approaches to assessing students

Approaches to Assessing Students While Ensuring

Academic Integrity and Student Convenience

WCET 2011 Conference, October 27, 2011Denver, Colorado

Panelists:

April Cognato, Michigan State University (MI)

Deb Gearhart, Troy University (AL)

Mark Sarver, EduKan (KS)

Moderator: Teresa Theisen, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MN)

Facilitator: Scott Woods, University of Phoenix (AZ)

OverviewVarious methods are used in distance education to achieve a higher level of academic integrity.

In the presentations, you will learn from several administrators who are striving to improve academic integrity, avoid implementation obstacles, and provide convenient methods for authenticating distance-learning students.

Materials and activities will focus on lessons learned, success stories, and best practices in academic integrity.

April CognatoApril Cognato has been an assistant professor of biology at Michigan State University since 2006 where she is involved in the development and implementation of traditional and online curricula. Concurrently, she is a contributing author to two non-majors biology textbooks, and author of online digital assets for McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

She has been an undergraduate biology instructor since 1996.

Cognato received her B.S. from University of California, Davis and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Texas A & M University.

Academic Integrity

.

One Falsehood Spoils a Thousand Truths

--Ashanti Proverb

April Cognato, Ph.D.Michigan State University

Academic Integrity…

…is the very principle upon which colleges and universities are built

Academic Integrity…

…is “a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility” Center for Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity Matters

• Higher Education Opportunity Act 2008 requires that distance learning meets the same expectations as in-class instruction

• Requires student authentication in distance learning

Academic Integrity Matters

“Without academic integrity, there can be no trust or reliance on the effectiveness, accuracy, or value of a University's teaching, learning, research, or public service activities.” –UC Davis Code of Academic ConductThe credibility of our academic system is at

stake

Academic Integrity is in Crisis

Dishonest behavior

Admitted to cheating at least once in the last year (2002-2005)n = 71,071

Perceived severity of behavior (moderate to serious infraction)

Learning what is on a test from someone who took it

33% 64%

Copying from another student

20% 92%

Helping someone cheat 10% 89%Using unauthorized notes

8% 90%

Using an electronic/digital device

5% 90%

False excuse to delay test

16% 58%

McCabe, D. (2005) Cheating Among College and University Students: A North American Perspective. International Journal for Academic Integrity Volume 1, No. 1.

63%

90%

…”Cheating is considered dishonest. It counts as stealing and lying. There are some cases, however, where cheating on a test might be argued to be acceptable. Sometimes there are tests that are the result of politics, rather than practicality.”

“If it should ever come to that, and you know no one has no proof whatsoever that you cheated: deny, deny, deny! (Convince yourself as well as your adversaries you did not cheat, remaining firm and confident.) As long as they can not prove it but can only wonder or hear someone else's words against your own, you're in the clear”.

Our Immoral Brains

Opportunity to lie

Decision: LIE

No opportunity to lie

Decision: Honest

Opportunity to lie

Deciding whether or not to

lieGreene, JD and JM Paxton (2009) Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. PNAS 106 (30) 12506-12511

Moral decisions…

…depend more on the absence of temptation than on the active resistance of temptation.

Greene, JD and JM Paxton (2009) Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. PNAS 106 (30) 12506-12511

Our Responsibility• Remove temptation• Provide a secure testing environment

Case 1

Michigan State University

Remote Proctor Pro

Dr. April Cognato, Ph.D.Michigan State University

[email protected]

A Comprehensive Proctoring Solution

Online Course

• Fundamentals of Geneticso Fully onlineo 150 studentso Single summer session (7 weeks)o Not proctored, remote

• Assessmentso Problem Sets, short answer, word problemso Summative assessments, weekly “mid-term”

like exams

Academic Dishonesty

Infractions included:

• Plagiarism from internet sources• Copying answer key (verbatim!!)

provided by other students• Submitting, obtaining the key,

resubmitting with the key (LMS bug)

Suspected many; failed 6 students in 2009, 2010

A Comprehensive Remote Proctoring System

Desired System Features

1. Authenticates student identity

2. Monitors student activity

3. Secures computer access

4. Compact, portable5. LMS compatible

Desired End User Features

1. Flexible2. Cost-effective3. Easy to employ for

faculty and students4. Tech support5. Customer support

Remote Proctor Pro Solution Authenticates

o Biometric data

Secures computero Lockdown browser

Monitors studentso 360° camera

Compact & portableo Desktop, USB, disassembles

Records o Video record of exam session

Reportso Exam policy violations

Remote Proctor ProHow it Works

1. Assembly2. Enrollment3. Authentication4. Assessment5. Post-assessment Review

Bioauthentication

Post-assessment Review

Remote Proctoring Solutions

Provided students with two options:

• Remote Proctor Pro (RPP)

• National College Testing Association (NCTA), Consortium of College Testing Centers (CCTC) In-person Proctoring

RPP vs. Testing CenterFeature RPP CCTC

System Authentication X X

Monitoring X X

Browser security X Human

Compact/portable X

End-user

Convenient X

Cost-effective X

User friendly X X

Tech support X

Customer support X X

Cost ComparisonTesting Center

Hours Fee CTCC 2011

RPP

MSU M 8AM-5PM $30/exam

$180

$100

W 12PM-5PMFerris State University

M 9AM-4PM $20/hour $240W 9AM-4PM

Grand Rapids CC M 7:30AM-7:30PM

$10/hour $120W7:30AM-7:30PM

Kalamazoo CC M 8:30AM-9PM $20/test $120W 8:30AM-9PM

Central Michigan University

M 9AM-1AM $30/test $180W 9AM-1AM

Lake Superior State

M 8:30AM-4PM $15/hour $180W 8AM-12PM

Southwestern Michigan College

M 8AM-5PM $20/exam

$120W 8AM-5PM

Remote Proctored Exams

• 86 students opted to use the RPP• 6 exams over 7 weeks• Semi-synchronous exam periods• 2 hour time limit• Multiple choice, short answer, essay (word

problems)• Survey of proctoring experience delivered for

credit at the end of the course

Remote Proctor Pro Protects Integrity

84%

8%4%4%

Impossible/Dif-ficult to Cheat

Easy to Cheat

Knows someone who cheated

No reponse

LMS Bug

Student Testimony

“It looks like something out of Star Wars!”

“It’s a great way to have the freedom to take the exam on your own time in whatever setting you want”

“It’s easy to use and you can take [the test] when you want”

“The remote proctoring device was easy and convenient…you could take your exam in your own home and at whatever time you wanted.”

“You couldn’t cheat and I took my test in the comfort of my own home.”

“Remote proctoring tech support was VERY NICE and HELPFUL.”

“The lowered cost compared to the in-person proctoring exam was a plus.”

Take Home Points• Remote Proctor Pro system effectively protects

academic integrity

• RPP is a comprehensive proctoring systemo Authenticates student identityo Monitors student activityo Secures computero Records exam sessiono Reviews and Reports

• RPP meets the needs of the end usero Easy to use (faculty and students)o Conveniento Cost effectiveo Responsive tech supporto Attentive customer service

Future Best Practices• Inform students of proctoring requirement (and

associated costs) at the time of registration.

• Deploy device at least 2 weeks prior to beginning of course.

• Require a practice assessment the first week.

• Institute a backup exam plan.

• Establish good communication with your CMS IT.

• Provide students with clear instructions for Technical Support.

• Anticipate technically challenged students!

Pedagogical Best Practices

• Tutorial on academic integrity

• Synchronized assessments

• Question pools• Random delivery of

questions and answers

• Exam review controlled

• Required exam proctoring

Testing center at the University of Central Florida

NY Times July 5, 2010

Enrollment

Image Sources

Logo: Center for Academic Integrity (http://www.academicintegrity.org/)

http://dougleschan.com/dougleschan/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/integrity-150x150.gif

http://nonsensepics.blogspot.com/2010/11/low-tech-way-to-prevent-cheating-on.html

http://catholicnotebook.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

Deb GearhartDeb Gearhart is the director of eCampus for Troy University.

Previously Gearhart served as the founding director of E-Education Services at Dakota State University in Madison, South Dakota and was there for the 11 years.

Before joining Dakota State she spent 10 years with the Department of Distance Education at Penn State.

She earned a M.Ed. in Adult Education with a distance education emphasis and an M.P.A. in Public Administration, both from Penn State. Gearhart completed her Ph.D. program in Education, with a certificate in distance education, from Capella University.

Case 2Troy University

eTroy’s Need for Technology

• On average eTROY proctors over 7500 course exams a term• A need to assist students with proctoring options• Adopted an academic operating procedure for online course proctoring in 2008.• Needed both human and technology based proctoring options.

