public:teaching:online_testing

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		 Previous revision
public:teaching:online_testing [2020-10-23 08:29] – created jsichtapublic:teaching:online_testing [2020-12-01 08:01] (current) – [Matej Lorko:] jsichta
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Online Testing ====== ====== Online Testing ======
  
-====    Michal Ďuriník Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic                     PhD from Macquarie Graduate School of Management in Sydney, Australia                  ====+==== Michal Ďuriník Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic PhD from Macquarie Graduate School of Management in Sydney, Australia ====
  
 \\ \\
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 <font 11pt/Calibri, sans-serif;;#283c46;;inherit>What worries me here, is that the student who is bright yet slow with their keyboard will face a disadvantage: demonstrating the understanding of complex ideas and defending an argument will require a lot of typing.</font> <font 11pt/Calibri, sans-serif;;#283c46;;inherit>What worries me here, is that the student who is bright yet slow with their keyboard will face a disadvantage: demonstrating the understanding of complex ideas and defending an argument will require a lot of typing.</font>
 +
 +==== Matej Lorko ====
 +
 +I just came across a new working paper describing a recent experiment on cheating in on-line exams. Some very interesting results there. Aside from statistical detection of cheating, I was kind of surprised that the reminder of the university’s code of ethics did not affect cheating levels. This counters earlier findings (e.g. Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D., 2008). I guess the social norms can be quite different in online environment.\\
 +\\
 +Abstract:\\
 +We study academic integrity in a final exam of a compulsory course with almost 500 undergraduate students (mostly in Economics and Business Management and Administration) at a major Spanish university. Confinement and university closure due to Covid-19 took place by the end of the last lecture week. As a consequence, the usual classroom exam was turned into\\
 +an unproctored on-line multiple-choice exam without backtracking. We exploit the different orders of exam problems and detailed data with timestamps to study students’ academic integrity. Taking the average over questions that were part of both earlier and later “rounds,” we find that the number of correct answers to questions in the later round was 7.7% higher\\
 +than those to the same questions in the earlier round. Moreover, the average completion time of questions in the later round was 18.1% shorter than that of the same questions in the earlier round. We estimate that between 13.4% and 22.5% of the students cheated due to information flows from earlier to later rounds. Nonetheless, since exam grades are positively correlated\\
 +with previous continuous assessment, they can be considered informative. Finally, a mere reminder of the university’s code of ethics, which was sent to a subgroup halfway through the exam, did not affect cheating levels.\\
 +\\
 +Link:\\
 +[[https://www.barcelonagse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/1210.pdf|https://www.barcelonagse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/1210.pdf]]\\
 +\\
 +Good luck to all with the rest of the semester and the exam period!
  
  
  • /var/www/html/dokuwiki/data/attic/public/teaching/online_testing.1603441797.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2020-10-23 08:29
  • by jsichta