Introduction
Many universities with online programs are facing
the same challenges of providing positive
identification of students enrolled in online
programs and reducing the occurrence of cheating
on assignments and tests. Some may require online
students to go to the campus or testing center to
take tests; some require the tests to be proctored
by a trusted agent; and others are searching for
technological solutions. Remote Proctor from
Software Secure (http://www.softwaresecure.com/)
is one such technological solution that provides
biometric identification and a secure, monitored
testing environment. This paper provides a case
study of the procedures used in the adoption and
implementation of Remote Proctor and other
technologies aimed at improving academic integrity
of degree programs at a small southern regional
university (hereafter, SSRU).
Background
SSRU is a state supported institution located in a
rural area of a southern state. It hosts
approximately 2,500 on-campus students enrolled in
undergraduate and graduate programs. SSRU also has
about the same number of students enrolled in its
online programs. The programs are accredited by
the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and
Programs (ACBSP), National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),
Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training
Education, National League for Nursing, and the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS). Like many universities, SSRU is attempting
to confront the issues of cheating, plagiarism,
and other forms of academic dishonesty in both
on-campus and online courses.
Cheating and Technology
Cheating is not a new phenomenon at colleges and
universities. Research into why students cheat
and how universities control these activities was
conducted as early as 1964 (Bowers 1964). More
recent research indicates that cheating not only
continues to be a problem, but for the 10 years
between 1992 and 2002, the incidents of cheating
increased dramatically (McCabe 2001-2002; McCabe,
Butterfield, & Trevino 2006). It also seems that
students increasingly think it is ok to cheat (Etter,
Cramer, & Finn 2006; Malone 2006; Roig & Ballew
1994).
Apparently, cheating has become such a prevalent
and compelling topic that a recent prime time
television show, Without a Trace (Steinbert
2009), used it as the theme. The episode
revealed ways that students cheat and addressed
one of the major reasons why they do it:
competition to get into universities. If society
is so very aware of high school students cheating
their way into college, then it stands to reason
that it can be expected once they arrive, as well.
SSRU incorporates a variety of
technologies in the classroom to enhance the
student’s learning experience. Wireless access to
the Internet, the Blackboard course management
system, lecture capture systems, and textbook
publisher resources provide rich content and
encourage student collaboration. These same
technologies, along with cell phones, text
messaging devices and Bluetooth networking
contribute to the increasing trend in cheating (Popyack,
et al. 2003) and make it easier for students to
cheat (Auer & Krupar 2001). Students are often
more familiar with the technology than the
instructors which makes cheating even more
difficult to detect. Using the Internet and a
myriad of search engines, students find applicable
websites and simply copy and paste the material,
claiming it as their own work (Akbulat, et al.
2008; Embleton & Helfer 2007), They use cell
phones and blackberries to text test questions and
answers to classmates; camera phones to take
pictures of tests; and laptop computers to look up
answers on the Internet (Popyack, et al. 2003).
There are also websites that sell or subcontract
term papers and projects written at any level on
any topic (Ross 2005). While technology seems to
facilitate student cheating, other technologies
such as software to lock down the testing
environment, cameras, biometric identification
devices, Bluetooth enabled computers to detect
other Bluetooth enable devices, and originality
checking applications can be used by universities
to combat cheating, both on and off campus and to
meet the demands of accrediting and regulating
agencies.
Academic Integrity in
Distance Education
In its Policy Statements on Distance Education,
SACS requires that “the integrity of student work
and the credibility of degrees and credits are
ensured” (SACS: CS 3.4.6 and CS 3.4.10 2008). In
order to maintain their accreditation (or be
reaffirmed), universities must demonstrate they
have processes in place that will reduce
opportunities for students to cheat. For its part,
SSRU implemented Turnitin.com as its first process
for enforcing its academic honesty policy.
Turnitin.com is an online resource used to verify
the originality of term papers and other writings.
Instructors or students submit papers to the
Turnitin.com database which then compares the
submitted document to others in the database and
on the Internet. A report is then generated that
identifies the percentage of material directly
copied from another source. The overall intent of
this implementation has been to reduce the amount
of copy and paste activity from the Internet.
The federal government has also placed
restrictions on universities with online programs.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA)
states “…the agency or association requires an
institution that offers distance education or
correspondence education to have processes through
which the institution establishes that the student
who registers in a distance education or
correspondence education course or program is the
same student who participates in and completes the
program and receives the academic credit” (HEOA:
Issue 10 2009). Many universities use proctors or
commercial testing sites to meet this requirement.
