在线监考工具的评价

IF 0.9 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Open Praxis Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI:10.5944/OPENPRAXIS.12.4.1113
M. Hussein, Javed Yusuf, A. Deb, Letila Fong, S. Naidu
{"title":"在线监考工具的评价","authors":"M. Hussein, Javed Yusuf, A. Deb, Letila Fong, S. Naidu","doi":"10.5944/OPENPRAXIS.12.4.1113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"COVID’19 is hastening the adoption of online learning and teaching worldwide, and across all levels of education. While many of the typical learning and teaching transactions such as lecturing and communicating are easily handled by contemporary online learning technologies, others, such as assessment of learning outcomes with closed book examinations are fraught with challenges. Among other issues to do with students and teachers, these challenges have to do with the ability of teachers and educational organizations to ensure academic integrity in the absence of a live proctor when an examination is being taken remotely and from a private location. A number of online proctoring tools are appearing on the market that portend to offer solutions to some of the major challenges. But for the moment, they too remain untried and tested on any large scale. This includes the cost of the service and their technical requirements. This paper reports on one of the first attempts to properly evaluate a selection of these tools and offer recommendations for educational institutions. This investigation, which was carried out at the University of the South Pacific, comprised a four-phased approach, starting with desk research that was followed with pilot testing by a group of experts as well as students. The elimination of a tool in every phase was based on the ‘survival of the fittest’ approach with each phase building upon the milestones and deliverables from the previous phase. This paper presents the results of this investigation and discusses its key findings.","PeriodicalId":45611,"journal":{"name":"Open Praxis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"69","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of Online Proctoring Tools\",\"authors\":\"M. Hussein, Javed Yusuf, A. Deb, Letila Fong, S. Naidu\",\"doi\":\"10.5944/OPENPRAXIS.12.4.1113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"COVID’19 is hastening the adoption of online learning and teaching worldwide, and across all levels of education. While many of the typical learning and teaching transactions such as lecturing and communicating are easily handled by contemporary online learning technologies, others, such as assessment of learning outcomes with closed book examinations are fraught with challenges. Among other issues to do with students and teachers, these challenges have to do with the ability of teachers and educational organizations to ensure academic integrity in the absence of a live proctor when an examination is being taken remotely and from a private location. A number of online proctoring tools are appearing on the market that portend to offer solutions to some of the major challenges. But for the moment, they too remain untried and tested on any large scale. This includes the cost of the service and their technical requirements. This paper reports on one of the first attempts to properly evaluate a selection of these tools and offer recommendations for educational institutions. This investigation, which was carried out at the University of the South Pacific, comprised a four-phased approach, starting with desk research that was followed with pilot testing by a group of experts as well as students. The elimination of a tool in every phase was based on the ‘survival of the fittest’ approach with each phase building upon the milestones and deliverables from the previous phase. This paper presents the results of this investigation and discusses its key findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Praxis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"69\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Praxis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5944/OPENPRAXIS.12.4.1113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5944/OPENPRAXIS.12.4.1113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 69

摘要

2019冠状病毒病正在加速全球各级教育采用在线学习和教学。虽然许多典型的学习和教学交易,如讲课和交流,可以很容易地通过现代在线学习技术来处理,但其他方面,如闭卷考试的学习成果评估,则充满了挑战。在与学生和教师有关的其他问题中,这些挑战与教师和教育机构在远程和私人场所进行考试时,在没有现场监考人员的情况下确保学术诚信的能力有关。市场上出现了许多在线监考工具,它们预示着为一些主要挑战提供解决方案。但就目前而言,它们也没有经过大规模的试验和测试。这包括服务的成本及其技术要求。本文报告了对这些工具的选择进行适当评估的第一次尝试之一,并为教育机构提供建议。这项调查是在南太平洋大学进行的,包括四个阶段的方法,从案头研究开始,然后是由一组专家和学生进行试点测试。每个阶段的工具淘汰是基于“适者生存”的方法,每个阶段都建立在前一阶段的里程碑和可交付成果之上。本文介绍了本次调查的结果,并讨论了其主要发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Evaluation of Online Proctoring Tools
COVID’19 is hastening the adoption of online learning and teaching worldwide, and across all levels of education. While many of the typical learning and teaching transactions such as lecturing and communicating are easily handled by contemporary online learning technologies, others, such as assessment of learning outcomes with closed book examinations are fraught with challenges. Among other issues to do with students and teachers, these challenges have to do with the ability of teachers and educational organizations to ensure academic integrity in the absence of a live proctor when an examination is being taken remotely and from a private location. A number of online proctoring tools are appearing on the market that portend to offer solutions to some of the major challenges. But for the moment, they too remain untried and tested on any large scale. This includes the cost of the service and their technical requirements. This paper reports on one of the first attempts to properly evaluate a selection of these tools and offer recommendations for educational institutions. This investigation, which was carried out at the University of the South Pacific, comprised a four-phased approach, starting with desk research that was followed with pilot testing by a group of experts as well as students. The elimination of a tool in every phase was based on the ‘survival of the fittest’ approach with each phase building upon the milestones and deliverables from the previous phase. This paper presents the results of this investigation and discusses its key findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Praxis
Open Praxis EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) and Governmental Open Educational Resources (OER) Policies: Instruments of International Policy Influence The Cost of Success: Exploring the Impact of Textbook Costs at a Hispanic-Serving R1 Institution Open Pedagogy Benefits and Challenges: Student Perceptions of Writing Open Case Studies Generative AI, Synthetic Contents, Open Educational Resources (OER), and Open Educational Practices (OEP): A New Front in the Openness Landscape Reusing Distance Courseware to Enable Blended Delivery: A New Zealand Case Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1