[ifets] Distance credits and cheating

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

j.love@napier.ac.uk
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:41:26 +0000


From: j.love@napier.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:41:26 +0000
Subject: [ifets] Distance credits and cheating

     Distance credits and cheating
     
     I am happy to see some discussion initiated from Alan's letter
     regarding the worry of distance cheating. I sent Alan a reply but
     after reading some of the posting I thought I'd share my thoughts here
     too.
     
     I like the "Claremont Model" and I will suggest it to our Department
     when we get around to discussing distance credit and the problem of
     cheating. Indeed, it is a problem that all distance learning
     institutions must address. Someone (I forget who) posted a rather
     negative response to the Claremont method and made some good
     alternative suggestions, but I don't believe those suggestions solve
     the problem(s).
     
     The Problem
     
     Distance testing makes it easier to cheat! It takes guts to look
     someone in the eye when you turn in someone else's report and say it
     is your own work. Imagine how easy it is to type your "dishonesty" to
     someone you never met. The "depersonalisation" of distance learning
     makes the "crime" easier to commit.(Both emotionally and technically.)
     
     If schools do not have methods to verify that the student earned the
     grade then the value of that institution's degree will be diminished.
     It was suggested that one can get credit on-line via UCLA without all
     the fuss of verification. I don't know about UCLA but they would be
     very foolish to allow that to happen. Indeed, if UCLA gives credit (or
     degrees) without verification of who has earned them, UCLA is going to
     get in a lot of trouble (eventually) from the organisations who
     provide their accreditation. All it takes is someone to abuse that
     trust and the UCLA model will fall apart. (My immediate reaction to
     reading about UCLA's on-line credit is that I will now question any
     UCLA graduate as to exactly how the credit was earned and discount
     their "quality" if the testing was by "trust". Fair? Maybe not, but I
     don't want to hire someone whose only academic achievement may have
     been to pull the wool over UCLA's eyes! And neither will any other
     employer.)
     
     
     Honesty is a great policy but trust is a silly policy. At least with
     regard to accreditation.
     
     Examples I Know That "Work"
     
     Heriot-Watt's MBA program (where I earned my MBA by distance learning)
     forces the student to get his/her entire grade through a single
     "sitted exam" for each of 9 courses. It costs to set up the exam, but
     they do it to keep it "honest". However, a single exam for each
     course/grade sure puts a lot of pressure on the student! (Phew!)
     
     The Open University (where I am now a student) uses "we trust you
     methods" (home tests and projects) plus a single "sitted exam". That
     takes the pressure off the students (a bit) but it also means that the
     way the grades are sliced between "sitted" and "nonsitted" scores
     makes for an interesting mix. Going into my sitted exam I had enough
     points accumulated from my "home assessments" that I needed only 30%
     to pass! Naturally that would have sent off alarm bells at the Open
     University ("Why did he get a 30% on the final exam but was pulling
     80's and 90's from the home assessments? Hmm.") Whether the University
     would have had the courage to really question such a disparity is
     arguable.
     The Open University "homework" is very specific to the course and
     takes a great deal of time to complete. (I put about 8 hours into each
     of my 4 home tests for a single course.) I would have had to hire a
     "ringer" (in this case a computer science graduate) to do the work for
     me and it would have cost me a fortune! Great disincemtive unless you
     have lots of money.
     
     
     Solution and Conclusion
     
     Ultimately, I think distance learning programs (delivered by the
     internet, or snailmail, etc.) will have to arrange that their
     student's go to a testing center (school) and sit the exam(s) in
     person. The value of home assessments should be structured such that
     failure on the "sitted exam" would outweigh the scores accumulated
     from "home assignments".
     Perhaps, each distance program will arrange to have an official
     testing company do the work for them using tests that the school
     provides. Each year there are "distance" tests given in every major
     city. (MCATs, SAT, GREs, just to name the obvious American ones. I
     think they are run by ETS.) Arrangements could be made but it will
     cost. Indeed, I see verified testing procedures as the most costly
     part of developing a distance learning program because these costs do
     not fall (much) as enrollment increases (Unlike the development costs
     of producing the distance learning materials.)
     
     The worry is that if we (distance teachers) allow cheating to occur,
     it will. Not excessively but enough to hurt distance learning (in
     general). It wouldn't be hard for an "investigative reporter" ("60
     Minutes" investigating UCLA or "Cook Report" investigating the Open U)
     to stir up a lot of trouble by posing as a student and fraudulently
     receiving credit (perhaps even a certificate or degree). What a great
     news story!
     
     Alan, good luck in your research into this. (You've opened a can of
     worms!) I look forward to reading your report.
     
     Sincerely,
     
     Jamie
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Email address for sending message to everyone on the list ifets@gmd.de
Forum's contact person ifets-info@gmd.de
Join/Leave Digest or Normal List http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 05 Nov 1998 - 15:25:18 MET