Cheating in online education: a chink in our armour?

Cheating: a chink in our armour?

Check out this site called ‘We Take Your Class’: http://www.wetakeyourclass.com. The description of this site reads:

When you are in a serious time crunch, or working full time the last thing you want to do when you get home is deal with your online class work for a class you have no interest in. We get that.  We are based in the United States and we can relate to what you are going through.   You will not find better customer service and guaranteed grades or your money back with any other company.   We know all of the online learning platforms in and out. Your class will be on cruise control the moment you sign up with us and if you have any questions or concerns we can be reached anytime.  We specialise in math, business or science classes, but we also offer assistance in a wide variety of other subjects.

Similar sites exist, including, http://www.boostmygrade.com, https://www.noneedtostudy.com/myclass/take-online/, http://acemyassignment.com and http://onlineclasstutors.com/take-my-class-for-me/. This list is by no means exhaustive. The growth of the online education market have spun off another, more surreptitious market – one that goes beyond the paper-writing services long available to less than honest students in the offline world. These sites all offer to take a student’s entire online class for them, handling assignments, quizzes, and tests, for a fee. They are all legal (or appear so) and most promise at least a B in the course. Some are scams (see, for example, http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/wetakeyourclasscom-wetakeyourclass-paul-wakefield/internet/wetakeyourclasscom-wetakeyourclass-paul-wakefield-wetakeyourclasscomwetakeyourclass-S-916110), but many are not, and with prices ranging from a mere $95 (for an essay) to 1000$ (for a full introductory microeconomics class), the not-so-honest student might find someone who can take a course for him/her, or complete an assignment. Moreover, cheating is nearly impossible to prevent when teaching an online course if a student is committed to cheating. So despite our genuine efforts to control cheating, we do have a problem, and we must find ways to solve it, or at least curtail it.

How can cheating be stopped? Here are my arguments which find support in the extant literature about cheating and online education. First, as I argued elsewhere in this course, plagiarism is not unique to the online world (as Watson and Sottile, 2010 and ION's Strategies to Minimize Cheating Online webpage also note). It also exists in the face-to-face dimension, and indeed, this dimension has resorted to online tools to eliminate part of this problem (through plagiarism-detection software, such as Turnitin). Second, we must move away from prevention of cheating, which no technology or strategy will ever be able to accomplish, face-to-face or online, and toward deterrence and vigilance’. In the same vein, Jocoy and DiBiase, (2015), argue for constant ‘systematic detection and vigilant enforcement’ in online learning. Third, I argue for a move away from the traditional assessment paradigm, in which, assessment is often synonymous with summative grading and the measurement of acquired knowledge. It is easier to cheat a quiz, or a final essay, than to take an active part in a synchronous online discussion through Blackboard Collaborate! Therefore, we should not just dump in information at students so someone can come in and take a couple of quizzes and they’re done. Fourth, do not distinguish between assessment and learning. Do not create separate assessment tasks. Create learning experiences through authentic assessment efforts (see Foothill College's Prevent Cheating webpage) involving collaborative work, camaraderie between participants, scaffolding, building and constantly developing one’s online persona (for example, I can now easily recognize Thomas’s work, even if he decides not to sign it) and, democratic communication between all learning members. Stöckelová and Virtová's (2015) case study confirms that this type of pedagogy ‘can foster collaboration and a sense of mutuality among students, trigger institutional reflexivity and generate a platform for the collective production of knowledge lacking in curricula, it can also perpetuate institutional deficiencies by compensating for them, often in undesirable ways such as cheating and plagiarism’.

Tilsley (2012) makes a similar argument. She notes that a ‘verification plan’ must involve pedagogy, not technology, and this fear of cheating should not lead to the ‘over-regulation’ of the online learning dimension as it might scare away the adult population that needs it most – people with family and job responsibilities who cannot follow campus-based higher education. She also notes that when a course requires constant interaction, collaborative work and many assignments, it will increase the expenses to the cheating student, making the service financially prohibitive. Technically, it will also present a problem to the cheaters since the IP address can easily unmask the cheating service (which is often maintained by one individual who has only one IP address). So, designing a course that precludes cheating might require thinking creatively and breaking away from simply uploading lecture videos and administering quizzes.

Finally, I must stress that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Online education is a good thing, despite the cheating fears. I did a Postgraduate Certificate Course in Research Training, a Master’s Degree in e-Learning with the University of Hull (UK), a couple of MOOCs, and this MVCR course with the University of Illinois, completely online. I also completed the greater part of my PhD through online communication with my supervisors in the University of Hull (with only occasional visits to the host University UK for supervisory meetings and the final viva). I did all this while maintaining my full-time job. I am also currently involved in work at National and European level to create a working accreditation system (which must address the cheating issue) for higher education experience gained through open learning sources (including MOOCs) which are increasingly gaining value at the international labour market and educational arena.

References

Jocoy, C. L., & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in detection and remediation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Stöckelová, T. and Virtová, T. (2015), A tool for learning or a tool for cheating? The many-sided effects of a participatory student website in mass higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. 46: 597–607.

Tilsely, A. (2012), Paying for an A. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/21/sites-offering-take-courses-fee-pose-risk-online-ed [accessed on 16 July 2015].

Watson, G. and Sottile, J. (2010), Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Volume XIII, Number I, Spring 2010. University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html [accessed 16 July 2015]

Gamifying Education

A very interesting open access paper Christo Dichev and Darina Dicheva (2017) about Gamifying education.

Go to the paper here.

Abstract

Gamification of education is a developing approach for increasing learners’ motivation and engagement by incorporating game design elements in educational environments. With the growing popularity of gamification and yet mixed success of its application in educational contexts, the current review is aiming to shed a more realistic light on the research in this field by focusing on empirical evidence rather than on potentialities, beliefs or preferences. Accordingly, it critically examines the advancement in gamifying education. The discussion is structured around the used gamification mechanisms, the gamified subjects, the type of gamified learning activities, and the study goals, with an emphasis on the reliability and validity of the reported outcomes. To improve our understanding and offer a more realistic picture of the progress of gamification in education, consistent with the presented evidence, we examine both the outcomes reported in the papers and how they have been obtained. While the gamification in education is still a growing phenomenon, the review reveals that (i) insufficient evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational contexts; (ii) the practice of gamifying learning has outpaced researchers’ understanding of its mechanisms and methods; (iii) the knowledge of how to gamify an activity in accordance with the specifics of the educational context is still limited. The review highlights the need for systematically designed studies and rigorously tested approaches confirming the educational benefits of gamification, if gamified learning is to become a recognized instructional approach.

PISA - Malta has, once again, not done well in science

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i_9789264266490-en

Foundations of Online Teaching and Learning PLAS1047

Foundations of Online Teaching and Learning will be available again in February 2016. This full online course is designed for all those interested in online learning and/or teaching. Applications are open until 16 January.

If you require more details please do not hesitate to contact me on joseph.vancell@um.edu.mt.

Foundations of Online Teaching and Learning

This new course will start in October 2015.  The course is designed for all those interested in online learning and/or teaching. Applications are open.

If you require more details please do not hesitate to contact me on joseph.vancell@um.edu.mt.

Cheating in online education: a chink in our armour?

Check out this site called ‘We Take Your Class’: http://www.wetakeyourclass.com. The description of this site reads:

When you are in a serious time crunch, or working full time the last thing you want to do when you get home is deal with your online class work for a class you have no interest in. We get that.  We are based in the United States and we can relate to what you are going through.   You will not find better customer service and guaranteed grades or your money back with any other company.   We know all of the online learning platforms in and out. Your class will be on cruise control the moment you sign up with us and if you have any questions or concerns we can be reached anytime.  We specialise in math, business or science classes, but we also offer assistance in a wide variety of other subjects.