Students taking tests are either known by the
proctor or asked to show an ID and the testing
environment is monitored in an effort to
discourage cheating. SSRU is looking toward a
technological solution that will meet HEOA
requirements. As part of a research project on
cheating and technology, SSRU began evaluating the
usefulness of Remote Proctor to verify the
identity of online students and monitor
potentially suspicious activity in the online
testing environment. Remote Proctor uses a
combination of biometric authentication; software
controlled testing environment; and a 360O video
camera to discourage cheating. The next section
describes the decision process used.
Case Study
Early in 2008, the authors were researching ways
that students use technology to cheat in on-campus
courses and how faculty can use technology in the
classroom to discourage and detect cheating. The
research led to information on a project at a
nearby university which was conducting a trial of
Remote Proctor for testing in its online classes
(Powers 2006). Initial reviews from that
university were generally positive. Since SSRU has
an extensive online program; contact was made with
executives at Software Secure for more
information. Arrangements were made for a
representative of Software Secure to join a
presentation of the research on cheating at the
spring 2008 faculty colloquium to introduce Remote
Proctor to the SSRU faculty. Plans were made to
conduct a pilot study of Remote Proctor at SSRU.
Pilot Study on Remote Proctor
The pilot study was designed to test the Remote
Proctor device in a controlled environment to
simulate conditions for installation, registration
and testing. A small classroom was equipped with
five computers, each separated by partition. Each
student would be required to install the Remote
Proctor on their assigned computer and complete a
sample test. The study would provide information
about its ease of use by students and faculty, and
make a recommendation about the adoption of the
product in online courses. The results of the
study were presented at the fall 2008 faculty
colloquium and published in the Proceedings of the
51st Annual Meeting of the Southwest Academy of
Management (Bedford, Gregg, & Clinton 2009).
Additionally, the results were presented to the
SSRU Dean’s council who would be deciding the fate
of Remote Proctor. The pilot study and results are
summarized below.
Materials
Once a school adopts Remote Proctor, the device is
available to students for $150 plus $30 per year
software license. Software Secure provided SSRU
with five Remote Proctor units for a period of
30-days for evaluation plus a 30-day academic
license for Securexam for Remote Proctor software
to cover five students. The total cost of the
pilot study was $750.
Participants
Faculty members from all colleges (Table 1) were
encouraged to participate in this study. No
special criteria were required for participation
except an interest in improving the caliber of
online programs. An email was sent to
participating full-time faculty members with a
questionnaire attached. Instructors were asked to
visit the Remote Proctor web site to view the
videos taken during the test period and then
complete and submit a questionnaire about the
experience. Participating faculty included 40%
from the College of Business, 25% from the College
of Education, 10% from the College of Liberal
Arts, 5% from the College of Natural Science and
Math, 10% from the School of Nursing and 10% from
administrators who also teach online classes but
are not assigned to a college.
Table 1. Participating faculty
|
College/School |
Number of Responses |
|
Business |
8 |
|
Education |
5 |
|
Liberal Arts |
2 |
|
Natural Science & Math |
1 |
|
Nursing |
2 |
|
Other |
2 |
Due to the short time period of the study,
students in the
College
of Business were asked by their instructors to
participate in the study by taking one or more
prepared tests using Remote Proctor. The grades on
these tests were unimportant to the process. The
students installed the Remote Proctor hardware and
software, enrolled their credentials (fingerprint
and photo), and took one or more tests on the
Software Secure Blackboard site. The students were
encouraged to shuffle papers, talk, use their cell
phones and perform other activities that would be
captured as suspicious video by Remote Proctor and
recorded to the administrative site. After
completing the test(s), the students completed a
short questionnaire about their perceptions of the
process. The results from the student and faculty
questionnaires are presented in the analysis
section of this paper. Table 2 provides a
breakdown of the participating students by rank
and gender. Freshmen and sophomores were likely to
be taking classes in other colleges as well as the
College
of
Business;
juniors and seniors were likely to only be taking
courses in the College of Business.
