Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
To be clear, the correct response to testing in the all-online semester is to design tests that are open-book or where internet access is less useful. So focus on analysis/synthesis (read: essays) over fact-recall...rather than using invasive distance-proctoring methods.
At least, for history. But I have to imagine there are ways to reorient students from fact-recall to solving unique problems that are similarly resistant to quick google searches...I mean, except for programming, where quick StackOverflow searches *are* the skill being taught
Now, I'll admit, from a pedagogical standpoint, there are drawbacks. I like to include fact-recall in tests to give students who struggle with analysis a chance to earn credit for studying - that's harder to do in an online-test environment.
But going all-online midstream last semester actually let me 'test' my shift to online testing without invasive proctoring, because I had the same group of students. With an analysis-focused (read: essay) exam, I saw no big cheating score-jump last semester.
My first-test to second-test score rise was well within my normal expectations for an entirely in-person semester (because the second exam *should* have a higher average than the first, since students should be learning)...
...which suggests to me that the expanded opportunities for cheating didn't translate to higher scores for the cheaters. I'm not naive, I'm sure some of my students tried to beat the exam with google and wikipedia. But wiki can't write an essay for you.
What you said! In the real world, nobody works without access to their personal library, or the whole Internet. Asking students to do work solely from memory is silly.
All of my exams this year have been entirely open book. We were encouraged to use Google where necessary. The trick being the questions were so packed into the time limit that if we had to, we'd never finish - which is better, but... still wrong.
What about subjects like foreign language? It’s hard to give analysis exams in low-level FL classes. Learning a Foreign language is basically elaborate memorization anyway
Depends on the language, I suppose. I'm qualified to teach Ancient Greek and Latin and either would be fairly easy to test - at the lower levels with exercises and at the higher levels with translations (prepared or sight), with time limits to prevent look-everything-up-ism.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