Similar sites exist, including, 

• http://www.boostmygrade.com, 
• https://www.noneedtostudy.com/myclass/take-online/, 
• http://acemyassignment.com and
• http://onlineclasstutors.com/take-my-class-for-me/. 

This list is by no means exhaustive. The growth of the online education market have spun off another, more surreptitious market – one that goes beyond the paper-writing services long available to less than honest students in the offline world. These sites all offer to take a student’s entire online class for them, handling assignments, quizzes, and tests, for a fee. They are all legal (or appear so) and most promise at least a B in the course. Some are scams (see, for example, http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/wetakeyourclasscom-wetakeyourclass-paul-wakefield/internet/wetakeyourclasscom-wetakeyourclass-paul-wakefield-wetakeyourclasscomwetakeyourclass-S-916110), but many are not, and with prices ranging from a mere $95 (for an essay) to 1000$ (for a full introductory microeconomics class), the not-so-honest student might find someone who can take a course for him/her, or complete an assignment. Moreover, cheating is nearly impossible to prevent when teaching an online course if a student is committed to cheating. So despite our genuine efforts to control cheating, we do have a problem, and we must find ways to solve it, or at least curtail it.

How can we stop cheating? Here are my arguments, which find support in the extant literature about cheating and online learning: 

1. Plagiarism is not unique to the online world (as Watson and Sottile, 2010 and ION's Strategies to Minimize Cheating Online webpage also note; see also infograph below).It also exists in the face-to-face dimension, and indeed, this dimension has resorted to online tools to eliminate part of this problem (through plagiarism-detection software, such as Turnitin). A recent study reports that cheating is only slightly higher than live classes, with 32.7% of online students admitting to cheating and 32.1% of students in live classes admitting the same. 
2. We must move away from prevention of cheating, which no technology or strategy will ever be able to accomplish, face-to-face or online, and toward deterrence and vigilance. In the same vein, Jocoy and DiBiase, (2015), argue for constant ‘systematic detection and vigilant enforcement’ in online learning. 
3. I argue for a move away from the traditional assessment paradigm, in which, assessment is often synonymous with summative grading and the measurement of acquired knowledge. It is easier to cheat a quiz, or a final essay, than to take an active part in a synchronous online discussion through Blackboard Collaborate! Therefore, we should not just dump in information at students so someone can come in and take a couple of quizzes and they’re done. 
4. Do not distinguish between assessment and learning. Do not create separate assessment tasks. Create learning experiences through authentic assessment efforts (see Foothill College's Prevent Cheating webpage) involving collaborative work, camaraderie between participants, scaffolding, building and constantly developing one’s online persona and, democratic communication between all learning members. Stöckelová and Virtová's (2015) case study confirms that this type of pedagogy ‘can foster collaboration and a sense of mutuality among students, trigger institutional reflexivity and generate a platform for the collective production of knowledge lacking in curricula, it can also perpetuate institutional deficiencies by compensating for them, often in undesirable ways such as cheating and plagiarism’.

Tilsley (2012) makes a similar argument. She notes that a ‘verification plan’ must involve pedagogy, not technology, and this fear of cheating should not lead to the ‘over-regulation’ of the online learning dimension as it might scare away the adult population that needs it most – people with family and job responsibilities who cannot follow campus-based higher education. She also notes that when a course requires constant interaction, collaborative work and many assignments, it will increase the expenses to the cheating student, making the service financially prohibitive. Technically, it will also present a problem to the cheaters since the IP address can easily unmask the cheating service (which is often maintained by one individual who has only one IP address). So, designing a course that precludes cheating might require thinking creatively and breaking away from simply uploading lecture videos and administering quizzes.

Finally, I must stress that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Online education is a good thing, despite the cheating fears. I did a Postgraduate Certificate Course in Research Training, a Master’s Degree in e-Learning with the University of Hull (UK), some MOOCs, and the Master Online Teaching program with the University of Illinois (USA), completely online. I also completed the greater part of my PhD through online communication with my supervisors in the University of Hull (with only occasional visits to the host University UK for supervisory meetings and the final viva). I did all this while maintaining my full-time job. I am also currently involved in work at National and European level to create a working accreditation system (which must address the cheating issue) for higher education experience gained through open learning sources (including MOOCs) which are increasingly gaining value at the international labour market and educational arena.

References

Jocoy, C. L., & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in detection and remediation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Stöckelová, T. and Virtová, T. (2015), A tool for learning or a tool for cheating? The many-sided effects of a participatory student website in mass higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. 46: 597–607.

Tilsely, A. (2012), Paying for an A. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/21/sites-offering-take-courses-fee-pose-risk-online-ed [accessed on 16 July 2015].

Watson, G. and Sottile, J. (2010), Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Volume XIII, Number I, Spring 2010. University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html [accessed 16 July 2015]

Student-generated content

Learners' roles

There is agreement in the literature that students, in the 21^st century, need a shift in mindset, and must change their roles from passive to active learners. They should no longer ‘act’ as empty receptacles ready to be filled with knowledge. They should be, through dialogic and collective learning efforts, the be ‘creators rather than consumers of knowledge’ (Papert, 1993: 13). In this new educational scenario, the learning content must therefore not be solely identified and, then, delivered by the teacher. The students must be engaged in the creation of content, through, or aided by technology.

Theoretical underpinning

This is the thrust of the argument of the contemporary advocates of the three most relevant learning theories – constructivism (in its various faces and forms, i.e. social, radical and critical), constructionism (Papert, 1993) and connectivism (Siemens, 2004; Downes, 2007). The constructivists, banking on the ideas of Jean Piaget, view learners as actively engaged in making meaning. The constructivist educator looks for what students can analyse, investigate, collaborate, share, build and generate based on what they already know, rather than what facts, skills, and processes they can parrot. To do this effectively, Freire (1971) argues, a teacher needs to be also a learner and a researcher, to strive for greater awareness of the environments and the participants in a given teaching situation in order to continually adjust their actions to engage students in learning, using constructivism as a referent.

Constructionism asserts that constructivism occurs especially well when the learner is engaged in the construction of a physical, intellectual or virtual artifact/s:

Constructionism shares constructivism’s connotation of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sandcastle on the beach or a theory of the universe. (Papert, 1991)

Papert (1993) also strongly argues that

Children are the builders of their own cognitive tools, as well as of their external realities. In other words, knowledge and the world are both construed and interpreted through action, and mediated through symbol use. Each gains existence and form through the construction of the other.

Thus, in constructionism the focus is on learning through making. This process, if done within a group, can create a ‘community of inquiry’, which, through dialogue, can engage all learners reflexively and socially, thereby enhancing the educational process. 

Finally, in connectivism, learning is defined as

the process that occurs within the nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialised information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important that our current state of knowing. (Siemens, 2004)

In a nutshell, and pertinent to the discussion question, this theory suggests pivotal roles for dialogue and collaboration between students in ‘maintaining connections and developing knowledge through them’ (Ravenscroft, 2011: 140). Downes’ (2007: 1), another advocate for connectivism, argues that learning which must therefore be based ‘on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activity’.

Potential student roles

In this theoretical scenario, dialogue, collaboration, experiential learning and the creation of new knowledge through artifacts, are more important pedagogic strategies than the delivery of knowledge. The creation and incorporation of student-generated content is a pedagogical necessity. This creation and integration of content into a course is also important because many students are today (i) already immersed in a digital culture, and (ii) already have some experience, albeit very limited, of content production (Lippincott, 2007).