Table 2. Student demographics
|
Rank |
Gender |
|
|
|
Male |
Female |
Total |
|
Freshman |
5 |
0 |
5 |
|
Sophomore |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
Junior |
5 |
3 |
8 |
|
Senior |
11 |
3 |
14 |
|
Total |
23 |
8 |
31 |
Process
For the purposes
of this study, Software Secure prepared three
courses on its Blackboard site along with sample
Remote Proctor tests. Since the purpose of the
study was to examine the usefulness of Remote
Proctor to identify the student and monitor the
test environment and not to test the students
knowledge of any subject, these sample
exams were deemed
sufficient to evaluate the Remote Proctor testing
system for our purposes. These prepared exams
precluded faculty from having to prepare and
upload special exams just for this project.
Students
It was desirable to have as many students as
possible participate in this study. The actual
number (31) of participants was sufficient to
provide a statistically normal sample. Online
students using Remote Proctor to take an online
exam will be required to register their
credentials (fingerprint template and picture),
login to the test site and complete the test.
Remote Proctor will authenticate the person taking
the test and monitor the test environment for
suspicious activity. To make the experience
reflect, as closely as possible, a typical online
student testing situation, each student was
required to do the following
·
review installation instructions and other
documentation;
·
assemble the Remote Proctor;
·
install the software and hardware following
the instructions provided;
·
register the installation and enroll their
credentials;
·
logon
to the Software Secure Blackboard site and
take the exam(s).
As a test of the Remote Proctor capabilities,
students were asked to perform activities that
activate the suspicious activities monitor (talk,
open a book, etc.). The activities were captured
and recorded on a test site for viewing by
faculty.
After finishing the tests and closing Blackboard,
the students completed a short questionnaire. The
entire process (installation, registration, exam
and questionnaire) took the student about one-half
hour to complete.
Faculty
All faculty members were emailed a copy of the
questionnaire and encouraged to participate in
this study by doing the following:
Userid for Faculty =teacher-b
Password =teacher-b;
Twenty faculty members from across all colleges
responded to the questionnaire.
Analysis
Excel was used to provide the statistical analysis
of the student and faculty questionnaires.
Demographic data was collected from the student
and is shown in Table 2. The sample was 74% male
and 26% female. A majority of the students were
juniors and seniors. Only four of the students
reported they had taken online classes at SSRU;
however, nine indicated plans to take online
courses. As illustrated in Figure 1, 48% of the
students were supportive of adopting Remote
Proctor while 22% were not supportive and 30%
expressed no opinion.
Figure 1. Student recommendations
Acceptance and Adoption
The successful adoption of a new technology is
frequently determined by two primary factors:
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use
(Davis, 1989). Perceived
usefulness is defined as the degree to which users
believe that the technology will facilitate the
process. The process evaluated in this study was
reducing opportunities for cheating and was
addressed in questions 6, 7, and 8. Perceived ease
of use is defined as the degree users find the
effort involved in using the technology as
minimal. This factor was addressed in the student
questionnaire by questions 10, 11, 12. They were
also addressed in the faculty questionnaire by
questions 1, 3, 4 (ease of use), and 5, 6, 8
(perceived usefulness).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used in
this study to identify the strength of the
relationships between the variables and their
effect on the latent variables of perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU).
Figure 2 illustrates the SEM model used in this
study.
All of the variables were
significant with t values well above the critical
value of 2.457 (α=.05, 30df). Additionally, the
goodness of fit statistics for the model indicate
an overall good model. Key goodness of fit indices
include ×2 = 9.78 with a p-value of 0.28 and 8
degrees of freedom, adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI)
= 0.94, and root mean square of approximation (RMSEA)
= 0.086. The model confirms that students (1) view
Remote Proctor as useful for reducing or
discouraging cheating (2) view the system as easy
to set up and use and (3) are supportive of the
system and are willing to adopt Remote Proctor.
Figure 2. Structural equation model
Instructors were more limited in their exposure to
Remote Proctor. Unlike students who were required
to install, configure, and use Remote Proctor,
instructors were only asked to view the videos
captured during the time the tests were taken. Due
to the small sample size (20), SEM could not be
used for analysis. However, instructors supported
adoption at a rate of almost 5:1 (Figure 3).
The results of the pilot study were presented at
the September 2008 Dean’s Council along with a
recommendation to adopt the system. Several of the
members participated in the study and added their
recommendations. The adoption of Remote Proctor
for online testing was approved with a target date
of spring 2009.
