Cheating and the Online Environment

Cheating is an ongoing concern and a reality in both face-to-face and online settings (Oosterhof, Conrad, & Ely, 2008). If it is more common online there are at least two possible explanations: one, the physical separation inherent in online learning facilitates cheating among those who are so inclined (Rowe, 2004); and two, online instructors may assess students more frequently in attempts to validate student performance (Oosterhof, Conrad, & Ely, 2008), and more frequent assessment means more frequent occasions to cheat.

The nature of cheating has changed from copying answers from a student at the next desk to deliberately “crashing” a timed test to gain more time, hacking into instructor accounts and previewing assessment questions, and even changing grades in online student records (Cizek, 2001). Our society's reliance on test scores has risen dramatically over the last decade – driven at least in part by technologies that enable the administration and scoring of broad-scale assessments quickly and cost-effectively - and with that has come a disturbing trend of educators cheating and enabling or encouraging students to cheat (Cizek, 2001). In this climate, cheating (for some) has become a form of political or social protest: “Generally, there appears to be a growing indifference on the part of educators toward the behavior and even an increasing sense that cheating is a justifiable response to externally-mandated tests” (Cizek, 2001, p. 17).

The steps to be taken to minimize cheating in an online environment depend on the nature of and motivation for the cheating. For the purposes of this discussion, I offer three “global” strategies: creativity, judgments, and software.
 
Creativity in instructional design can reduce the frequency of cheating. For example, it is more difficult to cheat on a group project, performance assessment or essay test than on a multiple-choice quiz (Rowe, 2004). Designers can also “build in” security with frequent opportunities for assessment throughout the course or training. This can be particularly helpful in online learning where instructors don't have the benefits of face-to-face contact for assessing their students.

Humans are hard-wired to make judgments. Online instructors need to consider what they know about individual students (including their demonstrated abilities and the quality of their work) and group assessment norms and trends, and make judgments about whether cheating may have occurred. Also, instructors should consider the amount and type of work they assign. Some students report that they cheat because the workload is too heavy or the assignments are boring or meaningless (Stephans & Wengaard, 2001).

Software exists that can help increase testing security and minimize cheating. Assessment Systems Corporation is one company (I'm sure there are others) that offers test authoring, hosting, and psychometric services.

Should the definition of cheating evolve along with the tools we use to produce work in an online environment? A week ago, I would have answered, “No. Cheating is cheating is cheating and it's wrong.” But Maher (2008) has changed my thinking. “If a student is going to talk with a bunch of other students and network with them to exchange information to produce a paper, isn't that a skill that we want them to take to the workplace? If I can find someone who is working in advertising and who knows how to push a product, and they can collect information from other sources and borrow and steal and put it together and reshape it, isn't that a skill that I want them to have?” (Maher, 2008).

So perhaps the definition of cheating should evolve to fit with current notions of “work” and “learning”. But where, then, is the line between “collaboration” and “copying”? Maher has this to say: “... say that you're going to do something else that you can look at other people's projects, but the way I assess what you're doing is going to take into account that you're going to look at what other people are doing. Your work still has to be original, but to get inspiration from other people and to craft your work in response to theirs or alongside theirs is not something that's necessarily a problem.”I love that idea on its own, and I love it even more when I overlay Cizek (2001): “From the broadest perspective, it may be useful to entirely reconceptualize testing so that successful test performance can be more consistently and directly linked to student effort and effective instruction, and so that unsuccessful performance is accompanied by sufficient diagnostic information about students’ strengths and weaknesses” (p. 10).

Sally

References

Cizek, G. J. (2001). An Overview of Issues Concerning Cheating on Large-Scale Tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April 2001, Seattle, WA.

Maher, S. (2008). Interviews. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/interviews/maher.html#5

Oosterhof, A., Conrad, R.-M., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Assessing learners online. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rowe, N. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer72/rowe72.html

Stephans, J. M., & Wangaard, D. B. (2001). Teaching for integrity: Steps to prevent cheating in your classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsed.org/programs/integrity-works/pdf/teachingforintegrity.pdf.

Fostering Behavior Change

In Fostering Behavior Change (Tulgan, 2013), Bruce Tulgan offers seven best practices for creating training that increases knowledge uptake and meaningful behavior change. Two-thirds of my way through a Master’s degree in Instructional Design and Technology, I first thought Tulgan’s tips were obvious. Simplistic. After thinking about it quite a bit, I’m sure they are. Why would Tulgan, an established training expert, tell us what we already know? Because it’s true. Because he’s right.  

There is no magic to training, and all the cool whiz-bang technology in the world doesn’t change the fact that effective training is a product of sound design and delivery. Tulgan’s tips should seem obvious, because he is reminding instructional designers and trainers of what we already know, yet sometimes fail to execute. We need to leverage needs assessments to align instructional objectives with identifiable skill and knowledge gaps, link instructional content to real-life, and deliver content to multiple memory centers. Sticky training offers actionable solutions and learning extensions. Finally, we need to follow up and cultivate support for ongoing learning.

We know this. We need to do it. Every time.

