Which is why online tests should never just be replicated paper tests. Write novel questions that require introspection beyond just googling the answers wherever possible, and check what might come up if someone tries to cheat. Sort of like an open book exam. It's not ideal, but it basically isn't possible to actually properly stop cheating with online tests.
So only use open book exams. Or time pressure so people cannot just look everything up.
Education does not require assessment, the primary goal of a university is to provide people with useful knowledge, not mere accreditation.
You're not working for the university, you're working for the industry and employers that want a piece of paper that lets them discriminate by institution; instead of investing into their own workplace aptitude tests or recruitment methodologies.
Well-done assessment can still be metrically valuable as a means of making sure that every student actually absorbs the material and to make adjustments accordingly, and it can also serve as a means of artificial motivation for people who have difficulties self-motivating.
Certainly though, the scoring and credentials are for employers and are shit.
Frequent recall and testing is for many subjects the most effective teaching methodology.
If you have to get rid of lectures, books, workshops, projects, or informal testing; then testing should be the last thing to go.
This is not merely my opinion, it is one of the most reliable results in pedagogical research.
Calcifying the most important teaching methodology with this type of privacy invasive crap is harmful to the pedagogical process.
Students with self-motivation issues benefit most from frequent informal testing that covers small chunks of material.
Formality and privacy invasion only heighten the perfectionism and anxiety issues that constitute much of procrastinating behavior.
Formalized testing most often occurs at the end of semesters, when there is no time left for course correction by teachers or students anyway.
Informal testing can easily fulfill the role of gauging material absorption, and students cheating is then simply at their own peril.
When testing is informal, teachers can just use easy to cheat multiple choice tests, and not waste so much time with grading either.
But in any case, responsibility for ensuring that material is sufficiently understood should be held by students themselves.
It is only formalized exams and accreditation that could require measures to deal with cheating.
But such exams serve no direct function in education, and are entirely about the role of schools and universities under capitalism.
Education absolutely requires assessment, it doesn't require grades that can later be used against you though. Without assessment you have absolutely no clue how well you understand the material, especially in relation to other people in the class.
Remember these are college classes, it's not rote memorization anymore, you usually have to use some type of analysis to get to the right answer on a college exam.
My argument was implicitly about formalized assessment where anti-cheating measures are required.
Even so, most researchers and independent learners are quite capable of gauging their own understanding without any external testing or assessment.
And when people attend lectures simply out of curiosity they can become educated entirely without assessment.
I do not undervalue testing, if anything I would endorse all classes using brief informal testing on a weekly or even daily basis.
But I am opposed to the misuse of testing as metrics for performance. An effective test is one where people make plenty of mistakes, otherwise not much learning is happening.
Im all for this although its easier to adapt in some studies than others. but in most studies you could definitly make the tests adapt to open book setting.
However this doesn't solve the problems in question.
Idk if you can find copying based on answers alone. It's pretty easy to just retranslate sentences in your own words. Just mix it up a little.
Also imagine the other side, the rich kid doing an online exam with an army of private tutors on standby.
Absolutely, under socialism everyone could probably just do a oral or written exam in front of a group of teachers online. Capitalism just chooses not to allocate the resources in this way.
This fucking shit has to be shut down IMMEDIATELY. How can they keep using this shit? Fucking incredible.
Campus organizations should be agitating to end the contract with the vendor immediately.
As someone working for university, albeit not in the US, the only alternative to online testing is cancelling education. :(
just
allow
cheating
its already very easy to cheat with online tests
even better, then this program is just to annoy white people and fail black people
Which is why online tests should never just be replicated paper tests. Write novel questions that require introspection beyond just googling the answers wherever possible, and check what might come up if someone tries to cheat. Sort of like an open book exam. It's not ideal, but it basically isn't possible to actually properly stop cheating with online tests.
So only use open book exams. Or time pressure so people cannot just look everything up.
Education does not require assessment, the primary goal of a university is to provide people with useful knowledge, not mere accreditation.
You're not working for the university, you're working for the industry and employers that want a piece of paper that lets them discriminate by institution; instead of investing into their own workplace aptitude tests or recruitment methodologies.
Well-done assessment can still be metrically valuable as a means of making sure that every student actually absorbs the material and to make adjustments accordingly, and it can also serve as a means of artificial motivation for people who have difficulties self-motivating.
Certainly though, the scoring and credentials are for employers and are shit.
Frequent recall and testing is for many subjects the most effective teaching methodology.
If you have to get rid of lectures, books, workshops, projects, or informal testing; then testing should be the last thing to go.
This is not merely my opinion, it is one of the most reliable results in pedagogical research.
Calcifying the most important teaching methodology with this type of privacy invasive crap is harmful to the pedagogical process.
Students with self-motivation issues benefit most from frequent informal testing that covers small chunks of material.
Formality and privacy invasion only heighten the perfectionism and anxiety issues that constitute much of procrastinating behavior.
Formalized testing most often occurs at the end of semesters, when there is no time left for course correction by teachers or students anyway.
Informal testing can easily fulfill the role of gauging material absorption, and students cheating is then simply at their own peril.
When testing is informal, teachers can just use easy to cheat multiple choice tests, and not waste so much time with grading either.
But in any case, responsibility for ensuring that material is sufficiently understood should be held by students themselves.
It is only formalized exams and accreditation that could require measures to deal with cheating.
But such exams serve no direct function in education, and are entirely about the role of schools and universities under capitalism.
deleted by creator
Education absolutely requires assessment, it doesn't require grades that can later be used against you though. Without assessment you have absolutely no clue how well you understand the material, especially in relation to other people in the class.
Remember these are college classes, it's not rote memorization anymore, you usually have to use some type of analysis to get to the right answer on a college exam.
My argument was implicitly about formalized assessment where anti-cheating measures are required.
Even so, most researchers and independent learners are quite capable of gauging their own understanding without any external testing or assessment.
And when people attend lectures simply out of curiosity they can become educated entirely without assessment.
I do not undervalue testing, if anything I would endorse all classes using brief informal testing on a weekly or even daily basis.
But I am opposed to the misuse of testing as metrics for performance. An effective test is one where people make plenty of mistakes, otherwise not much learning is happening.
deleted by creator
Im all for this although its easier to adapt in some studies than others. but in most studies you could definitly make the tests adapt to open book setting. However this doesn't solve the problems in question.
deleted by creator
Idk if you can find copying based on answers alone. It's pretty easy to just retranslate sentences in your own words. Just mix it up a little. Also imagine the other side, the rich kid doing an online exam with an army of private tutors on standby.
Imagine thinking the rich need to engage with school in the first place.
Im sorry, my european bias made me not see how wretched the cursed american education system really is.
deleted by creator
lmao adjuncts (and most classes are taught by adjuncts) are too buys to schedule 1-on-1 sessions. Faculty do what's "easiest".
deleted by creator
Absolutely, under socialism everyone could probably just do a oral or written exam in front of a group of teachers online. Capitalism just chooses not to allocate the resources in this way.