As Dougiamas (1998), the guy who started Moodle, notes, involving students in the creation of websites, computer software, robots, and ‘public entities’ (Papert, 1993) that other people can see and evaluate, is, therefore, an important pedagogic process. ‘Public entities’, in contemporary discourse include websites, blogs, wikis, pages on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest (and similar), presentations on PowerPoint, SlideBean and Prezi, podcasts and videos. The latter, Vest (2009) [from this module’s readings] argues, are so important in contemporary society, that ‘YouTube accounts to 25% of all Google searches’.

A Google search with the parameters ‘students creating content’ produced a very long list of interesting sites, blogs and wikis (curated by theorists, practitioners and students), podcasts, videos and scientifically rigorous papers.  There were 378million results!

In one of these sites, LaMartina (2012) describes a digital marketing class at Meredith University and notes that:

the MBA students don’t simply learn the best practices for online salesmanship – they actually use them on real-world brands and businesses. They lead blog discussions, critique each other’s responses, and create full-fledged marketing plans for themselves or the companies they work for. Though the course begins with six instructor-led meetings, the students co-create the vast majority of their own materials.

LaMartina (2012) also notes that cloud-based learning has made it far easier for students to not only create their own educational materials (including videos, podcasts, blogs and wikis), but to quickly and effectively share them with peers.  He argues also that one of the greatest advantages of student-created content is that it allows learners ‘to engage dry subjects in creative ways’.  

Warning: Possible challenges

Despite the pedagogical strengths of engaging students in creating content some important considerations need to be made.  These include

1. Creating digital, audio or video artifacts, students need a wide range of skills, including multimedia literacies.  If the students do not have these skills, producing content, such as podcasts or videos, may involve a steep learning curve.
2. Software and hardware should be chosen wisely.
3. Student content-production tasks should be directly linked to the learning objectives of the course.

Therefore, educators must provide effective guidance, motivation and support throughout the whole process.

Concluding comment

McLoughlin and Lee (2008) argue that ‘the key benefit of learner-generated content lies in the processes of creating, knowledge construction, and sharing as opposed to the end product itself’.

References

Dougiamas, M. (1998) ‘A Journey into Constructivism’, available at http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html, accessed on 24 February 2015.

Downes, S. (2007) 'An Introduction to Connective Knowledge', Media, Knowledge & Education - Exploring new Spaces, Relations and Dynamics in Digital Media Ecologies, Proceedings of the International Conference held on June 25 - 26, Innsbruck, available from  http://www.downes.ca/post/33034, accessed on 24 February 2015.

LaMartina, D. (2012) ‘5 Tips for Adding Student-Generated Content to Your Curriculum’, in edcetra, available at http://edcetera.rafter.com/5-tips-for-adding-student-generated-content-to-your-curriculum/, accessed on 24 February 2015.

Lippincott, J. K. (2007) ‘Student Content Creators: Convergence of Literacies’ in EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 6 (November/December 2007), pp. 16–17, available at https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM07610.pdf, accessed on 24 February 2015.

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2008) Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software. Innovate 4(5). http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=539, accessed on 24 February 2015.

Papert, S. (1991) ‘Preface’, in Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.) Constructionism, Norwood, N. J., Ablex, pp. 1.

Papert, S. (1993) The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer, NY, BasicBooks.

Ravenscroft, A. (2011) 'Dialogue and Connectivism: A New Approach to Understanding and Promoting Dialogue-Rich Networked Learning', in International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 139-160.

Siemens, G. (2004) 'Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age', available from  http://www.elearnspace.org/Articiles/connectivism.htm, accessed on 24 February 2015.

Siemens, G. (2008) 'Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers', in ITFORUM for Discussion, available from  http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf, accessed on 24 February 2015.

Vest, J. (2009) ‘Six Steps to Creating High Quality Video Training’, Learning Solutions Magazine, available at http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/185/six-steps-to-creating-high-quality-video-training, accessed on 24 February 2015.