Make a great day,

Sally Bacchetta

Reference
 

Tulgan, B. (2013, January/February). Fostering behavior change. Training, 50(1), p. 9.

The Future of Distance Learning

I was recently asked to share my thoughts on the future of distance learning, and I’m struggling to be original about the topic. It seems self-evident that the future of distance learning is expansive and inclusive and ever-so-much-more-so. Distance learning has burgeoned far beyond the realm of training for medical transcription and is ubiquitous in corporate settings, higher education, and K-12 education. But the real driver is not just that more people are learning at a distance; it’s that more people are recognizing distance education as a viable alternative to traditional F2F learning. The quality of distance learning coupled with the broad availability of emerging technologies have transformed distance learning from a fall-back, Plan B position to a deliberate first choice.

The growing acceptance of distance learning is fueled by a global increase in online communication. As more of us spend more time together online, engaging with more diverse groups than we ever would in person, the complications of distance matter less, and the benefits matter more, to individuals, corporations, and educational institutions (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).

If there is a popularity ceiling for distance learning, it may be framed and fortified by distance education institutes themselves. A study by Gambescia and Paolucci (2009) found that few institutions effectively leverage their academic integrity in their promotions, relying instead on convenience and flexibility to appeal to potential students. The study didn’t reveal reasons for this, but I’ll speculate on two reasons:

1. Convenience and flexibility are big draws for distance learning. It’s slam dunk marketing.
2. It’s easier to leverage innate characteristics of distance learning than it is to ensure the academic integrity of distance education.

As Gambescia and Paolucci note, “to ensure a high-level of academic fidelity and integrity for online degree programs is not simply a matter of the university transferring current academic assets to the new online degree programs—throwing it over the fence, so to speak. Transferring such academic assets to online degree programs will understandably call for changes, as the inputs and outputs of online degree program offerings by design can be quite different” (Gambescia & Paolucci, 2009).

Assuming the momentum gathering around distance learning is indeed forward momentum, distance learning institutions themselves have work to do. Enrollment – ballooning. Acceptance – growing. Perceived quality – ?

More is expected of those to whom more has been given; so it is in distance learning as in other aspects of life. Those of us who are distance learners or work in distance learning are uniquely positioned to cultivate positive impressions of distance learning. We do this best by doing well in our endeavors and demonstrating the high standards of distance education today.

Sally Bacchetta

References

Gambescia, S., & Paolucci, R. (2009). Academic fidelity and integrity as attributes of university online degree program offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/gambescia121.html

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010). The future of distance education [DVD]. Baltimore, MD: Author

Schmidt, E., & Gallegos, A. (2001). Distance learning: Issues and concerns of distance learners. Journal of Industrial Technology, 17(3). Retrieved from http://atmae.org/jit/Articles/schmidt041801.pdf

Review of EDU2.0 CMS

It took me less than five minutes to fall completely in love with EDU2.0 (http://www.edu20.com). EDU2.0 offers many of the same features and Web 2.0 technologies as Canvas (e.g., mobility, open source, multimedia, Curricula and Proficiencies, Coverage and Tracking), but the way EDU2.0 integrates its functions seems a better fit for the way I envision using a CMS in my work. Most of my ID work is in the corporate setting, and EDU2.0 makes a point of being business-friendly. Users can customize logos and color schemes, enjoy unlimited Cloud-based hosting, and even choose their own URL.

EDU2.0 navigation is modeled after Facebook, which most users are likely familiar with. I absolutely love that the EDU2.0 user interface is “highly configurable, and it’s easy to disable almost any feature” (http://www.edu20.com/info/features). This is particularly appealing to me because I design both ILT (instructor-led training) and self-paced course, and EDU2.0 flexes easily from one to the other.

Collaboration is essential for developing social presence and reducing transactional distance. EDU2.0 offers a wide range of built-in collaboration tools including groups, forums, blogs, chat rooms, wikis, and video conferencing via Skype (http://www.edu20.com/info/features).

AND, EDU2.0 tops it all off with a free 30 day trial! Ain’t love grand?

Sally Bacchetta

Review of Canvas CMS

The fields of instructional design and distance learning are in turbo-growth mode, with new technology (and improvements to "old" technology) barreling out from every direction. I've just recently begun exploring CMS (Content Management Systems), also called LMS (Learning Management Systems), and I've decided to share my very informal reviews here. First up, Canvas (http://www.instructure.com).

I liked Canvas right away. The site is attractive, and the intuitive navigation enabled me to feel comfortable and competent almost immediately. Canvas cleanly blends Web 2.0 tools and other technologies into features that distance learners want and need, like:

• Mobility – “Users can receive Canvas notifications via Facebook, SMS text messaging, email and other communication channels” (http://www.instructure.com).
• Outcomes to Objective – “With Canvas, you can connect each learning action to a specific goal—which means results are demonstrated in clearly measurable ways” (http://www.instructure.com).
• Managed Hosting – “Canvas eliminates the time and expense of setting up, configuring and maintaining your own servers” (http://www.instructure.com)
• Analytics – Built-in tools help designers and instructors evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction and specific content, which I could use to demonstrate ROI and justify my design decisions to clients, and more importantly, make changes as necessary to achieve desired outcomes.
• Open Source – Software can be tweaked and freely shared with others.

