Advertisement

Learning Analytics Leading to Remote Invigilation for eTests: A Case Study

  • Michael BairdEmail author
  • Lesley Sefcik
  • Steve Steyn
  • Connie Price
Chapter

Abstract

Learning analytics are an important tool for educators as they provide insight into educational trends and patterns based on real student data. This case study focuses on a capstone unit in business at a university in Western Australia. Instructors used learning analytics of average weekly eTest scores, overall average eTest scores, a benchmark assessment score, and study mode extracted from learning management system (LMS) reports to target areas where assessment integrity could be improved. It was found that academic integrity breaches were likely in various iterations of weekly eTests amongst students enrolled in the online study mode. Thus, in 2017, a proof-of-concept was undertaken to assess the suitability and practicality of using a browser-based remote invigilation system to be able to verify a student’s identity and monitor behaviour to better assure assessment integrity. Study success (in this case coursework comprehension and the subsequent attainment of an assessment grade) should not be a function of learning mode. This case study explains how remote invigilation allowed the researchers to achieve a higher degree of study success equivalence within the student cohort. Staff usage, technical challenges and student attitudes regarding webcam monitoring are also explored.

Keywords

Remote invigilation eAssessment eTest Academic misconduct Learning analytics 

References

  1. Amanullah, M., Zaman, G. S., Patel, A. A., & Mohanna, K. (2013). A comparative study of open book-open web (OBOW) exams and invigilated closed book-pen and paper (ICBPP) exams. Merit Research Journal of Education and Review, 1(4), 97–106.Google Scholar
  2. Amigud, A., Arnedo-Moreno, J., Daradoumis, T., & Guerrero-Roldan, A.-E. (2017). Using learning analytics for preserving academic integrity. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brocato, B. R., Bonanno, A., & Ulbig, S. (2015). Student perceptions and instructional evaluations: A multivariate analysis of online and face-to-face classroom settings. Education and Information Technologies, 20(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carstairs, J., & Myors, B. (2009). Internet testing: A natural experiment reveals test score inflation on a high-stakes, unproctored cognitive test. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 738–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, A. B., Rand, R., & Seay, R. (2016). Remote proctoring: The effect of proctoring on grades. In Advances in accounting education (Vol. 18). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Engineering Institute of Technology. (2016). EIT internal R&D activity report - June 2015 to July 2016. Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Engineering Institute of Technology. (2017). EIT internal R&D activity report - June 2016 to July 2017. Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gregory, M. S.-J., & Lodge, J. M. (2015). Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education, 36(2), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris, D. M., & Parrish, D. E. (2006). The art of online teaching: Online instruction versus in-class instruction. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(2-3), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. James, R. (2016). Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative examinations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jefferies, A., Barton, K., Meere, J., Peramungama, S., Pyper, A., & Yip, A. (2017). Trialling online proctoring for e-assessments: Early outcomes from the Erasmus + OP4RE project. Paper presented at the European Conference on e-Learning, Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  13. Jortberg, M. (2010). Experiences verifying the identity of distance learning students. In Third annual report on identity in distance learning. Little Rock, AK: Acxiom.Google Scholar
  14. Karim, M. N., Kaminsky, S. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lilley, M., Meere, J., & Barker, T. (2016). Remote live invigilation: A pilot study. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(6), 1–5.Google Scholar
  16. Papadopoulos, A. (2017). The mismeasure of academic labour. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(3), 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips, R., & Lowe, K. (2003). Issues associated with the equivalence of traditional and online assessment. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  18. Porter, A. L., Pitterle, M. E., & Hayney, M. S. (2014). Comparison of online versus classroom delivery of an immunization elective course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(5), 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaffhauser, D. (2017). Nobody’s watching: Proctoring in online learning. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2017/07/26/nobodys-watching-proctoring-in-online-learning.aspx
  20. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  21. Vioreanu, D. (2018). Distance learning course options get more popular every year. Retrieved from https://www.distancelearningportal.com/articles/393/distance-learning-course-options-get-more-popular-every-year.html
  22. West, D., Luzeckyj, A., Searle, B., Toohey, D., & Price, R. (2018). The use of learning analytics to support improvements in teaching practice. Melbourne, Australia: Innovative Research Universities.Google Scholar
  23. Woldeab, D., Lindsay, T., & Brothen, T. (2017). Under the watchful eye of online proctoring. In I. D. Alexander & R. K. Poch (Eds.), Innovative learning and teaching: Experiments across the disciplines. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Yu, J., & Hu, Z. (2016). Is online learning the future of education? Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/is-online-learning-the-future-of-education/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Baird
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lesley Sefcik
    • 1
  • Steve Steyn
    • 2
  • Connie Price
    • 1
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Engineering Institute of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations