DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE
ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
(A
CASE STUDY OF MADONNAUNIVERSITY NIGERIA)
BY
Ndunaka
Alexius Uchenna
REG
NO: CS/12/155
Alozie
Oliver
REG
NO: CS/12/109
SUBMITTED
TO THE
DEPARTMENT
OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
FACULTY
OF SCIENCE
MADONNA
UNIVERSITY NIGERIA
AUGUST, 2016
CERTIFICATION
This
is to certify that this project DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE ENTRANCE was
carried out by
Ndunaka
Alexius Uchenna and Alozie Oliver
--------------------------------------------
----------------------
NAME
OF STUDENT
-------------------------------
SIGNATURE
-------------------------------
DATE
APPROVAL
PAGE
This is to certify
that this research was carried out by
Ndunaka Alexius
Uchenna
Reg. No: CS/12/155
Alozie Oliver
Reg. No: CS/12/109
Department
of Computer Science
Faculty
of Natural Sciences
Madonna
University, Nigeria.
____________________
_______________
PROF.
KAMGNIA EMMANUEL
SUPERVISOR
_______________________
_______________
Mrs
CELIA EBERENDU
HEAD
OF DEPARTMENT
____________________
__ _______________
MR
….
EXTERNAL
EXAMINER DATE iv
DEDICATION
This work is
dedicated to the Almighty God for giving us the knowledge, wisdom and understanding
in the pursuit of our academic career.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to use this
medium to express my immeasurable and inestimable gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Kamgnia Emmanuel, my able and ever loving
Head of department Mrs Celia Eberendu, Our loving parents for seeing us to this
stage of our life; to my mother, Mrs.
Juliana Abi for her unending love and support. To my sisters, Ene Abi, Lenwang
Lenchang Abi, Nelly Abi, my late sister, Kokomma Abi, My dearest and only
brother, Abi Augustine Abi, I say may God bless you all richly.
My gratitude
extends to the following persons: Chief Patrick C. Okem and family, Very
Spirited Reverend Father Francis Agantem Eworo, Mrs Philomena Adinye, Mr.
Gabriel Omara-Achong, Mr. Thony Bankong, Mr. Chris Iklaki, Mr. Chris-Blaise
Eweh, Dr. Otu-Ibor, Chief Peter Ojie, Chief Alex Egbona, Dr. Ikani wogar, Chief
Igbe Aruku, Chief Dr. Oshega Abang, Barr. Venatius Ikem, Barr. Legor Idagbor,
Barr. Patrick Egem Okem, Barr. Joe Abang, Miss Nsa Cobham, Sen. Prof. Ben
Ayade, Prof. Larry Holmes Jr., Mrs. Martina Odom, Madam Saleya Kombo, Hon. Joe
Eweh, Hon. Marshal Egere, Hon. Dean Otu, Chief Charlie Abuo, Mr. Robert Otu,
Sen. Chris Ngige, Mrs. Oluremi Tinubu, Prof. Mrs. Ngozi Obasi, Dr. Julius
Okputu, Hon. Ogana Lukpata, Mr. Ben Ojikpong, Mr. Etchue Agida, Prince Joe Aras
Abue, Prince Michael Nku Abuo, Chief OkJazz Ewe, My darling vi
Governor,
Sen. Liyel Imoke, His Deputy, Barr. Efiok Cobham, Hon Rita Ayim and many others
who extended their kind hand of fellowship towards me. I couldn‘t have been
more grateful. Remain richly blessed. God bless. vii
ABSTRACT
Computers are
known for their wide range of uses especially in scientific and mathematical
fields. However little or no thought has been given to designing a complete and
thorough intelligence entrance examination on a computer system in our
immediate environment. This entrance examination system is designed to assist
university administration examination in attaining a standardized sample, and
as such the psychological implication of such a design is very important.
The design of the
system is quite simple and easily understood. Its flexibility makes it amenable
for future changes and amendment to either incorporate other aspects of
intelligence or to be designed for any other school age or class.
The question of
the online entrance examination system are programmed and visually displayed on
the system‘s screen in an interactive form. The student answers the question on
the computer system, immediately the question is marked and notified. The
result of the examination is also displayed at the end of the examination which
goes a long way to lessen the fears of students that they were marked down in
the examination. Since the entrance examination is examined by the computer,
time cost of manual examination is saved. Based on the virtues of internet
amendment which have been made to the examination system concept by
constructing a website with online entrance examination, online question
setting and answer and online management by the administrator. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page - - - - - - - - i
Certification - - - - - - - - ii
Approval page - - - - - - - - iii
Dedication - - - - - - - - iv
Acknowledgement - - - - - - - v
Abstract - - - - - - - - - vi
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction - - - - - - - - 1
Background Of The Study - - - - - -2
Objective of The Study - - - - - - -5
Justification for the System - - - - - -6
Statement of Problem - - - - - - -7
Scope Of The Study - - - - - - - -8
Significance Of Study - - - - - - -9
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review - - - - - - - 11
Computer Versus Paper - - - - - - 27
Technical difficulties Include -- - - - - 30 ix
Other General Comments Included The Following - -30
Other Related Works - - - - - - -31
Computer Assisted Learning - - - - - -31
A Brief Historic Review - - - - - - -32
Approaches To e-learning Services - - - - -34
Computer Based Learning - - - - - -35
Computer – Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) -37
Technology – Enhanced Learning (TEL) - - - -38
Computer Aided Learning Versus Traditional Education -40
Faculty and Student Feedback - - - - - -42
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology and Analysis Of The Present System - 48
The Research Methodology - - - - - 48
Software Process Model - - - - - - 49
Method Of Data Collection - - - - - 50
Online Entrance Examination use-case
Model Main Diagram -- - - - -- - - 51
User Requirement Definition - - - - - 64
The Products And Process Features - - - 65 x
System Requirement Specification - - - - 66
The features That Are Available
To be Administrator Are: - - - - - - 67
The features That Are Available To The Examiner Are: 68
Non-Functional System requirement - - - 68
Safety Requirements- - - - - - -- 68
Security Requirements - - - - - - 69
Software Quality Attributes - - - - - 69
System Interfaces - -
- - - - - 69
User Interface - - - -
- - - - 70
Hardware Interfaces -
- - - - - - -70
Software Interfaces -
- - - - - - -70
Communications
Interfaces - - - - - - -70
System Models - - - -
- - - - -71
System Evolution - - -
- - - - - -71
Context Diagram - - -
- - - - - -72
Interaction Model - -
- - - - - -73 xi
CHAPTER FOUR
System Design, Testing, And Implementation - 80
System Design - - - - - - - - 80
System implementation - - - - - - 80
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary Conclusion And Recommendation - - 92
Summary - - - - - - - - - 92
Conclusion- - - - - - - - - 92
Recommendation - - - - - - - - 93
Reference - - - - - - - - 94 1
CHAPTER
ONE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
An entrance
examination is an examination that many educational institutions use to select
students for admission. These exams may be administered at any level of
education, from primary to higher education, although they are more common at
higher levels. Online entrance examination systems are very convenient and
fast. Online entrance examination system has three purposes.