One of the most attractive features to me is Integrated Multimedia, which makes it easy to “Insert audio, video, text, images and more at every learning contact point” (http://www.instructure.com). I should say it seems easy. I can’t really tell without signing up for an account, which brings me to the major limitation I find. Canvas only offers a free two-week trial, which is not long enough for me to complete either a client project or my own exploration, which is a shame. I would be more likely to segue from a free trial to a paid membership if I were given more time to explore the system.

Sally Bacchetta

What's in Your Web?

Some colleagues and I have been comparing notes on various Web 2.0 tools and making predictions for the future of Web technology. I expected to find more agreement within a group that is professionally homogenous - we are all practicing (or studying-to-be-practicing) instructional designers - but we championed  Dropbox, Glogster, Prezi, Second Life, blogging, holographs and other technology in turn, with almost no overlap. 

It occurred to me that each of us continually self-selects the scope, specificity and mobility of our cyber-experience, which leads me to ask, "What's in your Web?" 

Sally Bacchetta








 

Universal Design Learning

While researching for a project I recently came across the website for The Center for Applied Special Technology, or CAST. I was instantly hooked by what I read there, particularly this: “Universal Design Learning (UDL) is a set of principles for curriculum development that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn. UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone – not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs."

The  CAST UDL Book Builder is a "free online tool (that) enables educators to develop their own digital books to support reading instruction for children aged 3 and up. Teachers create, edit, and save resource-rich texts."

When I clicked through to the Book Builder I found a collection of multimedia resources that enable designers and instructors to embed music, audio recordings of explanations or discussions, hyperlinks, and more into the lesson books they create.

One of my favorite resources here is the student response area, which encourages active learning and meaningful interaction with educational and instructional texts. 

For me, the “wow” factor is that the site and its resources facilitate multimedia instruction for all learners, including those who do not or cannot interact with visual media.

Sally Bacchetta

  

Should Learners Design Their Own Assessments?

Assessment is an oft maligned, misunderstood, and under-appreciated component of instruction, which makes it a perfect vehicle for evangelizing the value of instructional design. Think about it. If we can get instructors and students excited about assessment… if we can change perceptions of assessment from “a dreaded endpoint” and “a necessary evil,” (actual learner quotes), or “the worst part of instructional design,” (actual ID quote), we can do… a lot of other cool stuff!

But, how? That’s the question kicking around one of my instructional design circles, followed closely by the suggestion to include learners in the assessment development process. What do you think? Should learners help determine what their assessment will look like, what it will measure, and what the measurement will ultimately mean?

As a corporate writer/instructional designer, I am a strong proponent of collaborative development and of performance-based assessment. Here are three reasons why I encourage learner participation in the assessment development process.

1. Much of my professional work is designing training programs for pharmaceutical sales representatives. Theirs is a performance-based occupation, and professional assessments have to reflect and support that. Musial & Nieminen (2008) describe assessment as “the art of placing learners in a context that brings out or clarifies what a learner knows and can do, as well as what a learner may not know or cannot do.” I believe that a learner knows, better than anyone else, the reality of their performance context. While a manager or supervisor may establish minimum standards of performance, only the representatives themselves really know how the context of their jobs change from day to day.

2. I gravitate toward performance assessment as described by Fuchs: “Three key features of performance assessment are: (1) students construct, rather than select, responses; (2) assessment formats allow teachers to observe student behavior on tasks reflecting real-world requirements; and (3) scoring reveals patterns in students’ learning and thinking,” (Fuchs, 1995), which again, makes self-evident the need to include learners in the development of their assessments.

3. Taylor and Lamoreaux “point out that for the brain to make meaningful connections, learning needs to be tied to physical, embodied experience: ‘The brain’s physical responses to the sensory data are recorded—literally, embodied— as experience, hence accessible to reconstruction as memory; without such physical responses, there is no basis for constructing meaning’,” (cited in Merriam, 2008). If it is the student’s learning that is to be assessed, then it is the student’s experience that is to be reconstructed, and who is better qualified than the student to participate in this process?

With all that being said, I recognize there are times when assessment should be designed without learner input. For example, when the task is to memorize a set of fixed definitions (e.g., anatomy, grammar, or accounting) or when the student is incapable of participating in the development process (e.g., a young child or someone with intellectual limitations).

At the end of the day, it is incumbent on the instructional designer to make the best choices regarding assessment, considering the interrelationship of the instructional objectives and characteristics of the learner, the environment, and the instructor.

Sally Bacchetta

References

Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Connecting performance assessment to instruction: A comparison of behavioral assessment, mastery learning, curriculum-based measurement, and performance assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-1/based.htm  (ERIC Digest No. E530).

Merriam, Sharan, B. (2008) Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 119 (pp. 93-98). 

Musial, D., Thomas, J., & Nieminen, G. (2008). Foundations of meaningful educational assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 1, "The Nature of Assessment" (pp. 3–22).