The educational-technology firm is trusted by over 100 colleges, universities and corporations as the best way to reduce incidents of academic dishonesty by connecting students face-to-face with a human proctor.

ProctorU Ensures Academic Integrity

See the student See what they are doing Know who they are

How ProctorU Works

• Students interact with a live proctor in real time.

• Our identity authentication method is the strongest in the industry.

• ProctorU is easy to use for students and faculty.

• Students enjoy the convenience of testing at home and instructors rest easy knowing the integrity of their exam is secure.

Benefits of using ProctorU

Mark SarverMark Sarver has served in many capacities in higher education. He is the CEO of EduKan, the online education consortium for the six western community colleges in Kansas. Sarver has taught courses in leadership, organizational behavior, accounting, international business, franchise development, marketing and management. Sarver's experience in higher education strategy and assessment spans virtually all aspects of institutional management from admissions and marketing, to financial analysis, to program and course assessment.

Case 3EduKAN

In Use at Over 100 Institutions

Troy University Northwestern UniversityThe University of Florida The University of ArizonaThe University of IllinoisBob Jones University Chaminade University of HonoluluKansas State UniversityLawson Learning National American UniversityOregon State University Saint Louis University Thomas Edison State College The University of West FloridaThe University of Louisiana at Lafayette The University of Mississippi The University of New EnglandThe University of Tennessee Health SciencesWashington State University Northern Virginia Community College (ELI)Others…

Copyright ©2011 All Rights Reserved - ConfidentialBiometric Signature ID www.biosig-id.com

“IDENTITY THEFT ON DEVICES AND OVER NETWORKS CREATES THE FASTEST GROWING WHITE COLLAR CRIME. BIOMETRIC SIGNATURE ID HAS AN ANSWER.”

“I have completed countless online courses. Students provide me with passwords and user names so I can access key documents and online exams. In some cases, I have even contributed to weekly online discussions with other students in the class”.

Patents: 7663614, 8004491


Agenda

• About EduKan• BSI Company Background• Briefing on Biometrics and Multi factor Authentication• Edukan case study – Dr Mark Sarver CEO• Q&A

47

Copyright ©2011 All Rights Reserved - ConfidentialBiometric Signature ID www.biosig-id.com 48

Dallas-based privately held software development

company

The way you move your mouse (pointing device) is unique and can make a positive ID using dynamic (behavioral) biometrics

Gesture (dynamic) biometrics capture speed, length, angle, height direction of how we write not what we write

“3 identity proofing software products” that require no hardware or installation unlike other static biometrics (fingerprint etc…)

Satisfies security need in multiple sectors for remote identity proofing and access to the PC and smart devices DEA, SSA, HHS, DE, Homeland Security, financial

services, white house, cloud computing, e-commerce, FFIEC…

Biometric Signature ID Corporation


Static versus Dynamic Biometrics• Static biometrics are physiological or

anatomical i.e. fingerprints, iris scans, facial recognition, DNA swabs etc.

• Static biometrics require “hardware”.

• Dynamic biometrics measure behavioral characteristics and do not require the use of hardware

In our case we capture a students movements as they draw with their mouse, finger, stylus, touch screen (pointing device).

Movements such as speed, length, angle, height, direction are unique to each student.

49


Credit card, Tokens, Smart Card, devices

Something You KnowWho you

Are Unique

characteristics - static OR Dynamic Biometrics

PINS, Passwords, Images

Something You Have

Multi-Factor AuthenticationIs the new “Gold Standard”

Weak Very WeakStrong

50


Closed Loop Technology – Always 2 Levels

51

+ +

-

Enrollment – Two levels are always required for enrollment in BioSig-ID and Click-ID. In rare circumstances Click-ID and CSQ’s are used only when user cannot enroll in BioSig-ID.

Validation - If user exceeds the number of attempts to validate with BioSig-ID, they are directed to Click-ID to validate. If successful, user creates a new enrollment with BioSig-ID. This is the same process if the user has enrolled with Click-ID and CSQ’s

Cost Savings - Can be used for password resets – reducing help desk calls and overhead.