1.
To allow entrance examination takers at different places to take the
examination at the same time through the online entrance examination website.
2.
Through careful planning and proper coding, enable entrance examination, result
checking and admission status on the websites.
3. To integrate
database with the program allowing administrator easily addition of question
and creation of entrance examination.
This document will
propose all features and procedures to develop the system. This document
specially containing details about objectives, scope limitation, process model,
primary requirements, team development, possible project risks, project
schedule, and finally monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Online entrance
examination system is very useful for Educational Institute to prepare an exam,
safe the time that will take to check the paper and prepare mark sheets. It
will help the Institute to entrance examinationing of students and develop
their skills. But the disadvantages for this system, it takes a lot of times
when you prepare the exam at the first time for usage. And we are needs number
of computers with the same number of students. The effective use of
"Online entrance examination system", any Educational Institute or
training centers can be use it to develop their strategy for putting the exams,
and for getting better results in less time. 2
However
the formulation of question for entrance examination is often treated with
consciousness. With the developing of computer application technology, more and
more computer application software is coming up. This application software‘s
associated to every part of people‘s daily life, and so does the examinations.
Just like other application system, examination systems develop very fast, from
simple stand-alone system to C/S based system, and now some WEB based system.
Although there are a lot of examination systems, but there also have blanks in
some special fields. Examination Evaluation System integrated into the
Multimedia Emulation Training System of certain type equipment is designed and
will be introduced. This system can be used to help people familiar with the
equipment usage quickly which can save money and time. Now the following will
analysis and contrast the existing examination systems, and shoveling out the
improvement of our examination system. Then we will introduce some
characteristics of our system in chapter 3. And in chapter 4 we will introduce
the key technology that applied in our system. At last we make a summary on our
system and make a brief prospect on the future of the examination system.
1.1
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Caritas University
is a catholic private institution established by Very Rev. FATHER EMMANUEL
EDEH. This institution was established in the year 2005 and located in
Amorji-Nike Enugu state.
Caritas University
have two venue for their examinations, Charity Square and Auditorium.
Auditorium is under roof amendment. Caritas University with over four thousand
students has four faculties presently and they include natural 3
science,
engineering, environmental and social science. Caritas University uses the
manual method of paper and pen for entrance examinations.
Automation of the
entrance exams involves the experts reasoning process to solve the problems
involve in the manual entrance exams by using certain program validation in the
program properties to check for some criteria. Automation of entrance
examination involves a set of program that manipulate encoded knowledge to
solve problems in a specialized domain that normally requires human expert.[1]
Edward A. Feigenbaum was one of the people in software based pc consultancy‘s
research who decided in the mid 1960‘s the reason why pc consultancy should be
produced, the reason was that he thought on how important it is to know how much
a computer program can know and the best way to find out would be to try
constructing an artificial expert.
In the process of
looking for an appropriate field of expertise Feigenbaum encountered Joshua
Lederberg, the noble laureate biochemist, who suggested that software for
entrance examination in various fields is to be produced together they began
work on DENDRAL, the first software Based Examination system in 1965 at
Stamford university.
‗‘when you think
you have you have created a program structure capable of manipulating expert
knowledge, you have to get some knowledge into the system‖. {2} {Joshua
Lederberg}
The
characteristics of this expert system include the ability to encode knowledge
in a program. It also has the capability to draw it`s reasoning from
meta-knowledge (inference) which is very important feature of expert system. It
has a high performance of helping to solve problem of marking answers without
favoritism. 4
1.2
CARITAS UNIVERSITY IS MADE UP OF FOUR (4) FACULTIES NAMELY:
Engineering
with the following department: Computer, Mechanical, Chemical
and Electronics Engineering.
Environmental
with the following departments: Architecture, urban&
regional planning and estate management.
Management
and social science with the following department accountancy, economics,
business administration, public administration, political science, industrial
relation and personal management mass communication marketing banking and
finance.
Natural
Science with the following department biochemistry computer science
&information industrial chemistry mathematics & statistics and
microbiology &biotechnology.
In universities
like caritas they have not been able to implement an online entrance
examination system which can allow student login and write their exams from any
location around the globe once they have purchase their entrance examination
card., though they have been several anticipated work but no reliable software
to back it up .i have analyzed the situation and discover that though much
effort is required to develop and maintain this online entrance examination
system. I hope all necessary tools within my reach would be reliable enough to
make this software development. 5
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
CHANCELLOR
V.C
D.V.C
Dean Faculty of
science
Dean Faculty of
social sciences
Dean Faculty of
Humanities
Dean Faculty of
management science.
Dean Faculty of
Engineering
Dean Faculty of
Education
H.O.D’S
H.O.D’S
H.O.D’S
H.O.D’S
H.O.D’S
H.O.D’S
Exams record
ACADEMIC STAFF
NON-ACADEMIC STAFF
Database administrator
STUDENT
1.3
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
Corporate
between the data stored in the server of the Institution and our on line
entrance examination system. To deal with On-line System in an easy way and an
efficient mannered. (Connection process)
Create strong and
secrete data base that allow for any connection in a secret way, to prevent any
outside or inside attacks or question leakage.
6
Specify
a privilege to administrators to be able to change their question at will
before the online entrance examination.
Prevention of exam
malpractices by applying strict timing possibility for each question and
marking of questions immediately, The student fear of been marked down is
eradicated and sorting practice is reduced.
1.4
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SYSTEM
Due to the
inconsistency which have persisted in entrance examination system through the
university administration system and neighboring institutions
The justification
for this work is as follows:
To
do away with manual method of paper and pen for entrance examination which have
posed serious threat to the standard of student ability during exams.
The
manual method could not handle the problem of sorting,and exam malpractice
during exams as result an efficient method has to be put in place to eradicate the
possibility of occurrence. An ―on-line entrance examination system‖.
To
reduce the fears of student thinking they where mark down during the entrance
exams.
To
save cost of constant purchase of answer booklets and also save time and human
labor of strolling round the exams to checking for student irregular act in the
exam hall, malpractices etc.
Entrance
examination student can easily write their exam anywhere around the globe once
they purchase the school scratch card for the entrance examination.
7
1.5
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Design and
implementation of an online entrance examination system. This system allows
candidates to register and take an examination in the system. The teachers of
this system are allowed to login for contributing questions and viewing profile
of candidates. Administrators will be able to access the system to sign up to a
new entrance examination, manage questions, accounts and view profile of the
candidates.
I will borrow a
host for implementation our system. Our group will keep the existing entrance
examination catalog database by using Microsoft access to access database.
At the first
entrance examination, guest must register an account to become a candidate by
fill all required information such as name, birthday…. Once the registration
process is completed for a guest, the registration system sends information to
the billing system so the guest can be logged in the system.
After that, the
system will allow candidate to login and select a department for examining.
Every time, the candidates
will be able to view their profile.
The teacher must
be able to access the online system to contribute questions. They also can view
the profile of candidates.
The administrator
manages operation of the system such as managing accounts and questions,
viewing profile of candidates.
FEATURES
Type of
Questions-multiple choice, true/false, fill in the blanks and essay.
8
Exams
can be timed or untimed set the date and time when the specific entrance
examination has to be available. Can include pictures, graphics and flash
(.swf) files in the questions of the online examinations.
The
Student and Faculty details are stored in the database.
The
Online entrance examination system has a password based authentication system
for students as well as System Administrator.
Trends Graphs
Included for analysis-system is capable of generating statistical data for
examiner.
1.6
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This Supplementary
Specification applies to the Online entrance Examination, which will be
developed by me under close supervision of Mrs. Chizoba Emeze using all the
necessary material within my reach to ensure a successful project result.
This specification
defines the non-functional requirements of the system; such as reliability,
usability, performance, and supportability, as well as functional requirements
that are common across a number of use cases. (The functional requirements are
defined in the Use Case Specifications.)
Functionality:
Multiple users
must be able to perform their work concurrently. If student is running out of
time, it should be notified.
Security:
Protect student
from cheating. 9
1.7
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
In the modern
world with all the complexities involve in managing a university management
requires well structured and scientifically derivable information as a basis
for online entrance examination for student.
The survival and
continuous growth relies on the management of the automated system. In some
places like Europe they make use of the online for entrance examination for
student this method has proven to be very efficient and met so many
standardization eliminating the manual method of pen and paper.
The study will
contribute positively to show student their answer and admission status after
the exams if they have met the necessary school perquisite.
In this era of
dwindling resources the management of public and private institution, will need
an effective system (online entrance examination system).with online entrance
examination system human labor is saved, time and cost is maximized effectively.
Glossary
Introduction
This document is
used to define terminology specific to the problem domain, explaining terms,
which may be unfamiliar to the reader of the use-case descriptions or other
project documents. Often, this document can be used as an informal data
dictionary, capturing data definitions so that use-case descriptions and other
project documents can focus on what the system must do with the information. 10
Definitions
The glossary
contains the working definitions for the key concepts in the Online Examination
System.
Exam
A entrance
examination offered the system, have some question and multiple choices answer.
Teacher
A person
contributes questions and views profile of candidates.
Candidate
A person has an
account on the online entrance examination.
Administrator
A person manages
the operation of the system.
Guest
A person registers
an account in the online entrance examination.
Profile
All the
information of candidate such name, birthday, grades of all examined entrance
examinations.
Question
A problem has 4
choices and only correct answer. 11
CHAPTER
TWO
2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several researches
have been directed towards the development of a fast an efficient way of
writing exams without laxity. Some of the research carried out and the views of
several writers concerning the development of an online entrance examination or
other related software technology are as follows
Online instruction
seems to be the ideal answer for busy individuals with a job who need more
education in order to advance or just keep pace professionally (Holt, 1999;
Macht, 1998) this is simply referring to a way of keeping learning to far
individuals who which to study close . A report by a faculty group at the
University of Illinois, however, has found many on campus students take many if
not all of their classes online (Regalbuto, 1999).a basic concept of online
entrance is facilitated around the online learning which also a very important
factor.
As distance and
Web-based learning becomes more popular and more accessible, high school,
college and graduate courses are being offered via the Web as part of complete
diploma and degree programs by more and more institutions.As a result student
who which to gain entrance to higher institution can also write their entrance
exams online. Vetter, (1997) used an InfoSeek search with the term ―online
courses,‖ it returned 3.5 million hits. Corporations have found online learning
to be a more economical alternative than the typical corporate training session
(Himmelberg, 1998). However, little research has 130 been done to understand
some of the ramifications of this fast growing phenomena (Grossman,
1999).Different professors‘ classes could have different class population
characteristics, and could give those professors different impressions and
opinions of issues confronting online instruction. In the future, as online
education becomes 12
more
pervasive, the characteristics of the online student could change, and so too,
the problems of online education. Student Evaluation Practices Student
evaluation strategies used by instructors not only serve to motivate, but to
help students select strategies to organize their learning (Davis, 1999;
Wakeford, 1999). Decisions by instructors of which evaluation methods to use,
serve as a hidden code to students directing them to the skills and behaviors
that are important for them to succeed (Crooks, 1988; Science Education, 1997).
Many students tend to invest their Time as economically as possible, by
studying only those aspects of a course that they expect will affect their
grade (Science Education, 1997). ―The learning strategies students adopt are
powerful predictors of educational outcomes, so that expertise in the selection
and application of learning strategies is an important educational outcome‖
(Crooks, 1988, p 441) These evaluation cues are sometimes not obvious to the
instructor (Tang, 1998).Crooks (1988) cited a study of the curriculum at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Snyder in 1971. Here the formal
curriculum described an approach 131characterized by problem solving, and
creativity, however, the evaluation procedures, which he called the ―hidden
curriculum‖, were oriented towards surface learning. Fuhrman (1983) listed the
importance of various data sources in assigning grades. This was gathered from
a study of 700 faculty members at a major state university. Table 1 Importance
of various data sources in assigning grades Source: (Fuhrman & Grasha,
1983, p 168) two studies explore how assessment is accomplished in a distance
learning environment. One study by the National Center for Education Statistics
(Lewis et al., 1997) found that 98% of all institutions use entrance
examinationing for their credit-bearing distance learning classes. One third of
the classes used proctored group exams at remote sites, while another third
gave proctored exams on campus. About 15% of the instructors sent The students
their exams by mail or fax (so the 13
students
could take the entrance examination independently). About 8% take interactive
entrance examinations at remote sites using A second study by Dirks (1998),
where 20% of the distance classes were Delivered by the Internet, found that
the larger the class size, the more likely that exams would be used to
determine more than half the grade.Many evaluation situations are focused
towards a specific type of learning outcome by the nature of their logistics.
1997).Many of
these entrance examinations contains objective items, which are difficult to
design, as a tool to assess higher order thinking skills (Travis, 1996).
Garfield (1994) notes that entrance examination items usually evaluate skills
in isolation and very rarely integrate them in a real world context (Garfield,
1994).
The Western
Governors University and The University of Phoenix Online use a series of
comprehensive examinations to know what classes their students are required to
take. Students pass classes by passing only the exams, in some cases. Some of
these exams include essay or multiple-choice items, while others are projects.
These high-stakes, standardized entrance examinations are usually administered
in proctored, online environments (Carnevale, 2001).The College Independent
Study program, a distance education program at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, utilizes proctored, individual exams for all its classes
(Swoboda, 2000).Various item types have their own advantages and disadvantages.
True-False questions are easy to construct and grade. However, guessing would
be 50% correct, and it would be difficult to entrance examination gray areas
(Davis, 1999; Science Education, 1997).Good matching problems should have
different numbers of items in both columns and there is the possibility of
having more than one correct answer. These
Items assess
associational knowledge by entrance examination recognition rather than recall
(Davis, 1999; Science Education, 1997). 14
Multiple-choice
questions are probably the most commonly utilized objective entrance examination
item. Though the distracters are difficult to write, the items are easy to
grade. These items can be constructed to measure simple recall and complex
critical thinking skills. However, multiple-choice questions, which effectively
entrance examination higher order thinking skills,Are very difficult to write.
These questions can be answered quickly, so instructors can evaluate many
different objectives in a single session (Boulton-Lewis, 1998; Davis,1999; Gay,
1980; Science Education, 1997; Wakeford, 1999).While short-answer questions are
easy to write, they take more time to score.They eliminate guessing, and stress
recall of information rather than recognition. Critics feel that this type of
question can place too much emphasis on rote learning. However,they can give
limited insight into how students can express their thoughts (Davis, 1999; Gay,
1980; Science Education, 1997; Wakeford, 1999).cheating, rather than having the
person state that they themselves participate in those activities (Cizek, 1999).Two
studies have used course outcome and exam grades in order to show the
Existence of
cheating in specific instances. Ridley and Husband (1998) used a comparison of
the grades 100 students received from Web-based class work and those received
in traditional on campus classes to show that a significant difference did not
exist in the rigor or integrity of the Web-based courses.Gigliotti, Smerglia,
Falk and Neiswander (1994), conducted a study to compare computer based
entrance examinationing to in-class entrance examinationing. Among other
things, the computer-entrance examinationing group scored significantly lower
grades than their in-class counterparts. The grades of
The computer-based
examination group were normally distributed, while the grades from the in-class
examination group were skewed upwards. Giglotti et al (1994) attributed this
difference to the group that used computer entrance 15
examinationing
having less opportunity to ask for clarification during the entrance
examination. Sloss (1995), attributed this difference to cheating. He noted
that, with the computer randomly generating questions, copying would be
impossible and meaningless. The skewed results, he suggested, were the results
of the poorer students cheating more than the better students. Gigliotti,
Smerglia and Falk (1995) subsequently agreed with Sloss's comments.
