 32. References <ul><li>George, J., & Carlson, J. (1999, January). Group support systems and deceptive communication. 32nd Hawaii Intl. Conf. on Systems Sciences , 1038. </li></ul><ul><li>Hard, S. F., J. M. Conway, and A.C. Moran. 2006. Faculty and college student beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. Journal of Higher Education 77 (6): 1058-80. </li></ul><ul><li>Harmon, O. R., and J. Lambrinos. Are online exams an invitation to cheat? Department of Economics Working Paper Series March 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Kaczmarczyk, L. (2001). Accreditation and student assessment in distance education: Why we all need to pay attention . Proc. 6th Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Canterbury, UK, 113-116. </li></ul><ul><li>Kennedy, K., S. Nowak, R. Raghuraman, J. Thomas, and S. F. Davis. 2000. Academic dishonesty and distance learning: student and faculty views. College Student Journal 34 (2): 309-14 </li></ul><ul><li>Keith-Spiegel, Patricia & Whitley, Jr. Bernard E. (2002). Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide . Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates </li></ul><ul><li>Krutsch, John & Sandy Mills-Alford. (2006). How to Cheat Online: Issues in Academic Honesty . WebCT. </li></ul><ul><li>Keyes, Ralph. (2004). The Post-Truth ERA: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life . New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press </li></ul><ul><li>Mallon, Thomas. (1991). Stolen Words: The Classic Book on Plagiarism . San Diego, CA: A Harvest </li></ul><ul><li>Redd, K. (2007). Data sources: The rise of “older” graduate students. Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/DataSources_2007_12.pdf. </li></ul>
    22. 33. References <ul><li>Rowe, N. Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 7(2). [Online]: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004). Participation in Adult Education and Life Long Learning 2000-01. nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004050.pdf. </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002). The Condition of Education. nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002025. </li></ul>
    23. 34. Part H, Title IV <ul><li>Accrediting Agency Recognition </li></ul><ul><li>Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>“… institutions of higher education offering distance education programs have a process by which [they] establish that a student registered ... is the same student that participates in, completes, and receives credit for the course. </li></ul><ul><li>“… expect institutions … to have security mechanisms in place, such as ID numbers … required to be used each time the student participates in class time or coursework on-line. As new ID technologies are developed and become more sophisticated, less expensive and more mainstream… consider their use in the future . </li></ul><ul><li>“… do not intend that institutions use or rely on any technology that interferes with the privacy of the student … whichever method the institutions choose to utilize.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>www.rules.house.gov </li></ul>
    24. 35. rubric: General <ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Instructor presence </li></ul><ul><li>Instructor attitude </li></ul><ul><li>Models ethical scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative assessments used </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse, frequent assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Password security </li></ul>
    25. 36. rubric: General <ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Cheating/plagiarism quiz </li></ul><ul><li>Gradebook only online </li></ul><ul><li>Assessments align w/ objectives </li></ul>
    26. 37. rubric: General <ul><li>Level 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Cheating defined </li></ul><ul><li>Plagiarism defined </li></ul><ul><li>Policies clearly stated </li></ul>
    27. 38. rubric: Quizzes & Exams <ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Random questions from pool </li></ul><ul><li>Brief availability window </li></ul><ul><li>Securely proctored </li></ul><ul><li>Essay questions </li></ul><ul><li>Unproctored essays checked </li></ul>
    28. 39. rubric: Quizzes & Exams <ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Questions are Google-able </li></ul><ul><li>Randomized choices </li></ul><ul><li>Same pool each semester </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate duration </li></ul>
    29. 40. rubric: Papers & Projects <ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Generic paper prompts </li></ul><ul><li>Plagiarism detection services </li></ul><ul><li>Process vs Product </li></ul>
    30. 41. rubric: Papers & Projects <ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Prompts randomized </li></ul><ul><li>Prompts rotated </li></ul><ul><li>Rubrics clearly explain criteria </li></ul>
    31. 42. rubric: Self-Check <ul><li>LMS is reliable </li></ul><ul><li>LMS is secure </li></ul><ul><li>Student password security </li></ul><ul><li>Known business rules </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate load </li></ul><ul><li>Plans to deal with cheaters </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation for cheatability </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze student logs/stats </li></ul>

    ×