Do you know which portal or platform is used for class work assignment reviews?
In Online Learning,who Is Responsible For Checking To Make Sure Assignments Are Turned In?
These days students flock to the web, and along with that they use various apps and platforms for college courses. One of those apps that many of us are searching for in the listing of online courses in higher education is StudentRND, a Q&A and quizzing platform with some awesome tools that make testing part of the learning process.
However, one question I have had throughout studentRND’s trials and tribulations is, “How do you prevent cheating?” While asking students to thoroughly and accurately explain their assignments before handing in finished tests is a great idea for teachers, how can we quantify the security within StudentRND? StudentRND, at the very core, is a form of online note taking and testing with language testing. This is what we commonly call quizzing. While this is called a “standardized” test, these types of tests are NOT standardized. For instance, in a service like GetNinja, the only students who get to make classwork are the ones with verified (verified) e-mail addresses. The application is fun and enjoyable, but the execution lacks real-time activity. StudentRND, though, combines long-form note taking, random test creation, and authentic testing to create something unique.
Many teachers have offered solutions to this question of cheating, and some experts have asserted that it is actually useful for students to be allowed to cheat, as it helps them to create a competitive, set of goals. Here’s how this argument works: cheating allows students to cheat their way up higher education education. If they are tested, they have this idea of what they should get, and now they realize they can get better grades than the social norm. Rather than being punished by the community for their cheating, it’s a win-win situation. And so students cheat.
To prevent cheating, some advocates have advocated for only allowing certain students to participate in the course without cheating. They further claim that by implementing bans, students may not have the motivation to cheat. The argument for any cheatmer, from my perspective, is not through real-time activity but through growth and incentivizing them to do so by providing better content or more offerings. That’s when students of all skill levels will know that cheating will increase their chances of learning and are more apt to do so.
Currently, the online assessment platforms and mobile applications that students check in to before and after test time is a blank check on what is offered. I can’t imagine a scenario where administrators would have the power to put limitations on which questions were used for grading purposes, or what sorts of tests they would give the students. Also, it’s hardly viable to believe that administrators would be able to micro-manage everything students do on any testing platform, especially a platform as large as StudentRND. While there are several metrics on the platform and apps that can be used to determine an individual student’s efficiency, with the number of student-users and the differing levels of anxiety they can be in, it’s too risky for administrators to be able to determine individual patterns and trends. When students are put in a scenario where they have a choice as to which answers they use, if they choose less, it’s going to throw administrators a curve ball.
All I’m saying is, never define something when you don’t yet understand it and with so many variables at play, you can’t wrap up every piece. While online learning with standards-based tests gives students a better teaching experience than traditional standards-based exams, why can’t teachers to make an even smoother and most valuable learning experience by mandating tests that are convenient? Self-testing and grade on new tests should not replace the old concrete forms of assessments students must take, but make them so convenient they end up creating a learning process that is as effective as it possibly can be.