Identification checks were done in the computer lab, while none were done for
the in class-entrance examinationing group (even though one lecture class had
260 class members).Characteristics of Academically Dishonest Students Gender.
Most of the studies revealed that males cheat than females (Aiken, 1991; Allen
et al., 1998; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; New stead et al., 1996). The McCabe
and Bowers (1994) study indicated that women were catching up. McCabe and
Trevino (1996) felt that this could be because women were entering
traditionally male careers. Kerkvliet (1994) found that the opposite was true,
and concluded that women were more likely to cheat than men.
Maturity. Many
studies concluded that there is more cheating in high school
Than in college
(Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Sierles, Kushner, & Krause,
1988). The frequency of cheating then decreases again from college to graduate
school. Many reports have noted the relation of maturity with increased honesty
(Allen et al., 1998; Haines et al., 1986; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Newstead
et al., 1996).Others found that other components of maturity besides age, such
as marital status and financial independence from their parents, are related to
greater academic integrity (Aiken, 1991; Diekhoff et al., 1996; Genereux &
McLeod, 1995). Academic Achievement. McCabe and Trevino(1997) had found that
students with a lower GPA cheat more than students with a higher GPA. With an
experimental study (not by self-reports) Nowell and Laufer (1997), found that 16
the
student‘s grade in a particular class was negatively correlated with their
likelihood of cheating. Houston and Ziff (1976) found that students may be more
likely to cheat after a success, and suggest that a failure after a success
would be unbearable, while failure after a first failure is understandable.Peer
approval or disapproval of cheating. Bowers (1964) studies have shown that peer
approval or disapproval is likely to determine one‘s cheating behavior in
college. The McCabe and Trevino study (1997) revealed this factor was the most
influential in determining if a student would cheat; it accounted for 27% of
the variance.Situational Aspects of Why Students Cheat Some reports conclude
that demographic studies have not yielded a convincing and consistent picture
of who cheats. There are consistent situational or environmental
characteristics of situations where students cheat (Leming, 1979; Maramark
& Maline, 1993).
Most cheaters
recognize that cheating is wrong, but believe that they are in special
circumstances that make it right for them to cheat (Sykes & Matza,
1957).Students reduce the amount of guilt felt by rationalizing dishonest
actions, actions normally considered wrong. Haines et al (1986), found cheaters
usually justify dishonesty by citing the difficulty of the work, amount of
work, and lack of time.McCabe and Trevino (1999) reported that one of the
largest response categories to their open-ended survey included various
justifications for cheating. Diekhoff et al. (1996) report that there was an
increase in the rationalizing attitudes of students toward cheating from 1984
to 1994. They found these rationalizations were more common among students who
were younger, less committed to academic values, and under more pressure to
succeed. ―When they cannot justify cheating, they cheat anyway because
dishonesty does not have to be justified if it is the norm‖(Diekhoff et al.,
1996, p. 500).Haines et al. (1986) showed that such rationalization is a
―common denominator for cheaters‖ (Haines et al., 1986, p. 350).Some students
cheat out of 17
ignorance
and a misunderstanding of what constitutes dishonesty. This is especially true
of plagiarism and collaboration(Maramark & Maline, 1993). Uhlig and Howes
(1967) note, ―students are sincerely puzzled by the appropriateness of certain
kinds of activities loosely defined as cheating‖
(Uhlig &
Howes, 1967, p. 412). They state that we cannot control this problem unless
students understand what is considered cheating and not cheating. McCabe and
Trevino (1999) pointed out there are gray areas where students feel justified
to cheat, and other times when they sincerely did not think they were
cheating.Methods of Reducing Examination Cheating in the Traditional Classroom
Communicating
integrity expectations. Four-year institutions usually have single-purpose
brochures for informing students, faculty, and staff about academic integrity.
Orientation is the most likely source of information for students. For faculty,
the Faculty Handbook is the most common source of information about academic
integrity for faculty. It concerned Aaron (1992) that the vast majority of
faculty do not discuss academic integrity with their students. Kibler (1994)
found that only half the schools communicated regularly to students and faculty
about academic integrity.Roth and McCabe (1995) found that communication is
necessary to stop mistrust between faculty members and students concerning
academic integrity. Faculty need to understand that the lack of action in this
regard has the effect of reinforcing the dishonest behavior of students. To
prevent misunderstanding, a list of responsibilities toward academic integrity
should be developed (Nuss, 1984).
Although stern
warnings are more effective than moral appeals, this was not a complete
solution. Some students continued to cheat in spite of the warnings (Tittle
&Rowe, 1974).Houser's (1982) work with 6th graders has shown that, even
with this group, coercive statements by the entrance examination giver were
associated 18
with
the least amount of cheating as compared to reward, referent, and legitimate
informational and control statements.
Houston (1983a)
found a sanction threat would inhibit cheating if it was a severe threat, and
if the subject had done well on a previous entrance examination.
Honor codes. An
honor code is a college community's way of identifying itself with academic
integrity. Institutions with honor codes have four characteristics.Students must
sign a pledge of academic integrity. Students and faculty members are obligated
to report violations. Students are unproctored during exams. Lastly, student-
Controlled courts
or councils handle violations (Pavela & McCabe, 1993).Honor codes on a campus
provoke discussion of the importance of integrity and honesty to the campus and
academic communities (Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Students in successful honor
code institutions have good understandings of the rules regarding academic
dishonesty than do others because the issue is explained and discussed (McCabe
& Trevino, 1999).Maramark and Maline (1993) state that honor codes seem to
work well at military schools and small schools because of a shared allegiance
to the school and values. It is more difficult to say how useful honor codes
are at larger, more diverse schools.
There are critics
of the honor code system. McCabe and Trevino (1999), in their open-ended
inquiry, found 6.8% of their surveyed honor code students said the honor code
was ineffective. They said that cheating continues on campus in spite of the
honor code. Some said that they were hazy on how the honor code worked. Honor
code systems can be used against certain student groups. After complaints a
student vote failed to remove the 152-year-old honor code system at the 19
University
of Virginia. Critics contend that the system is unfair to black students
because a disproportionate number of black students, many of them athletes,
were accused each year (Hall & Leeds, 1994).
Sierles, Kushner and
Krause (1988) did not find that the newly instituted honor
System at a
Midwest medical school led to a decrease in cheating. It was not more effective
than faculty monitoring, proctoring, and sanctions.
Vigilance and
enforcement. Alschuler and Bliming(1995) said that all the reasons for cheating
fall into two categories ―Norms that sanction cheating and benefits that
outweigh the costs‖ (Alschuler & Blimling, 1995, p.123). It is important
that students think all cases of cheating can and will be detected. The threat
of sanctions eventually becomes an empty threat when students discover that it
is impossible to detect all cases of cheating. There are methods to compromise
the most secure systems (Houston, 1983b). This is confirmed by many studies.
Some students
cheat only because the opportunity presents itself. Leming (1980) found that
students cheated more under low risk conditions than high-risk conditions.
Nonis and Swift
(1998) has shown that descriptor and attitudinal variables have more of an
impact on cheating frequency when deterrents are high compared to when
deterrents are low. Also, the most often used cheating techniques are the ones
which are not planned.High levels of cheating could be deterred by simple
techniques such as more vigilance and separating students. Uhlig and Howes
(1967) support this finding, and note that college students will cheat if the
climate is advantageous. Moffatt (1990) found the major reason for not cheating
was the fear of being caught. Love and Simmons (1998) found that both the fear
of being caught and the embarrassment that would follow deter students from
cheating. 20
Several
studies have shown that there will be a reduction in cheating when penalties
are expected and enforced (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Michaels & Miethe,
1989; Mixon, 1996). McCabe and Trevino (1997) found that students believed that
severe or unrealistic the penalties would not be imposed; unrealistic penalties
became positively associated with cheating (McCabe & Trevino,
1997).Deterrents do not have the same effect on all students. In-class
deterrents haveless of an impact on males with low GPAs. Older females with
higher GPAs are more likely influenced by in-class deterrents (Nonis &
Swift, 1998).
―Attention to
classroom entrance examinationing is an important consideration in attempting
to
Control classroom
cheating‖ (Leming, 1990, p. 85). This is because sanctions, threats, and high
risks of detection substantially reduce cheating.Genereux and McLeod (1995)
found that low instructor vigilance results in more cheating. On the other
hand, high instructor vigilance and using relevant course material in composing
the entrance examinations decreased cheating. Bowers (1964) feels the next best
system to the honor code was where the faculty took control of proctoring.Nuss
(1984) found that 23% of the faculty and 21% of students believe that cheating
occurred because ―no one ever gets punished for it‖ (Nuss, 1984, p. 142).There
is a self-reported cheating rate of 45% occasional cheaters and 33% students who
cheat often on the Rutgers campus of 33,500 students. In 1990, only 80 cases of
cheating were reported (Fishbein, 1994). In a survey by McCabe and Trevino
(1995) a student noted ―it does not pay to be honest in school because, with
certain forms of cheating, the chances of getting caught are slim to none‖
(McCabe & Trevino, 1995, p.7).Take home entrance examinations. Marsh (1988)
found experimentally that there was more cheating by students who took a take
home exam than by students who took an in-class exam. However, Weber and 21
McBee
(1983) found that there was little difference in the level of cheating between
take home, open book, and in class exams. They concluded―finding an answer in a
book is probably a more reliable and efficient procedure than having to find
the brighentrance examination student in class‖ (Weber & McBee, 1983, p.
6).Faculty support of academic integrity. McCabe (1993) studied the reactions
of faculty members to cheating as reported by their students. Faculty at honor
code institutions were reluctant to enforce academic integrity rules, but did
so twice as often as did the faculty at non-code schools. Forty percent of the
200 professors surveyed had never turned in a student for cheating, 54% seldom
turned in a student for cheating, and only 6% chose often. McCabe and Trevino
(1995) found that many professors do not wish to be involved with the reporting
of cheating violations. Only 50% said that they 151 would use their school‘s
reporting procedures. Some said that they would not report it unless there was
unequivocal proof. Others would not report students even if there were such
proof. Faculty said that students are very much aware of which professors will
turn them in, and which ones consider it too much red tape. Application to Online
Entrance examinationing
When students
thought the class workload was impossible to complete in traditional classes,
they would cheat in order to insure their survival (Aiken, 1991; Ashworth &
Bannister, 1997; Butterfield, 1991; Clayton, 1999; Fishbein, 1993;Fishbein,
1994; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Nonis & Swift, 1998; Sierles et al.,
1988; Steininger, Johnson, & Kirts, 1964). The amount of work necessary to
complete an online course is cited as a reason for large number of students to
drop these classes (Phipps et al., 1999; Regalbuto, 1999; Vachris, 1999).