Implementation
The academic year for the online program at SSRU
consists of five 8-week terms beginning in mid
August; Fall 1, Fall 2,
Spring 1, Spring 2 and Summer. The decision
to adopt Remote Proctor did not occur until late
in the Fall1 term. Several issues were identified
as critical to successful implementation and
included technological issues as well as student
and faculty issues. A committee was assembled to
address these issues. Committee members consist
of the Director of Information Technology (chair),
Dean of the College of Education (online graduate
degrees), Dean of the
Graduate
School,
Dean of Online Studies, and the Associate Dean of
the
college
of Business.
Figure 3. Faculty recommendation
Technical issues involved interfacing the course
management software (Blackboard) so the Remote
Proctor software would recognize the faculty
assigned to the course. This is necessary so the
faculty member can develop and deploy the Remote
Proctor exams. Also, the bandwidth and storage
requirements for handling the streaming video from
(theoretically) 2500 concurrent exam takers demand
the architecture be highly scalable. There is also
the issue of user support and which campus
office/department will be responsible. SSRU’s
Information Technology (IT) department will
provide helpdesk support from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
Secure Software and IT are in process of testing
the other factors.
Student issues center around two factors:
technical support with installation and
registration (handled by IT) and purchasing the
Remote Proctor. The device is available in the
online bookstore and is used in every online
course offered. All online students are required
to purchase Remote Proctor unless they are within
one term of graduation. This precludes a student
having to spend $180 to take only one or two
tests. Students living near SSRU would be allowed
to come to campus to use Remote Proctor units
available in the Julia Tutwiler Library. Others
are handled on a case by case basis using either
testing centers of live proctors. The Dean’s
Counsel felt it was essential to develop a privacy
use statement to be given to each student.
Faculty issues are associated with monitoring the
saved videos for suspicious activity. While
Software Secure does offer monitoring service, it
is quite expensive due to the number of students
and exams involved.
Once the identified issues were resolved, a date
for implementation was chosen –
Spring 2
students must purchase and begin using Remote
Proctor. Announcements were made on the SSRU
homepage, the main page for each online course,
the course registration page, and in news media (Bathwal
2009).
Unresolved issues
Even though the committee attempted to address the
major issues that arose during implementation,
there are still issues that remain unresolved:
·
Remote Proctor is not yet available for Macintosh
or 64-bit PCs. This is anticipated to be resolved
by fall1-2009;
·
Military students stationed in
Iraq and Afghanistan cannot get Remote Proctor
overseas or attach to a military computer; and
·
Students who need special assistance under the
guidance of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)
Even though they remain unresolved from a
technology standpoint, Remote Proctor will greatly
reduce the need for human proctors. The company
is working to make available the Macintosh
software as soon as possible, hopefully before the
summer session is over. Military students have
access to commanding officers who are very
familiar with and willing to proctor exams to
enhance the education of their troops. And,
students with disabilities have to be handled in a
manner related to helping them overcome their
particular disability. This would be the case
whether online or in the classroom. For example,
some students simply need more time to take a
test; therefore, a separate test can be made for
them which will allow them to have more time which
other students will not be allowed to access.
Remote Proctor was fully implemented during the
Spring 2 online term,
but not without some minor difficulties. SSRU’s
IT department received some 600 calls for
assistance installing Remote Proctor, several
faculty members needed additional help installing
ExamBuilder software, and some students expressed
concerns about perceive privacy violations. In
spite of the difficulties, Remote Proctor is now
in use in the online program and initial response
by both students and faculty is generally
positive. It seems fair to say that implementing a
project such as this, regardless of proper
planning, is likely to encounter issues. However,
it is anticipated that Remote Proctor will prove
to be another tool to help ensure the quality and
integrity of SSRU’s online program.
Conclusion
In today’s fast-paced, high tech society, the
opportunity to cheat has increased, and research
has shown that, in fact, cheating is on the rise.
Colleges, universities, and accrediting bodies
have become concerned about cheating, especially
in the area of determining whether the student who
registered for a class is actually the one taking
the tests and doing the work in the online
environment. The research presented in this case
study has shown that the Remote Proctor may be a
valuable resource to colleges and universities
when determining that students are actually doing
their own work. Because of its low cost and
functionality, its use will be more cost effective
for students and the university, in the long run.
Faculty and students both feel the device will
help curb cheating.
