1 / 24

Missouri State Online Academic Integrity Week

Join us for Academic Integrity Week at Missouri State University Online, exploring the critical theme "Changing the Culture from Online Cheating to Online Learning." This panel features experts like Dr. Gary Rader, Dr. Scott Wegner, Dr. Julie Anderson-Ituarte, and student voices who share insights on nurturing academic honesty in the digital classroom. Delve into research findings, discuss proactive strategies for faculty and students, and learn about innovative assessment techniques to promote integrity and curb cheating in online education.

ekram
Télécharger la présentation

Missouri State Online Academic Integrity Week

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Missouri State Online Academic Integrity Week October 6, 2009

  2. Academic Integrity Week Missouri State Online and Instructional Technologies Presents: “Changing the Culture from Online Cheating to Online Learning.” 

  3. Panelist Introductions • Dr. Gary Rader, Director for MS Online • Dr. Scott Wegner, Ed.D. • Dr. Julie Anderson-Ituarte, M.S. • Michael Frizell, Director, Writing Center • Shellie Jones, CASL, MSAS Student • Andy Lear, BKD, MSAS Student

  4. Considerations for Online Academic Integrity Growth in Academic Dishonesty Growth of online courses and enrollments Concern about academic integrity in the online classroom + =

  5. MSU – online enrollment stats 2004-09 Spring semesters show impressive growth of students taking online classes.

  6. What Research Shows • Perception: Academic Dishonesty is more prevalent online than face-to-face. • Research: Shows online students are less inclined to cheat • Assessment: Motivated students cheat less • Friends University (2009)

  7. Forms of Online Academic Dishonesty • Cheating on Tests • Plagiarism • Aiding and Abetting • Friends University Study (2009)

  8. Detection and Deterrence: The Faculty Perspective Scott Wegner Julie Anderson-Ituarte

  9. The Student Integrity Profile • Younger rather than older are more inclined to cheat • Early cheating continues through graduate school • Lack of awareness produces cheating • Cultural differences • Friends University Study (2009)

  10. The Student Perspective Shellie Jones Andy Lear

  11. Changing the Culture • Proactive faculty from the start • Establish Honor Code – increase student awareness • Inform faculty how academic dishonesty applies to online education • Provide procedures to detect it • Policies to support faculty who detect and pursue instances of academic dishonesty.

  12. Unintentional Online Plagiarism? Michael Frizell, The Writing Center

  13. Design Online Exams toDeter Cheating • Open book exams • Timed exams • Scramble the order of questions • Pop quizzes • Non-exam assessments • Proctored exams

  14. The Non-Exam OptionReduce cheating by changing the “culture” Are there alternative non-exam options for all subjects? • Motivating student learning through alternative pedagogies (the discussion forum) • Assessing student learning through critical thinking • Stimulating student motivation to learn and assess learning outcomes • Providing autonomy with structure, relatedness and competency • Empowering students to engage in the learning process

  15. The Proctored Option • University of Connecticut (2008) study reveals online, un-proctored multiple choice exams suffer more from cheating than supervised multiple choice exams. • Various technologies to reduce cheating are expensive and less than satisfactory. • Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) addresses authentication concerns. • Test Proctoring provides another good alternative for supervising traditional test-taking and authenticating student identities.

  16. Pilot Project

  17. MS Online Test Proctoring Pilot Project - Summer 2009 Purpose of the pilot is to provide: • F2F supervised alternative to online testing without sacrificing distance convenience and modality. • Additional means for “authentication.” • Instrument to prevent cheating online. • Student/faculty support infrastructure for HLC approval to offer online degrees.

  18. MS Online Test Proctoring Narrative • Selection of Pilot Subjects SPE 506/507 • Number of students • Initial costs in time and resources • Policies and Procedures • Dealing with off campus testing • Administration of exams and reporting of results • Julie Anderson-Ituarte • Aundrayah Shermer

  19. Test Proctoring Schedule Proctor Acknowledgement

  20. Proctor Verification

  21. Outcomes • Summary and Conclusion • Student satisfaction • Faculty satisfaction • Pilot did not measure reduction of cheating • Pilot set up to address concerns for potential cheating

  22. Future Steps • Repeat the process in the fall of 2009. • Employ feedback from summer results. • Utilize assessment tools to measure learning outcomes in online courses with proctored and un-proctored objective exams. • Design courses with alternatives to traditional concepts of test taking. • Provide proctored testing for subject areas where objective exams are necessary to discourage cheating.

  23. A Q &

  24. Contact Information Missouri State Online Kenneth E. Meyer Alumni Center 300 S. Jefferson (417)-836-3718

More Related