3 Reasons why proctoring an exam using Zoom is a bad idea

March 31, 2020

Lots of people have been asking me about using Zoom to proctor exams. I’ve taught over 100 online courses, between the graduate courses I’ve taught for the Werklund School of Education and dozens of continuing education courses.

Combining that experience with research expertise in academic integrity, I can say that using Zoom to proctor written exams is a bad idea. Here’s why:

1. Zoom is not a substitute for a professional proctoring service

Professional proctoring services are sophisticated, both in terms of technology and operations. Asking an individual professor to proctor an online exam using Zoom as a makeshift solution is a bad idea. Most instructors are not trained on how to proctor online exams.

Given that some instructors are also working from home, while managing child care and family responsibilities, it is even less likely that they could do an excellent job of online invigilation, especially for a large class.

2. Creates additional technology barriers for students

Not all students have web cams or reliable Internet service. Requiring students to have cameras on and stream video during an exam could put some students at a technological disadvantage. If you suddenly require them to buy a web cam, you could be adding financial stress to the equation as well.

At our university, we cannot penalize students if they do not have a video camera. If you did not tell students at the time they registered for the course that a web cam would be required for the course, it is unethical to suddenly make it a requirement partway through the course. If we want students to act with integrity, we must demonstrate integrity in how we run our courses… Changing the rules as you go along just isn’t ethical.

3. Things are not always as they seem

My colleague, D’Arcy Norman, shared this post on how and why the video feed is not necessarily trustworthy. Go read his post. Watch his video. They try it yourself and see how easy it is to create a video background that makes it look like you’re in front of your camera when you’re not. (Hint: It is really easy.)

Besides, if an instructor suspects exam misconduct are they going to use Zoom as their evidence? How would they actually be able to prove it? I mean unless a student has crib notes out in plain view, the case management for that could get messy fast. Chances are high, I would say, that an allegation of academic misconduct could be dismissed (in the student’s favour) if the evidence is not strong enough.

There are few benefits and many potential complications with using Zoom to proctor written exams, especially for large classes. Of course, the exception to this would be individual oral exam where the student interacts in real time with the examiner. That could be do-able via Zoom. In the case of graduate student thesis defences, it may be the only option, but the examination committee must take steps to verify the identity of the student if they are not personally known to at least one of the examiners.

My recommendation is to consider alternate assessments if possible. If it is not possible, then consider a professional online exam proctoring service. Trying to use Zoom to MacGyver your exam invigilation of written tests is probably not going to serve the purpose of upholding integrity.

Note: This post was updated on April 13, 2020 to clarify that I am specifically referring to written exams in this post.

Related posts:

_________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: 3 Reasons why proctoring an exam using Zoom is a bad idea https://wp.me/pNAh3-2rO

This blog has had over 2 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.


Language Learning and Technology – Showcase of Student Work

September 1, 2018

University of Calgary logoThis post showcases the work of students in Language Teaching and Technology (EDER 669.73), which is a Master’s of Education course. Students who take this course are enrolled in the Language and Literacy Specialization program.

This showcase features the work of students enrolled in the Summer 2018 semester. The students whose work is featured here have given me explicit written permission to share their projects publicly on my blog. I am so proud of the work they have done in an intensive 6-week course.

These projects are examples of authentic assessment for learning at the graduate level. I challenged students to conceptualize, design and develop a project that they could actually use in their own teaching context. Projects were to be tailored to the age, language proficiency level and context of their learners. The results are individualized to each student’s particular professional practice.

Projects had to be evidence-based, supported by relevant research and grounded within pedagogical frameworks, such as TPACK or some other framework that students selected and provided a rationale for.

Check out the amazing projects they created:

Kiran Basran – Language Adapted English 10: Resource and Collaboration Site for Teachers of LAE 10 – https://kiranbasran21.wixsite.com/lae10

Kirsten Cavanaugh – The Name Jar Project – https://kirstencavanaugh.wixsite.com/thenamejarproject

Renee Clark – Canadian Language Benchmark 6 “Buying a Home” Module – https://ellwithrenee.weebly.com/

Danielle Derosier – Life is a Story! What Does Your Say? – https://oralstorytelling.weebly.com/

Soda Pich – English Speech for Beginners – http://englishspeech.my-free.website

Donna Seitz – Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs – http://summersession.pbworks.com/w/page/127497797/Home%20Page

Jane Tyrell – Student Identity Project – https://jtyrrell1.wixsite.com/student-identity

Man Xu – Stop Motion Movie – https://stopmotion-animation-by-manxu.weebly.com/

Shelam Zhou – Canadian Song Bird – http://blog.sina.com.cn/canadiansongbird

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this:  Language Learning and Technology – Showcase of Student Work https://wp.me/pNAh3-2la

This blog has had over 2 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.