Ridley and Sammour (1996)report a drop out rate of 25-30% of the students in
the online classes they investigated.Vachris (1999) notes that, in an
unpublished research paper by Puckette, Barnhart and Martinez (1995), students
tend to drop out 22
because
of the large workload rather than because of difficulties with the technology.
The same stress which could cause students to drop a class, may make others
cheat in order to pass (Gray, 1998). Dirks (1998) found that online instructors
were frustrated because cheating was so difficult to prove; yet the ―burden of
proof‖ was strictly their responsibility. He also found that only 15% of the
distance learning syllabi included academic dishonesty policies.152 Three
studies have been made to gauge academic integrity during online instructional
situations. Engineering students at Coventry University took online entrance
examinations with a traditional lecture class. The entrance examination scores
of the supervised groups, both traditional
paper and pencil
and online, were slightly, but not significantly lower than the unsupervised
online entrance examination takers. The supervised students felt that there
needed to be ―safeguards against collusion‖ by unsupervised entrance
examination takers (Lloyd & Martin, 1996).A study by Ridley and Husband
(1998) compared the grades of students who had taken both online and
traditional on-campus classes in order to determine if there was more cheating
during the online classes. The students ―offline‖ course grades were higher
than online course grades. The authors of this study concluded that there was
no evidence of academic cheating based on grade data.A year later, (Snell &
Mekies, 1999) a rebuttal to this study suggested that there may be different
explanations for the grade difference. It was suggested that students may sign
up for online classes for the wrong reasons. Some students may feel that the
classes will be easier because they did not have to attend classes. When the
students don‘t keep up with the work, they begin to fall behind. Some students
may sign up for the classes thinking that, because of the computer‘s anonymity
and privacy, they would be able to cheat. When students find there are
safeguards, they either drop the class (if possible) or fail the class. 23
Methods
of Reducing Online Examination Cheating As noted earlier, methods for
controlling academic dishonesty fall into two distinct categories: honor codes,
and deterrents. Honor codes and communications about 153 academic integrity are
the solutions of choice for a stable group or community whose members know one
another well, such as a high school, small college campus, or place of
employment. These methods are not a workable solution for entrance examinationing
someone whom you have never met and may never meet again. A second group of
strategies are utilized to deter dishonesty. The strategies for reducing online
examination cheating come from a combination of expecting integrity while
utilizing deterrents to encourage honesty. Communicating integrity
expectations. Many students are not certain of what constitutes cheating.
Students need to be told explicitly what constitutes dishonest behavior if it
is to be deterred (Cizek, 1999; McCabe & Trevino, 1993). Carlson (1999)
notes that this is important in online entrance examinationing. He suggests
that integrity policy should be noted and posted on the syllabus. Proctored
entrance examinations. Administrators of the Dallas Community College system have
found that different courses can be categorized as high or low risk courses for
cheating. Lowest risk classes for dishonest conduct are those which prepare
students to take state boards or certification exams. Students know that they
will be entrance examinationed on this material in the future under very secure
conditions. There is also a reduced risk of cheating when the class is a
prerequisite for another required class. For distance classes not in these
categories, administrators encourage the use of proctored entrance
examinationing centers (Tulloch & Thompson, 1999).
In surveying the
literature on implementing online instruction, not one of the reports
recommended unsupervised online entrance examinationing. Many distance learning
divisions, including those at Tallahassee Community College and 24
Northern
Virginia Community 154 College, require students to take at least one proctored
exam during the term (Hayes, 1997; Northern Virginia Community College, 1998;
Serwatka, 1999).Proctored exams are strongly recommended by Gray (1998). She
also recommends that photos be collected from students as they register so that
the proctor can verify their identity.Using projects and other papers. Many of
the instructors of these courses must administer entrance examinations with no
security except the students‘ word. Many professors, therefore, rely on papers
and projects that require creative thought (Dirks, 1998; Kearsley, Lynch,&
Wizer, 1995; Zhang, 1998). Students can purchase a paper to fit their needs on
the Web, so the assigned topics must be well designed (Kleiner &
Lord,1999).Honor code. In a traditional campus community, cheating is kept
somewhat in check by the campus culture where there is a strong commitment to
the educational process, and a code of ethics that opposes cheating (Davis et
al., 1992; Roth & McCabe,
1995). McCabe and
Trevino (1999) suggest that this sense of community membership would be
difficult to develop in a larger school where there are many commuter and
part-time students.
A committee on
―Academic Integrity at a Distance‖ at Florida State University recommended that
an existing campus honor code should be applied to distance learning students
with only minor revisions. Examples of infractions should include personal
misrepresentation and online plagiarism (Hayes, 1999). No systematic studies
were found that addressed the difficulties of establishing an honor code for
distance or online learning students. Entrance examinationing Practices. In the
article, ―Maintaining Academic Integrity in Web-155 Based Instruction,‖ Gray
(1998) offers suggestions to instructors of Web-based classes. She suggests
that, when using online entrance examinationing, the instructor post the
entrance examination to a URL. The address is E-mailed to students at a 25
predetermined
time along with a deadline for completion. She also suggests integrating
quizzes in exercises and readings to make it difficult to get a person
unfamiliar with the course specifics to help without demanding a great deal of
their time. Biometrics. As people have begun to utilize the computer for more
daily activities, access is now dependent on a password, which many times is
lost or stolen. Biometrics is one of the more recent security methods, which
are being employed by business, industries, and the military to replace the
password. Biometric techniques include the measuring of physical attributes or
personal traits in order to automatically compare a person‘s unique
characteristics to data on file. Some of these unique characteristics include
fingerprints, voice patterns, faces, hands, irises, retinas,handwriting method,
or typing method.The Dallas County Community College district began considering
various biometric options for online entrance examinationing in 1999 (Tulloch
& Thompson, 1999). Brooks (1997) proposed using face recognition as an
automatic verification method during entrance examinationing. ETS is installing
digital cameras, so that student photographs become part of the entrance
examination record. ETS also successfully field-entrance examinationed iris
scans in six centers (Thomas, 2001).
Two different
entrance examinationing situations can benefit from biometric identification.
Biometric systems could be used to authenticate a student‘s identity when
entering or leaving a large group lecture hall, or a supervised computerized
entrance examinationing facility. Also, biometrics could be used as part of a
security system to supervise students while they 156 are being entrance examinationed
online. Each of the biometric options has specific capabilities that make each
of them better for some situations than for others. Online entrance
examinationing is the most complicated of all the entrance examinationing
situations. The objective is to replace proctoring during a entrance
examination 26
with
an automated system. Biometric systems to protect access to the Internet and to
World Wide Web services have been developed these systems are based upon
fingerprints (Jain & Hong, 1996), hand geometry (Jain, Prabhakar, &
Ross, 1998), and voice (Boves & Koolwaaij, 1998). They afford Protection
only for the initial log-on transaction. This level of security is needed
tonprotect access to specific files, and for Internet commerce.
There are
concerns, which make the entrance examinationing applications different from
other biometric security applications. The users of most login applications
benefit from protection by a security system, and choose not to defeat it. In
most cases the people trying to defeat these systems are non-users. With
entrance examinationing, however, it may be to the user‘s advantage to defeat
the system. One of the first problems concerns enrollment. No matter how
securely the system is designed, if the correct person is not enrolled, the use
of biometrics does not help (Ashbourn, 1999; Boves & Koolwaaij, 1998;
Schneier, 1999). Enrollment should occur before the student has even begun the
class. Every effort should be made that the
Enrollment process
is well supervised and verified. The ideal system needs to be capable of
providing continuing, transparent, positive identification of the person
sitting at the computer keyboard. Ideally the entrance examination would not
begin until the student is identified positively. Then, while each question is
being answered, the system would provide continuing periodic positive
identification of 157 the student. The student should be able to leave
in-between questions. Only a camera-based system can provide this type of information.
While being entrance examinationed, a user would have to look at the monitor
often. A small video camera, mounted on top of the monitor, could capture the
student‘s image at certain time intervals without interrupting their work
(Richards, 1997). Since 27
nearly
all video camera installations include a microphone with a soundboard, layering
face recognition with speaker verification could provide more accuracy in the
future without adding to the student‘s hardware expenditure. As cited earlier
in this study, accuracy is also improved in biometric recognition by using
multiple image captures for comparison. In an online entrance examinationing
situation, many images would be captured at random times. Some of these images
may not be useable for face recognition because the student has slumped in his
chair or is looking at the keyboard. Recognition of the majority of the others
would be used as a declaration of recognition of the entrance examinationer.
The ultimate entrance examinationing system must have safeguards to prevent
others from helping during the entrance examination. An unscrupulously
motivated student could think of many simple ways of circumventing an online
entrance examinationing system. This could occur by simply having a knowledgeable
person taking the entrance examination while the camera is turned towards the
supposed entrance examination taker. More sophisticated students may utilize
double monitors or utilize keyboards as a prop. One solution is for random
images to be taken and sent without being processed, so that the instructor can
notice and have a record of any improprieties.
2.1
COMPUTER VERSUS PAPER
The critical
question on the survey form asked if respondents felt on balance, it is better
to have a formal entrance examination conducted using computers or using more
traditional handwriting on paper. Opinion was divided with 46% favouring each
alternative and 7% selecting both options (230 valid responses). This compares
with 94.5% preference for computer-based entrance examinationing 28
found
in a case which included online feedback (Jonsson,Loghmani & Nadjm-Tehrani
2002).
However, opinions
were significantly different between the groups of students
F(2, 227) = 3.484,
p= 0.032. Whereas 56% of Group A preferred exams on computers, only 35% of
Group B preferred this medium. The team considered the greater reported
incidence of technical problems in Group B could be
Responsible for
this difference, but this was not confirmed by a one way ANOVA
Showing
little difference in preferred medium with F(2,222) = 2.667, p=0.073 GROUP A
|
GROUP B
|
GROUP C
|
|||
N
|
138
|
130
|
2
|
||
Respondent
|
125
|
106
|
2
|
||
Exam date
|
0ctober 2007
|
October 2008
|
December 2008
|
||
Exam media:
Delivery/collection
|
CD/USB
|
CD/USB
|
USB/USB
|
||
Students using
own
Laptops
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
||
Exam type
|
Single document
(edited in Open
Office
Writer)
|
PDF for
questions;
Open Office
Writer document for respon-ses. Ogg Vorbis video,
PowerPoint
student
work sample,
Word
curriculum
document.
|
PDF for
questions;
Open Office
Writer
document for
respon-
ses.
Ogg Vorbis
video
(Vorbis.com,
undated)
|
||
Proportion
reporting
technical
difficulties in the Examination
|
23%
|
56%
|
0%
|
||
0 Comments
Feel free to drop a comments to help us serve you better
Your Opinion matters a lot to Us
Disclaimer Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of lexxytechcorporations.blogspot.com or any employee thereof