On a regular basis we hear about very unique cases of students going to extraordinary lengths to gain advantage on an examination. Surgically implanting technology is definitely one of the most extreme we have heard of.
When it comes to online proctored assessments, often discussions focus on the student’s behavior and a third-party's ability to monitor that behavior. The actual method of assessment is often overlooked as a variable that is within the control of the organization. When the assessment itself is modified for an online application, not only does this increase academic integrity but also reduces student stress by simplifying the online exam proctoring process, and in turn reducing the cost and time associated with proctoring.
Assessments are developed regularly through the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy to help ensure that they are asking appropriate questions and delivering an appropriate assessment.
It was in the early 1940s that a man named Benjamin Bloom identified the need for educational goals to be placed in specific categories, and believed that by doing so, it would be possible to more accurately predict the performance of college students. Bloom collaborated with a number of other experts and spent 16 years refining and revising this framework. The final version, published as the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in 1956, offered a framework for education attainment through six orders of learning.
Each successive level requires more learning and a greater degree of cognitive processing.
By using higher orders of Bloom's Taxonomy in an online assessment, organizations can reduce not only their concerns regarding academic integrity, but also the complexity and thereby the costs associated with remote proctoring.
If we look at each of the levels we can quickly see how questions written to assess at the lower levels require more monitoring and are less effective.
The next time someone talks about the possibility of unethical behavior by learners in assessments, rather than looking for increasingly invasive software and biased algorithms, we suggest that the assessment method is reviewed first.
Integrity Advocate believes that when entire assessment processes are looked at holistically, solutions can be found that are truly win-win, rather than the default solution being tighter controls and more invasive technology being applied to the students.