Living Reading List for Language Learning and Technology

July 3, 2018

U of C logo - 2015I am trying something a little different with my course readings for the Master of Education summer course I am teaching, Language Learning and Technology, a living reading list.

We are required to list the course readings in our syllabus. This helps keep everyone organized and allows students to be fully prepared for their course. The problem is that many of our students are eager change agents who often bring in additional resources that everyone finds useful. So in addition to including a basic set of readings in the course outline, I will update this post throughout the course as a living list of readings, with contributions of gems we find along the way to promote co-creation of knowledge with and along side these very capable graduate students.

Official course materials (as posted in the syllabus)

This page contains a list of all your course readings. One of the readings is no longer freely available on the Internet, but I have posted it below as a .pdf, under Fair Dealing, as approved by the University of Calgary Copyright office.

Required text

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (2010). (Sixth ed.). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Week 3 Readings

Benson, S. K. & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with technology: Using TPACK to understand teaching expertise in online higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48 (2), 153-172. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.c

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’; curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ918905.pdf

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ839143.pdf

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Online Learning: Official Journal Of The Online Learning Consortium, 18(2). Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/435

van Olphen, M. (2008). World language teacher education and educational technology: A look into CK, PCK, and TPACK. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).

Week 4 Readings

Gaebel, M. (2013). MOOCs: Massive open online courses. European University Association Occasional Papers, 2-17. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/news/13-02-25/Massive_Open_Online_Courses_MOOCs_EUA_to_look_at_development_of_MOOCs_and_trends_in_innovative_learning.aspx

Ham, J.J., & Schnabel, M.A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: social networking as facilitator of design education. Architectural Science Review(54)2, 108-116. Doi: 10.1080/00038628.2011.582369.

Marshall, S. (2014.)  Exploring the ethical implications of MOOCs. Distance Education(35)2, 250-262. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917706.

U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (n.d.). MOOC for English-Teaching Professionals. Retrieved from http://www.americanenglish.state.gov/mooc-english-teaching-professionals

Week 5 Readings

Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (eds.) (2012). Digital games for language learning: Challenges and opportunities. ReCALL Journal, 24(3).doi:10.1017/S0958344012000134

deHaan, J., Kuwada, K., & Ree, W. M. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language, Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74+. Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2689

Mifsud, C. L., Vella, R., & Camilleri, L. (2013). Attitudes towards and effects of the use of video games in classroom learning with specific reference to literacy attainment. Research In Education, 90(90), 32+.

Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2014).  Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate.  Language Learning and Technology, 18(2). Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2858

Additional Resources

This part of the list contains the additional resources that the students and I collaboratively added throughout the course:

Alharbi, H., & Jacobsen, M. (2017). Tracking the Design and Development of a Six Module miniMOOC for Quality Graduate Supervision Paper presented at the AECT Annual Conference. Retrieved from https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings17/2017/17_04.pdf

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Barber, M., Donnelly K., & Rizvi S. (2013). An avalanche is coming. Higher education and the revolution ahead. Retrieved from Institute for Public Policy website: http://www.ippr.org/publications/an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-andthe-revolution-ahead

Bralić, A., & Divjak, B. (2018). Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: Achieving learning outcomes with blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.

Cagiltay, N. E., Ozcelik, E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2015). The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education, 87(1), 35-41.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Common Sense Education. (2016, July, 12). How to apply the SAMR model with Ruben Puentedura. .  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTx2UQQvbU

Common Sense Media. (2018). Digital Citizenship. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship

Duenas, M. (2004). The whats, whys, hows and whos of content-based instruction in second/foreign language education. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 73-96.

Eaton, S. E. (2011). The Need For Increased Integration of Technology and Digital Skills in the Literacy Field in Canada  Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526087.pdf

Eaton, S. E. (2012). Why some teachers will never love technology (and that’s O.K.).  Retrieved from https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/why-some-teachers-will-never-love-technology-and-thats-o-k/

Gaebel, M. (2013). MOOCs: Massive open online courses. European University Association Occasional Papers, 2-17. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/news/13-02-25/Massive_Open_Online_Courses_MOOCs_EUA_to_look_at_development_of_MOOCs_and_trends_in_innovative_learning.aspx

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1). doi:10.1080/08923640109527071

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84-89.

Golonka, E.M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D.L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for Foreign Language Learning: A Review of Technology Types and Their Effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.

Hai-Jew, S. (2010). An instructional design approach to updating an online course curriculum. Educause Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/instructional-design-approach-updating-online-course-curriculum

Hoban, G. & Neilson, W. (2014).  Creating a narrated stop-motion animation to explain science: The affordances of “Slowmation” for generating discussion.  Teaching and Teacher Education42(1), 68-78. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.04.007

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15.

Jacobs, G., & Farrell, T. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 5-30.

Keat, Jane B., Strickland, Martha J., & Marinak, Barbara A. (2009). Child Voice: How Immigrant Children Enlightened Their Teachers with a Camera. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(1).

Korda, R J, Clements, M S, & Dixon, J. (2011). Socioeconomic inequalities in the diffusion of health technology: Uptake of coronary procedures as an exampleSocial Science & Medicine 72(2). 222-22. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.002

Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216. doi:10.1177/2042753018785180

Liu, E. Z. (2011). Avoiding internet addiction when integrating digital games into Teaching. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(10), 1325-1335. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.10.1325

Martin, A. R. (2015). Is MOOC madness here to stay? an institutional legitimacy study of employers (Order No. 3714173).

Mifsud, C. L., Vella, R., & Camilleri, L. (2013). Attitudes towards and effects of the use of video games in classroom learning with specific reference to literacy attainment. Research In Education, 90(90), 32+. Retrieved from  http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/abs/10.7227/RIE.90.1.3

Museelwhite, C., Martson, H. R. and Freeman, S. (2016). From needy and dependent to  independent homo ludens: Exploring digital gaming and older people. Games and Aging.   11 (1), 3-6. DOI: 10.1177/1555412015605220

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York: Penguin Books.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants (part 1). On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Rogers, E. (1997). Diffusion of human factors design: Resistances and how to overcome them. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society…annual meeting, 1(1). Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/107118139704100101

Stoller, F. (2008). Content-based instruction (N. V. Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger, Eds.). In Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 4, Second and foreign language education, pp. 59-70). New York: Springer.

Turow, J. (2013). The daily you: How the new advertising industry is defining your identity and your worth. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wu, I. X. Y. ; Kee, J. C. Y. ; Threapleton, D. E. ; Ma, R. C. W. ; Lam, V. C. K. ; Lee, E. K. P., Wong, S. Y. S. & Chung, V. C. H.(2018). Effectiveness of smartphone technologies on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis of  17 trials. Obesity Reviews. 19(6), p.825-838.

 

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: Living Reading List for Language Learning and Technology https://wp.me/pNAh3-2jW

This blog has had over 2 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.


The impact of tech on how instructors teach and how students learn

April 3, 2018

Use of tech cover.jpgI am thrilled to share a new book chapter that’s just been published. The chapter is, “The impact of technology on how instructors teach and how students learn”. It part of, The Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning, edited by Richard Harnish, K. Robert Bridges, David N. Sattler, Margaret L. Signorella and Michael Munson. It is published by the Society for the Teaching of Psychology. (I know, I know, I’m not a psychologist, but the topic fits with one of my areas of interest.)

In this chapter I talk about how technology is impacting educators in terms of their pedagogical knowledge and classroom practice, as well as how tech impacts how students learn.

One of the best things about this book is that is freely available online! You can download your own copy from: https://teachpsych.org/ebooks/useoftech

In fact, the publishers have an entire collection of free books that anyone can download on topics ranging from academic advising to research on teaching, among others. Check them out here: https://teachpsych.org/ebooks/index.php

On a personal note, I have to say that I really appreciate contributing to works that are Open Access, so readers from anywhere can download, read and enjoy. There’s much to be said for this kind of publishing model and as a writer and a scholar, being able to share my work in this way is energizing.

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: The impact of tech on how instructors teach and how students learn

This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.


Dear students, please use your phones in class.

January 5, 2017

For the past five years or so, I have been teaching exclusively online. But this past fall I was asked to teach a classroom-based course at the last minute due to a health issue with the instructor who was originally scheduled to teach. It was a big shift to go back into the classroom after working online for so long.

Before the course even began I e-mailed the entire class to let them know that I expected them to bring a device (laptop, tablet or phone) to class. I was perfectly transparent that I’d be expecting them to use their devices throughout class for learning purposes to look things up, share information and do projects together during class time.

Students used their devices to take notes, look up articles or websites or whatever they needed. We used Google docs to take notes and work on projects in real time.

It was a 3-hour class, so we also took a break halfway through. I found that most of students took some time during their break to text or check their email. Most of them self-regulated so they were doing personal stuff during break time, but if they did happen to check their e-mail during class, I didn’t chastise them. My attitude is that everyone in a graduate-level course is an adult and they can figure it out.

I aimed to keep my “lecturing” to a minimum. I had students learn through activities, games and projects. They had to work on specific tasks or activities during class, often with a partner or in groups, so they were busy the whole time.

I have changed my teaching approach dramatically over the years. I talk way less than I used to. Now, I focus on having my students engage in more doing and less sitting-and-listening.

Some profs still think it is a good idea to stand up and lecture for 3 hours. If you’re going to do is ask students to sit there and do nothing more than passively listen for 3 hours, you’d better be a spectacularly captivating speaker is all I can say.

____________________________________________________

Share this post: Dear students, please use your phones in class. http://wp.me/pNAh3-1L4

This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.


%d bloggers like this: