Flexknowlogy – Jared Stein

I found this old e-mail from the POD mailing list describing a number of faculty certification programs for online teaching. I’m posting it here more as a reminder to myself as Marc and I move forward with a hybrid faculty development program here at UVU (more…)

Reposted with added commentary from DEIDS.on.uvu.edu.

The UVU Blackboard server now allows designers to require Respondus Lockdown Browser (LDB) on assessments. This means that if an assessment is set to use LDB, the end-user (test-taker) computer must have the free LDB software installed (Bb should prompt the user to install it before the assessment can be accessed). UVU’s Testing Center has installed LDB on all its computers and is testing it before next semester. We presume this is pointless unless the Bb assessment has LDB selected, but are looking into it. In any case where LDB is used to take an assessment, “lock down” happens according to Respondus’s descriptions–even if the exam itself is not triggered to require Lockdown. I asked Respondus to clarify the “switch” in Bb, and they responded this afternoon:

The “switch” in Blackboard and other course management systems helps insure (sic) that the assessment can only be taken with the Respondus LockDown Browser. Without enabling the switch, students can take the assessment using any browser they want, including the secure browser.

For Distance Ed this means that if an instructor wishes to use LDB, we must ensure proctor locations have the LDB software installed. This may require adding wording to the proctoring info web page. For the UVU Testing Center, if they make LDB the only web browser installed on lab computers, all assessments have no option but to be “locked down”.

Brian Swaney has written a lengthy post on LDB, explaining why he thinks it’s an awful idea that only inhibits cheating in limited scenarios, and though Brian’s post gets a little bit out of hand, I do agree with most of his points. Here’s a summary of these, some of which John Krutsch, Marc Hugentobler, and I have brought up in our conference sessions, “How to Cheat Online” and “The Cheatability Factor“:

1. LDB may encourage institutions to take advantage of broadly accessible but ill-suited environments for testing, like open student computer labs.
2. Unless the physical environment is also “locked down” the LDB will do little to inhibit cheating (crib notes, use of a 2nd computer, mobile devices).
3. Unless student identities are verified, LDB does not prevent impersonation (note: LDB doesn’t claim to).
4. There is a line between securing assessments and respecting student privacy. I don’t think LDB crosses it by any means, but Brian raises some legitimate concerns about requiring software installation.
5. All technology, including LDB, can be hacked.
6. The kinds of assessment best protected by LDB may not be good at assessing important kinds of learning. But LDB may be alluring as a (false) panacea for measuring all kinds of learning.

This semester I elected to test Instructure’s (pilot? beta?) learning management system with my own online course, DGM 2740: Web Design, the third course in the Digital Media web development track at UVU. Instructure is showing us how it’s done with strong AJAX enhancements for more streamlined user processes (more…)

Earlier this week my boss asked “what I had” on capping class size in online courses. I had nothing, but it’s an interesting question. In Distance Education at UVU we have seen online class sizes vary from just one student to hundreds of students–the decision is made by the academic department chair in consultation with the instructor. This question is therefore pertinent for our academic department chairs, especially as UVU moves to reduce enrollment-based instructional compensation. Administrative pressure to free up class space and meet students’ demand enlarges this issue. However, a review of recent and available articles reinforced what I already suspected: there is no single optimum size for an online class; instead, class size should be informed by learning objectives, curriculum, instructor load, and teaching philosophy (more…)

I attended the 3-day eLearning DevCon 2009 in Salt Lake City this past week, and have compiled some brief notes based on the experience. I summarize the conference as having an enticing depth and knowledge of topics, good “presence” and information from most of the presenters, primarily for corporate e-learning developers (which was a refreshing change), not at all a bargain, and awkwardly spread out across Fort Douglas, though I must admit it was a joy to walk outside in late spring weather (more…)

It looks like I’ll be presenting at the 2008 MoodleMoot San Francisco, June 9 – 11, 2008 South San Francisco Conference Center on our Open Mod for sharing open educational resources. I’ll be dragging Kenneth Woodward along to explain the technical facets of the mod, and to delve into the community of Moodle developers.

Of course, prior to the conference Ken and I will have to work pretty aggressively with Clark Nielsen and John Krutsch to ensure that the mod’s features and functionalities are stable and presentable.

Marc Hugentobler, John Krutsch, and I will be presenting our online cheating sessions a couple times this summer, and would like to welcome everyone to attend:

1. The Cheatability Factor at Distance Teaching and Learning 2008, Madison, Wisconsin
2. How to Cheat Online & The Cheatability Factor at Teaching with Technology Idea Exchange 2008, Orem, Utah

Here are some details, reproduced from the proposals:

Promotional Summary

What is your online course’s “cheatability factor”? 75% of students have admitted to cheating during their college career, and according to some studies online assessment makes cheating easier. This session considers technical, philosophical, and environmental factors that may increase or decrease the cheatability of online courses from design to delivery, and presents a rubric used to assess those factors.

Objectives and Description

Presentation objectives:

Participants will..

1. Discover the extent to which cheating-related problems exist in online education and online-based assessments
2. Consider factors that may contribute technologically, philosophically, or environmentally to online cheating
3. Examine a rubric used to measure the “cheatability” of online course
4. Discuss practices and strategies to avoid or minimize the impact of cheating

Presentation description:

Nobody wants students cheating in their online class, yet an estimated 75% of students have admitted to cheating during their college career, and according to some studies online assessment makes cheating easier. The problem is not only one of practical importance for educators, it is one of growing importance to instructional technologists, administrators, and anyone else with a vested interest in the validity and reputation of distance education and technology-enhanced teaching.

This session will first present information and collected research data that summarizes the state of cheating in higher education in general, and in distance education specifically. While a general awareness of the pervasiveness of cheating may be in and of itself an eye-opener to many educators and administrators, the motivations behind cheating and the responsibility teachers have to recognize their own influence on cheating can provide an alternative perspective on what is normally considered a quite simple choice. McClusky’s theory of Power-Load-Margin, for instance, informs teachers of the impact they may have on students’ lives, and the impact students’ lives have on their studies, both of which can lead students to choose to cheat. A number of environmental factors are particularly salient in online courses, such as ambiguity of definitions of cheating, actual or perceptual “distance”, level of instructor-student interaction, individual relevance or meaningfulness of activities and assessments, etc. Additionally, there are a number of more technical and technological factors that can increase or decrease both a student’s propensity to cheat, and his/her ability to cheat.

By considering these technical, methodological, and environmental factors, Distance Education at Utah Valley University has developed a rubric to assess online courses and report on potential factors that may increase or decrease the cheatability of online courses from design to delivery. This rubric is (1) provided to teachers engaging in distance education course development or instruction, (2) made available to administrators and department chairs as an example of our mutual interest in preserving the integrity of online education, and (3) implemented internally as a tool in our course design process to better evaluate and recommend online assessments before, during, and after an online course is delivered.

Because cheating itself is a complex and sensitive issue informed by experience and diverse perspectives, this session seeks to engage participants in a dialogue on cheating, online assessments, and technology. We predict there will be naturally flowing discussion and debate between participants who may favor one approach over another, e.g. a “direct assault” approach which seeks to thwart any and all attempts at cheating using technology or applied strategies, vs. “hearts and minds” pedagogical approaches that focus on course environment, assessment design, and student engagement.