BioSig-ID Click-ID CSQ – Complex Questions


EduKan Case Study - Primary Goals

EduKan worked with Biometric Signature ID to run a proof-of-

technology pilot because:

10,000 hours for proctoring and related costs

Proctoring may create a competitive disadvantage

Proctoring may create physical presence in some states

Meets HEOA and HLC requirements

Wanted to assess their biometric technology as a cost-effective way of addressing online student security and reduction of proctoring

Measure student acceptance of new identity verification software

Uses a biometric system where no hardware is required

Tests a system where students create their unique password by just drawing shapes/letters/numbers with their mouse


EduKan Methodology

During March-April, 2011, 174 students from multiple classes

volunteered to verify their identity from their own computers

using BioSig-ID

Test subjects/students were asked to enroll, create a profile

and verify their identity at various times for a total of 6 times

before the final exam. At the final exam they were asked to

validate their identity and receive a password to access the

exam

Full audit trails were analyzed of all activity and an online

survey was administered

Nearly 6,300 enrollments/verifications were completed by the

participants in 60 days


Current Verification Methods


EduKan Overall Findings

Based on the results of this technology pilot, the BioSig-ID

verification software using just a mouse was a useful and

practical tool for remote identity proofing.

During the pilot study, it required little administration (only

9 help desk calls from 174 students) and will help EduKan

comply with newer, more stringent recommendations of the

HEOA and HLC.

EduKan intent is to replace proctored exams with BioSig-ID

and have started full deployment with over 1,600 students


97% Expressed Ease of Use


16% did not view the video?


For Testing: 97% of Students Prefer BioSig-ID


Typical Responses


Features Students Liked from EduKan


Going Forward

Full implementation with deep

integration into LMS (Pearson

Learning Studio – eCollege)

Must change the way we teach,

evaluate and assess

All 4,000 students

Implementing U-Sign

Copyright ©2011 All Rights Reserved - ConfidentialBiometric Signature ID www.biosig-id.com 62

Contact informationStephanie Piche, Director Marketing [email protected]

310-729-2997Jeff Maynard, President [email protected] 972-436-6862

Dr. Mark Sarver, CEO EduKan [email protected] 620-204-0374

Test drive the softwarehttp://www.biosig-id.com/products/test-drive/

Biometric Signature ID completes very successful proof of technology with Houston Community College District the 4th largest in the nation with 98% satisfaction

• http://www.biosig-id.com/about/people-are-talking/Biometric Signature ID white paper on How to reduce Academic Dishonesty

(highlights uSignOnline)• http://www.biosig-id.com/products/edu/Independent third party test results announced proving BioSig-ID

software exceeds the national NIST standard for accuracy by a 3 fold factor;

• http://www.biosig-id.com/biometric-signature-id-scores-an-outstanding-99-97-accuracy-against-identity-fraud-from-the-tolly-group/

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.biosig-id.com/biometric-signature-id-receives-award-from-the-state-of-texas-emerging-technology-fund-tetf/

http://www.biosig-id.com/about/people-are-talking/

http://www.biosig-id.com/products/edu/

http://www.biosig-id.com/biometric-signature-id-scores-an-outstanding-99-97-accuracy-against-identity-fraud-from-the-tolly-group/




50

25

75

100

EnrollmentAttainment

Stop ImpostersWith Passwords

*Ease of Enrolling

Ease ofValidation

97.3%94.0%

100.0%99.97%

Access GrantedTo Legitimate Users

99.78%

AverageEnrollment

2 minutes

AverageValidation

19 Seconds

V2.0 Validations – University Pilots (multiple campuses), other users, Independent 3rd party testing subjects by The Tolly Group =32,000 total enrollment and validation transactions

Summary of Results

User Acceptance + 3rd Party Testing Accuracy Studies


BSI: Recognition, Validation and Acceptance

Awards: BSI awarded the “2010 New Product Innovation of the Year Award for North America Signature Biometrics” from Frost and Sullivan

Third Party Testing: Software denies >99.9% of imposters from successful log in, results exceed NIST standards

Rigorous Evaluation: State of Texas recognition and investment as “breakthrough technology”

User Acceptance 98% of first time users performing over 50,000 actions had a positive experience

Patented Technology: BSI has received two US patents for their gesture biometrics technologies (Patent -7663614,8004491)

Frost & Sullivan employs 1,800 analysts in 40 global offices…

64

University of Texas Systems –

User Acceptance Studies

9 campuses, grad/undergrad, 46 classes, 167 students, 6 weeks, 10 authentications at random, different ages, locations, disciplines

http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/home.pag

http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/home.pag

Questionsand

Conclusions