Return to Classrooms Has "Eliminated Academic Integrity Concerns" and Other Funny Lines
Plus, Ed Scoop on exam proctoring. Plus, a new episode of "The Score" podcast.
Issue 76
To subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet:”
To share “The Cheat Sheet:”
To listen to “The Cheat Sheet:”
Amusing Bites from University of Pennsylvania
The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student paper at the University of Pennsylvania, ran a story a bit ago on changes - or lack of changes - to the school’s exam formats.
On balance, the story is fine.
But to an observer of academic integrity, parts of it are downright amusing. Here are a few - snark included at no extra charge.
The story opens that:
both professors and students are still struggling with the added stress of adapting to in-person exams after three virtual semesters.
Didn’t we just have a year and half of dealing with and accounting for the stress of adapting to online classes and exams? Now it’s “added stress” to shift back to the supposedly less stressful formats?
To be fair, this isn’t new. We’ve heard other students voice complaints about having to go back to class and take tests in person. (see Issue 66). This particular story says:
Some students are finding it especially hard to adjust to in-person exams after taking virtual exams for many months, which often had an "open note" policy.
So, you’re saying it’s more difficult to take an exam when you actually have to know stuff, without Google and Chegg? That must be very stressful.
The below is one paragraph but I’m splitting it in two because it’s funnier that way. Section one:
Professors told The Daily Pennsylvanian that online learning influenced the way they administer midterm exams, and that the return to in-person education has eliminated academic integrity concerns.
Yes, cheating is easier and more common in online formats but saying a return to in-person learning has “eliminated academic integrity concerns” has to be in the running for “The Cheat Sheet” line of the year.
Lest you think that’s a one-off, the story quotes a professor who:
noted that academic integrity was a significant concern last year in some of his classes, said in-person learning has entirely eliminated the issue.
“I've had zero issues this year,” [the professor] said. “Everyone's straight and narrow.”
Sure.
Section two:
Students, meanwhile, said that balancing an in-person social life and extracurricular activities with midterms has caused anxiety.
I’m not completely certain, but I think that the anxiety associated with balancing midterms and a social life is commonly referred to as going to college.
Further on, the paper quotes two teachers at U Penn who say they used to give closed note, ‘blue-book’ exams but had to switch to remote exams during the pandemic and will keep giving remote, online tests even though students are returning to the classroom. One of the instructors said:
the online, open-book exams have led to slightly higher midterm grades and have reduced students' anxiety levels and tendency to cram right before tests.
You say students get better grades, have less stress and do less cramming when you give a test online? I feel like you are — just this close — to getting it.
I could go on.
About how one professor said an online question bank “helps prevent cheating.” Or how several Penn professors said that in order to reduce stress and prevent cheating, they shifted to more frequent, lower value assessments. Neither of those assertions has much merit.
If you know what you’re reading, it’s a seriously funny bit. Check it out.
Ed Scoop on Remote Exam Proctoring
Back in late October, Ed Scoop ran an article on remote exam proctoring. I’d been intent to get to it for some time.
The report is based on a panel the outlet held and, from the jump, the headline is troubling, citing “exam proctoring’s ethical issues” - a presumption repeated in the first paragraph:
Online video proctoring software raises ethical concerns that instructors can avoid by closely examining how they design online assessments
It’s not entirely clear but I guess the “ethical issues” are that:
thousands of students using the software highlighted some problems like potential bias or threats to student privacy.
Honestly, it’s never been clear to me how students are in any position to assess the inner workings of remote exam proctoring. But because, out of the millions of students who used remote proctors this past year, some “thousands” highlighted “potential” bias and unspecified “threats” to privacy, that’s become the reality.
Anyway, Allan Gyorke, University of Miami Chief Academic Technology Officer, is attributed as saying:
Proctoring tools can treat unfairly students without reliable access to a device, internet or a quiet testing space
That’s fair.
But it ignores that requiring in-person, in-class or proctored exams at a test center treats students with disabilities unfairly. Or those with jobs or families. As one disability advocate and testing administrator in Australia told me once, when you require students with disabilities to come to campus for a test, all you’re really testing is which students can use public transportation the best.
The point is that, sure, remote proctoring assumes basic technology access. But in person testing also makes similar, perhaps even more dramatic, assumptions about students.
Gyorke also said,
One of the things that I recommend is you always should consider all authentic assessment first, as opposed to any kind of high-stakes exam because if I’m writing a paper or doing a presentation, I’m going to learn through that experience,” he said. “But if I’m just taking an exam or I’m just giving short answer, that’s just a recall check. It’s better to have students focus on something that they actually learn from experience.
Under no circumstance does assigning a written paper guarantee learning or reduce cheating. I mean it’s like he’s never heard of essay mills.
The reality is, when you shift how you assess learning and competency, you’re not limiting cheating or enhancing learning - you’re just changing the types of cheating that can, and do, occur.
And, to be fair, the article and participant criticisms are mostly about AI-run exam proctoring - using AI to scan recorded test sessions for possible violations of exam rules. That’s better than nothing and research has shown it to deter misconduct. But it’s not ideal. There are better systems, better options.
But just taking for granted that proctoring remote exams is some ethical dilemma is untrue and unhelpful.
The Score Podcast New Release
The Score, the podcast on academic integrity hosted by education journalist Kathryn Baron, released a new episode this week.
This one features:
Eren Bilen of the Department of Data Analytics at Dickinson College and Dr. Alexander Matros of the University of South Carolina, and an international chess master. Bilen and Matros will discuss their research published in September 2020 about cheating during the pandemic and their experience with online chess communities over the past two decades.
Like previous shows, this one is worth a listen as the researches discuss how cheating should be expected during unproctored, online exams. And, they say, that cheating happens even when the stakes are very low, when the rewards for cheating are set to zero.
They also discuss their findings of correlated Google search activity during online exams. It’s good stuff.
The Score has also teased its next guests:
Dr. Mark Biggin and Dr. Karen Symms Gallagher. Biggin is an affiliate of Biological Systems and Engineering Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. And he created a tool – Q-SID that can detect collusion which is he has offered to faculty for free. Gallagher is a professor and Veronica and David Hagen Chair in Women’s Leadership at Rossier School of Education at University of Southern California. As dean of the Rossier School, Gallagher was an early adopter of online education opportunities beginning in 2010.
I know them both. I cannot wait.