The professor, David E. Pritchard, led a research team that analyzed student performance in an online homework system called MasteringPhysics.com during four different semesters. The researchers were able to measure the time spent on each question and look for suspicious work patterns. If a student took less than a minute each answering several complex questions and got them all right, for instance, the system flagged that as likely cheating. “Since one minute is insufficient time to read the problem and enter the several answers typically required, we infer that the quick-solver group is copying the answer from somewhere,” said the researchers in a paper due out today in the free online journal Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research.

Based on later surveys of the same students, researchers found that the culprits typically copied answers from friends, by logging onto a friend’s account on the system to copy work or by getting answers via e-mail or instant message.

For veteran teachers this is hardly a surprising revelation. The complexity of cheating and plagiarism schemes has increased with the rise of technology and ability to transfer information digitally. Cellphones and other devices have made cheating easier than ever, see The Cheating Heart for an overview. Furthermore, despite the education aimed at informing students about copyright and intellectual property, it is clear that generation y and future generations seem to have a different perspective regarding copyright.

While many would point to this as indicating the need for better detection systems, real success comes from successfully encouraging students to choose not to cheat. Restrictive access to technology and more robust detection schemes may seem appealing but lead to students and teachers engaging in a never ending cycle of trying to outsmart one another. This doesn’t mean ignoring cheating or giving it a free pass. In this Web 2.0 world, it does mean, demonstrating a better way and allowing students to make choices. If unethical, according to Professor Pritchard, these choices mean that cheaters will earn the scores they deserve.

In my next article I will outline three keys to building an environment supportive of ethical decision-making. Until then I’d like to hear your comments and observations.

The study, entitled Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, involved a rigorous evaluation of more than a thousand recent studies of online learning. Of the collection of empirical studies examined, the research team identified forty-six studies that could be subjected to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis involved examining the conclusions of the various studies in order to construct a general conclusion (composite estimate) regarding online learning.

The research analysis is based around four important questions:

1. “How does the effectiveness of online learning compare with that of face-to-face instruction?”
2. “Does supplementing face-to-face instruction with online instruction enhance learning?”
3. “What practices are associated with more effective online learning?”
4. “What conditions influence the effectiveness of online learning?”

Not only are all four questions very interesting but they are the sorts of questions commonly asked by educators when considering the efficacy of online learning.

In terms of the effectiveness of online learning compared to face-to-face instruction, the study found that “students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.”

The study also found that blended learning measurably enhanced student learning as compared with instruction solely based on face-to-face interaction. Moreover, it found that the effectiveness of online learning programs seems “quite broad across different content and learning types.”

The study identified three important best practices related to online instruction:

1. “Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.” The study seems to indicate that online learning environments improve student learning when students are able to manipulate instruction based on their particular learning needs or when the online curriculum provides learning mechanisms that trigger student reflection or self monitoring of learning.
2. Online learning is more effective when the curriculum includes blended learning elements (e.g., face-to-face interaction, online collaboration, independent practice, etc.).
3. Effective online learning environments include a variety of learning activities. The simple inclusion of online learning activities such as video or online quizzes do not necessarily improve student learning. Although these sorts of instructional activities are often recommended by educators, the study was not able to find a significant connection between the activities and improved student achievement.

Although the authors of the study determined that blended learning measurably increased student learning, they were not willing to simply attribute the higher achievement to the instructional approach itself.

It’s also interesting to note that the study concluded that time on task is more beneficial to learning in an online environment than in a face-to-face environment.  This seems to confirm what many educators already know: Online learning activities enable teachers to effectively differentiate instruction and tailor learning to meet individual student needs. It seems to make sense, then, that online learning can be highly effective because it enables educators to design instruction that addresses the specific learning needs of students, provide more efficient and individualized student remediation, and individualize instruction based on student aptitude, different learning styles, and interests.

The study did acknowledge that the implications of the its findings are limited and more research regarding online learning is needed. Moreover, the implications for K-12 are very limited due to the small sample of k-12 based research analyzed in the study.

Nevertheless, the study’s analysis is very important. As many schools today face difficult economic challenges, blended learning programs may provide a more efficient and cost effective way to deliver instruction. At the classroom level, blended learning seems to offer important advantages over traditional face-to-face instruction. Perhaps the most important advantage is improved use of instructional time. By utilizing effective blended learning practices, teachers can better maximize limited instructional time while providing interesting and meaningful student-centered learning activities.

Texting girl falls into NYC manhole– Andre Yoskowitz, Afterdawn.com

Richard Baraniuk on open-source learning– Richard Baraniuk, TED

Psyched Out– The Economist

Network Skills– Tony Karrer, e-Learning Technology

Intel Social Media Guidelines– Intel

Google Calendar Goes Gadgety– Adam DuVander, Programmable Web

Dave Eggers Confident that America’s Literature-Devouring Youth Will Save Print– The Cajun Boy

Layoffs prompt teachers to move online– Laura Devaney, e-School News

Software rivalry gives schools more choice– e-School News

Classrooms Go High-Tech to Engage Students– Megan Scott, U.S. News

Homework excuses

Fake it till you make it. That’s the idea behind corrupted-files.com. Deadlines have always been a part of the education experience. For many it has meant late night cram sessions fueled by plenty of Red Bull. As technology became more integrated into our daily lives, enterprising individuals brought SparkNotes and essay mills online. For procrastinating students this offered a hope for redemption. For teachers at best it represented superficial learning and at its worst, downright plagiarism. The battle has evolved yet again.

Currently, for $4.95, Corrupted-Files offers students the choice of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files that will not open. The idea is that by the time the professor realizes the file cannot be opened, the student will have time to complete the actual assignment and submit the real work. Thus allowing the student to literally “fake it till they make it”. Marc Beja at Chronicle.com wrote an enlightening piece about this service.

While the site advises against using their service and suggests that the student should “just tell the truth”, it rings rather hollow. Submitting a corrupted file to gain additional time is dishonest. Plagiarism would technically exist as the student is turning in someone else’s work. Finally, further conversations with the instructor, regarding the corrupt file, would probably be tainted with additional dishonesty.

It appears that this tact could work in most academic settings. With heavy workloads and large class-sizes, most teachers find themselves behind in their grading, at some point in a semester. This can often mean that documents are not inspected for a couple of days after their receipt. Additionally, teachers occasionally receive corrupted files, making it difficult to distinguish bogus from genuine. Without a standard system for assignments submitted online, a loophole is created.

Four Guidelines For Authenticating Online Assignments:

1. Check the file immediately upon receipt. Notify the student immediately that a replacement file is needed for any corrupt file.
2. Instruct the students that corrupt files are THEIR responsibility. Check your sent box and open the attached file to verify that the document is functional.
3. In situations where a corrupt file is discovered, use the properties feature to discover when the file was created. A ten page paper created twenty minutes before the assignment deadline is a red flag. Realize that a tech savvy student can circumvent this technique.
4. Finally, if necessary, require a hardcopy submission.

Click the following link to receive our FREE guide Online Assignments: 3 Tools For Creating and Authenticating Online Assignments.