Category Archives: student success

Adaptive Learning: What Does the Research Show?

Posted on by | Leave a reply

This is the final segment in a three-part series summarizing conclusions and insights from research of active, blended, and adaptive learning strategies. Part one covered active learning, part two focused on blended learning, and today’s article discusses research assessing the value of adaptive learning.

Diverse Definitions

Five young people studying with laptop and tablet computers on white desk.

The University of Maryland writes that “Adaptive learning is an educational method which uses computers as interactive teaching devices” that allocate resources according to the needs of each learner. Educause Learning Initiative describes adaptive learning as systems that “use a data-driven…approach to instruction.” Wikipedia’s definition focuses on technology as the distinguishing characteristic.  Smart Sparrow, an adaptive learning platform vendor, emphasizes the learning experience, noting that adaptive learning “address the unique needs of an individual through just-in-time feedback, pathways, and resources (rather than providing a one-size-fits-all learning experience).” And though each of these is accurate and helpful, they fail to inspire a vision for the true value and benefits of adaptive learning.

What’s special about adaptive learning? Why should you consider using it? One answer is succinctly summarized by Dale Johnson, manager of the Adaptive General Education Program for EdPlus at Arizona State University, who said, “The traditional approach of presenting the same lesson to all students at the same time is being replaced by the adaptive model of delivering the right lesson to the right student at the right time.” Johnson cuts to the heart of the matter; focusing on the value and benefits of adaptive learning rather than describing the technologies that make it work. For today’s blog post, that’s the more relevant framework for our discussion.

Game Changer

Although adaptive learning can be successfully implemented in any discipline, this article cites research from STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines. The classic, one-size-fits-all lecture model is commonly used in STEM courses. Historically, those classes tend to have the highest rates of attrition and failure. As a result, educators are looking for ways to increase student success and reduce failure and withdraw rates. Many have turned to adaptive learning as that solution.

Adaptive learning uses specialized computer programs to create a customized, student-centered learning path (Kerr, 2016). These systems establish a baseline of knowledge that estimates the student’s degree of mastery for a topic. As the student progresses and gives new information to the adaptive learning platform, it re-evaluates the student’s proficiency and knowledge (Scalise, Bernbaum, & Timms, 2007) and comes to “know” the student, customizing and adjusting the feedback, practice questions, and support materials to match that student’s skills. Although all students ultimately arrive at the same learning destination, the path traveled by an individual might differ from that of classmates, depending on prior knowledge, learning style, and other factors (Canfield, 2001).

Course Design and Instructor Approach

Effective use of adaptive learning requires a well-designed, pedagogically-sound course structure. Adaptive learning may fail if technology is simply added as an extra element or after-thought. To fulfill the promise of adaptive learning, it must be aligned with the learning outcomes, topics, activities, and organization of the course (Scalise, Bernbaum, & Timms, 2007).

When adaptive learning is used as part of a well-structured course design (or redesign), it harmonizes with the benefits of active and blended learning, to deliver powerful, personalized guidance and support.

Instructors will want to re-evaluate course design and activities from the ground up to ensure successful adoption of adaptive learning. This includes discipline-specific choices as well as non-academic influences such as motivation, time management, psychological and social aspects, emotions, learning abilities, and fostering an inclusive environment. These added elements play a key role in the successful implementation of adaptive learning (Martinez, 2001).

Does Adaptive Learning Work?

Yes! There is substantial evidence to conclude that adaptive learning improves student success.

A study in an introductory chemistry class compared post-test results of two student groups. The group using adaptive learning out-performed the control group by an average of nearly 21% (Scalise, Bernbaum, and Timms, 2007). Research from a basic algebra class noted higher final grade averages with adaptive technologies (Stillson & Alsup, 2003). And another study from college algebra showed that students using adaptive learning scored higher than the control group on pre- and post-test assessments (Hagerty and Smith, 2005).

Here at OSU, several undergraduate courses, including college algebra and introduction to statistics, have reported improved results after redesigning courses to include adaptive learning software.

Benefits to Students and Instructors

Students

Research indicates that under-achieving students gain the most from adaptive learning. But this customized approach improves study habits and attitudes for all learners (Walkington, 2013). Students report feeling like they could succeed in the topic, many for the first time, because of the added support provided through adaptive learning (Canfield, 2001). A research study reported that 61% of students said they learned more mathematics than in previous traditional math classes (Stillson and Alsup, 2003).

Students report benefits in exit surveys from courses using adaptive learning:

  • Able to work at their own pace, using adaptive content as an extension of course materials, concepts, and activities (Stillson & Alsup, 2003).
  • Learned more with adaptive learning (Canfield, 2001).
  • Liked the support of step-by-step explanations, immediate feedback, and customized practice problems (Canfield, 2001; Stillson & Alsup, 2003).
  • Motivated to strive for completion when viewing graphical charts showing progress (Canfield, 2001).
  • Developed better study skills and were willing to devote time to learn, recognizing that these investments brought the rewards of a deeper understanding of course content and, ultimately, a passing grade (Stillson & Alsup, 2003).
  • Less stress and worry because of the self-paced, just-in-time nature of adaptive learning, where new topics or practice problems are only presented when the student is ready for them (Canfield, 2001).

Most students said they would take another class using adaptive learning and would recommend the adaptive format to others (Canfield, 2001).

Instructors

Since adaptive learning uses sophisticated technology, most platforms generate reports and data that inform instructors about individual student performance, including details about the skills achieved, remaining progress to achieve mastery, problem areas, and other critical information. At a glance, instructors can use these vital metrics to monitor student performance and, as needed, intervene and provide additional guidance (Scalise, Bernbaum, & Timms, 2007).

If Adaptive Learning is so Great, Why Isn’t Everyone Using It?

As with any technology, adaptive learning is not a panacea. It has drawbacks and may not be well-suited for every student or every situation.

Those lacking adequate internet speed or easy access may be frustrated. Learners who do not own computers may have difficulty finding systems in campus labs or libraries. Students with minimal prior knowledge may spend more time reaching baseline skill levels than classmates. Those who are employed, have extensive family obligations, or juggle other responsibilities may have challenges effectively managing their time to complete the adaptive learning segments (Canfield, 2001; Stillson & Alsup, 2003).

Administrators and teachers uncertain about how to incorporate adaptive learning may have challenges. When not well-integrated into course design, adaptive learning can create confusion. Course instruction and activities must align with the learning materials delivered by the adaptive system. Since adaptive learning is personalized, students may be working in different sections or topics from peers. When lectures or topics don’t match the adaptive content, students perceive this as two classes, with double the work. When course structure lacks cohesion, students might ignore the adaptive support or conclude that it hinders, rather than helps, their ability to study (Stillson & Alsup, 2003).

Finally, adaptive learning is most often used in classes already known to be difficult. The introduction of a new technology could add a layer of confusion and frustration, especially if its been inserted as an add-on component. Courses that haphazardly integrate adaptive learning might even experience an increase in drops or failures due to poor design. Students less confident using technology might be worried about learning this way (Stillson & Alsup, 2003).

In Summary

Adaptive learning has the potential to increase learning, especially in STEM disciplines. The ability to customize material and content to fit the needs of individual learners is a powerful shift from the more common one-size-fits-all lectures. Although more research is needed to realize the full scope of benefits of adaptive learning, results indicate that adaptive learning may better support universal and inclusive learning goals (Scalise, Bernbaum, & Timms, 2007). Adaptive learning gives instructors valuable information about student performance, and these technologies help students more easily grasp complex concepts and content. The ability to closely match topics to a student’s readiness and knowledge may increase their willingness and motivation to learn (Canfield, 2001).

What’s Next?

If you are interested in learning more about adaptive learning and whether it might benefit your teaching and success of your students, check out these OSU Ecampus resources:

Susan Fein, Oregon State University Ecampus Instructional Designer

susan.fein@oregonstate.edu | 541-747-3364

References

  • Canfield, W. (2001). ALEKS: A Web-based intelligent tutoring system. Mathematics and Computer Education, 35(2), 152-158.
  • Hagerty, G., & Smith , S. (2005). Using the web-based interactive software ALEKS to enhance college algebra. Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3), 183.
  • Kerr, P. (2016, January). Adaptive learning. ELT Journal, 70, 88-93.
  • Martinez, M. (2001). Key design considerations for personalized learning on the web. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 21.
  • Scalise, K., Bernbaum, D. J., & Timms, M. (2007). Adaptive technology for e-learning: Principles and case studies of an emerging field. Journal of the American Society for Informaton Science and Technology, 58(14), 2295–2309.
  • Stillson, H., & Alsup, J. (2003). Smart ALEKS… or not? Teaching basic algebra using an online interactive learning system. Mathematics and Computer Education, 37(3).
  • Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945.

Ten Course Design Strategies to Minimize Cheating

Posted on by | Leave a reply

One of the most common questions I get as an Instructional Designer is, “How do I prevent cheating in my online course?” Instructors are looking for detection strategies and often punitive measures to catch, report, and punish academic cheaters. Their concerns are understandable—searching Google for the phrase “take my test for me,” returns pages and pages of results from services with names like “Online Class Hero” and “Noneedtostudy.com” that promise to use “American Experts” to help pass your course with “flying grades.” 1 But by focusing only on what detection measures we can implement and the means and methods by which students are cheating, we are asking the wrong questions. Instead let’s consider what we can do to understand why students cheat, and how careful course and assessment design might reduce their motivation to do so.

A new study published in Computers & Education identified five specified themes in analyzing the reasons students provided when seeking help from contract cheating services (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019):

  • Academic Aptitude – “Please teach me how to write an essay.”
  • Perseverance – “I can’t look at it anymore.”
  • Personal Issues – “I have such a bad migraine.”
  • Competing Objectives – “I work so I don’t have time.”
  • Self-Discipline – “I procrastinated until today.”

Their results showed that students don’t begin a course with the intention of academic misconduct. Rather, they reach a point, often after initially attempting the work, when the perception of pressures, lack of skills, or lack of resources removes their will to complete the course themselves. Online students may be more likely to have external obligations and involvement in non-academic activities. According to a 2016 study, a significant majority of online students are often juggling other obligations, including raising children and working while earning their degrees (Clinefelter & Aslanian, 2016).

While issues with cheating are never going to be completely eliminated, several strategies have emerged in recent research that focuses on reducing cheating from a lens of design rather than one of punishment. Here are ten of my favorite approaches that speak to the justifications identified by students that led to cheating:

  1. Make sure that students are aware of academic support services (Yu, Glanzer, Johnson, Sriram, & Moore, 2018). Oregon State, like many universities, offers writing help, subject-area tutors and for Ecampus students, a Student Success team that can help identify resources and provide coaching on academic skills. Encourage students, leading up to exams or big assessment projects, to reach out during online office hours or via email if they feel they need assistance.
  2. Have students create study guides as a precursor assignment to an exam—perhaps using online tools to create mindmaps or flashcards. Students who are better prepared for assessments have a reduced incentive to cheat. Study guides can be a nongraded activity, like a game or practice quiz, or provided as a learning resource.
  3. Ensure that students understand the benefits of producing their own work and that the assessment is designed to help them develop and demonstrate subject knowledge (Lancaster & Clarke, 2015). Clarify for students the relevance of a particular assessment and how it relates to the weekly and larger course learning outcomes.
  4. Provide examples of work that meets your expectations along with specific evaluation criteria. Students need to understand how they are being graded and be able to judge the quality of their own work. A student feeling in the dark about what is expected from them may be more likely to turn to outside help.
  5. Provide students with opportunities throughout the course to participate in activities, such as discussions and assignments, that will prepare them for summative assessments (Morris, 2018).
  6. Allow students to use external sources of information while taking tests. Assessments in which students are allowed to leverage the materials they have learned to construct a response do a better job of assessing higher order learning. Memorizing and repeating information is rarely what we hope students to achieve at the end of instruction.
  7. Introduce alternative forms of assessment. Creative instructors can design learning activities that require students to develop a deeper understanding and take on more challenging assignments. Examples of these include recorded presentations, debates, case studies, portfolios, and research projects.
  8. Rather than a large summative exam at the end of a course, focus on more frequent smaller, formative assessments (Lancaster & Clarke, 2015). Provide students with an ongoing opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge without the pressure introduced by a final exam that accounts for a substantial portion of their grade.
  9. Create a course environment that is safe to make and learn from mistakes. Build into a course non-graded activities in which students can practice the skills they will need to demonstrate during an exam.
  10. Build a relationship with students. When instructors are responsive to student questions, provide substantive feedback throughout a course and find other ways to interact with students — they are less likely to cheat. It matters if students believe an instructor cares about them (Bluestein, 2015).

No single strategy is guaranteed to immunize your course against the possibility that a student will use some form of cheating. Almost any type of assignment can be purchased quickly online. The goal of any assessment should be to ensure that students have met the learning outcomes—not to see if we can catch them cheating. Instead, focus on understanding pressures a student might face to succeed in a course, and the obstacles they could encounter in doing so. Work hard to connect with your students during course delivery and humanize the experience of learning online. Thoughtful design strategies, those that prioritize supporting student academic progress, can alleviate the conditions that lead to academic integrity issues.

1 This search was suggested by an article published in the New England Board of Higher Education on cheating in online programs. (Berkey & Halfond, 2015)

References

Amigud, A., & Lancaster, T. (2019). 246 reasons to cheat: An analysis of students’ reasons for seeking to outsource academic work. Computers & Education, 134, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.017

Berkey, D., & Halfond, J. (2015). Cheating, student authentication and proctoring in online programs.

Bluestein, S. A. (2015). Connecting Student-Faculty Interaction to Academic Dishonesty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.848176

Clinefelter, D. D. L., & Aslanian, C. B. (2016). Comprehensive Data on Demands and Preferences. 60.

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2015). Contract Cheating: The Outsourcing of Assessed Student Work. In T. A. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_17-1

Morris, E. J. (2018). Academic integrity matters: five considerations for addressing contract cheating. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5

Yu, H., Glanzer, P. L., Johnson, B. R., Sriram, R., & Moore, B. (2018). Why College Students Cheat: A Conceptual Model of Five Factors. The Review of Higher Education, 41(4), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0025

13 pieces of advice from unsuccessful online students & How instructors can help

Posted on by | Leave a reply

“As a stranger give it welcome” – Shakespeare

Students need tactics for when they encounter strange people or strange ideas.(Wilson, 2018) If you think of a first time online student, this is very true as they are entering a new learning environment, likely extremely different from their previous educational experiences. Welcoming that strange experience should include a little bit of information gathering. Look for positive and negatives so that you can decide for yourself how you view it, most of all, have an open mind.

To help potential online students make decisions, and hopefully be more successful should they chose to take an online course, Marie Fetzner asked unsuccessful online students; “What advice would you give to students who are considering registering for an online course?”

Their top 13 responses:

  1. Stay up with the course activities—don’t get behind
  2. Use good time management skills
  3. Use good organizational skills
  4. Set aside specific times during each week for your online class
  5. Know how to get technical help
  6. A lot of online writing is required
  7. There is a lot of reading in the textbook and in online discussions—be prepared
  8. Regular online communications are needed
  9. Ask the professor if you have questions
  10. Carefully read the course syllabus
  11. Be sure you understand the requirements of the online course discussions
  12. Understand how much each online activity is worth toward your grade
  13. Go to the online student orientation, if possible

This needs to raise the question, how can we better help our students? There are obviously struggling students and we want our students to be successful. So, what can we do?

  1. Reach out to students who seem to be lagging behind. A quick email is sometimes all it takes to open up that line of communication between you and the student.
  2. Provide approximate times for course materials and activities. Students can use this to better plan for the requirements that week.
  3. Keep your course organized so students can spend more time with the content instead of search for the content.
  4. Remind students about where to access help and support services.
  5. Develop a Q&A discussion board for student questions about the course. Often, more than one student has the same question and often other students might already know the answer. Have this be something you check daily to answer questions quickly so students can continue with their learning.
  6. Use rubrics for grading. By giving the students rubrics, they will know what is expected, you will get responses closer to your expectations, and it makes grading easier!

Welcome these ideas as you would a new experience. Give it a little try, jump right in, confer with colleagues, or chose your own path. Know that as an instructor or developer for an online course, you have the ability to help your students be successful!

References

Fetzner, Marie. (2013). What Do Unsuccessful Online Students Want Us to Know? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13-27.

Wilson, J. (2018). “As a stranger give it welcome”: Shakespeare’s Advice for First-Year College Students. Change, 50(5), 60.

Faculty Build Empathy as Online Learners Themselves

Posted on by | Leave a reply

“Diversity is our world’s greatest asset, and inclusion is our biggest challenge. And the way that we are going to address that challenge is by extending our empathy.” -Jutta Treviranus, Founder of the Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University

Decorative image

Sure, you’ve been teaching online courses for a few terms or years now, but have you ever been an online student? Many current faculty members earned their degrees in traditional face-to-face settings and have learned how to migrate their courses to the online environment by using research-based best practices and support from instructional designers and media experts. However, are there benefits to experiencing this fledgling educational modality from the perspective of the online student? I argue that faculty who challenge themselves to take an online course experience both personal and professional benefits and become more empathic, inclusive, creative, and reflective.

Benefits for Faculty Members

Challenge yourself to try out something completely different than your specialization or discipline: Are you a STEM professor who has a screenplay idea? Perhaps you have a trip to the French Riviera on your bucket list, or your college Spanish is rusty. Try a foreign language course this summer. Are you a humanities professor who is curious about the composition of the soil in your garden? Find out about the dirt in your yard as a soil science student.

Here are some benefits to consider:

  • Taking an online course may give you ideas or inspiration for something that you want to try in your own course.
  • Continuing education may benefit brain health.
  • Stretching yourself may spur creativity and innovation.
  • You are modeling lifelong learning for your students and family.
  • Most importantly, it just might be fun!

Building Empathy

I’m consistently impressed with the care and concern OSU faculty have for their students, and taking an online course is one way to demonstrate that concern. By changing roles, such as by becoming an online student, faculty expand their perspectives, which results in the potential for even greater student support and understanding.

Yes, faculty members contend with heavy workloads and may feel that taking an online course on top of everything else would be overwhelming. However, your Ecampus students may also struggle with feeling maxed out.

Did you know that the average age of a student taking an Ecampus course is 31 years old? This means that it is likely your online students are responsible for full-time work as well as family obligations. Taking online courses helps faculty members build empathy for their students by giving themselves opportunities to experience the excitement, anxiety, and pride of successfully completing an online course.

Furthermore, by increasing empathy, faculty members may become more inclusive and reflective practitioners. For example, as an online student, you know how it feels to be welcomed (or not) by your instructor, or to receive feedback within a few days as opposed to a few weeks. As an adult learner, you also may desire to share your prior experience or professional background with the instructor or students. Does your course give you the opportunity to introduce yourself to the instructor and other students, to describe your background and some strengths that you bring to the course community, or are you left feeling invisible in the course, with your expertise unacknowledged?

Tuition Reduction for OSU Employees

As OSU employees, faculty and staff are now eligible to take Ecampus courses at the reduced tuition rate, according to the staff fee privileges.

  • Summer courses begin on June 24th, and fall courses begin on September 25th.

Share Your Experience!

Have you been an online student as well as an online instructor? How did being on online student inform your teaching practices? Reply in the comments section, below.

Resources:

Academic Honesty in Online Assessment

Posted on by | Leave a reply

I pledge that I have acted honorably in completing this assessment.

There are two sides to the story of security of online assessments. On the one side, cheating does exist in online assessments. Examity’s president Michael London summarized five common ways students cheat on online exams:

  1. The old-school try of notes;
  2. The screenshot;
  3. The water break;
  4. The cover-up; and
  5. The big listen through devices such as Bluetooth headset (London, 2017).

Newton (2015) even reported the disturbing fact that “cheating in online classes is now big business”. On the other side, academic dishonesty is a problem of long history, both on college campuses and in online courses. The rate of students who admit to cheating at least once in their college careers has held steady at somewhere around 75 percent since the first major survey on cheating in higher education in 1963 (Lang, 2013). Around 2000, Many faculty and students believed it was easier to cheat in online classes (Kennedy, 2000), and about a third of academic leaders perceived online outcomes to be inferior to traditional classes (Allen & Seaman, 2011). However, according to Watson and Sottile (2010) and other comparative studies (Pilgrim & Scanlon, 2018), there is no conclusive evidence that online students are more likely to cheat than face-to-face students. “Online learning is, itself, not necessarily a contributing factor to an increase in academic misconduct (Pilgrim & Scanlon, 2018)”.

Since there are so many ways for students to cheat in online assessments, how can we make online assessments more effective in evaluating students’ learning? Online proctoring is a solution that is easy for instructors but adds a burden of cost to students. Common online proctoring service providers include ProctorU, Examity, Proctorio, Honorlock, to name just a few (Bentley, 2017).

Fortunately, there are other ways to assess online learning without overly concerned with academic dishonesty. Vicky Phillips (n.d.) suggested that authentic assessment makes it extremely difficult to fake or copy one’s homework. The University of Maryland University College has consciously moving away from proctored exams and use scenario-based projects as assessments instead (Lieberman, 2018). James Lang (2013) suggested smaller class sizes will allow instructor to have more instructor-to-students interaction one-on-one and limit cheating to the minimum therefore; Pilgrim and Scanlon (2018) suggest changing assessments to reduce the likelihood of cheating (such as demonstrating problem solving in person or via video, using plagiarism detection software programs like TurnItIn, etc.) , promote and establish a culture of academic integrity (such as honor’s code, integrity pledge), and supporting academic integrity through appropriate policies and processes. Kohnheim-Kalkstein (2006) reports that the use of a classroom honor code has been shown to reduce cheating. Kohnheim-Kalkstein, Stellmack, and Shilkey (2008) report that use of classroom honor code improves rapport between faculty and students, and increases feelings of trust and respect among students. Gurung, Wilhelm and Fitz (2012) suggest that an honor pledge should include formal language, state the specific consequences for cheating, and require a signature. For the honor pledge to be most effective, Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, and Bazerman (2012) suggests including the honor pledge on the first page of an online assessment or online assignment, before students take the assessment or work on the assignment.

Rochester Institute of Technology (2014) ’s Teaching Elements: Assessing Online Students offer a variety of ways to assess students, including discussions, low-stake quizzes, writing assignments (such as muddiest point paper), and individual activities (such as staged assignments for students to receive ongoing feedback), and many other activities.

In summary, there are plenty of ways to design effective formative or summative assessments online that encourage academic honesty, if instructors and course designers are willing to spend the time to try out suggested strategies from literature.

References

Bentley, Kevin. (2017). What to consider when selecting an online exam proctoring service. Inside HigherEd. (June 21, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2017/06/21/selecting-online-exam-proctoring-service on February 22, 2019.

Gurung, R. A. R., Wilhelm, T. M., & Filz, T. (2012). Optimizing honor codes for online exam administration. Ethics & Behavior, 22, 158–162.

Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L. (2006). Use of a classroom honor code in higher education. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 7, 169–179.

Konheim-Kalkstein,Y. L., Stellmack, M. A., & Shilkey, M. L. (2008). Comparison of honor code and non-honor code classrooms at a non-honor code university. Journal of College & Character, 9, 1–13.

J.M. Lang. (2013). How college classes encourage cheating. Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/08/03/how-college-classes-encourage-cheating/3Q34x5ysYcplWNA3yO2eLK/story.html on February 21, 2019.

Lieberman, Mark. (2018). Exam proctoring for online students hasn’t yet transformed. Inside Higher Ed (October 10, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/10/10/online-students-experience-wide-range-proctoring-situations-tech, on February 22, 2019.

Michael London. (2017). 5 Ways to Cheat on Online Exams. Inside Higher Ed (09/20/2017). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2017/09/20/creative-ways-students-try-cheat-online-exams on February 21, 2019.

Derek Newton. (2015). Cheating in Online Classes is now big business. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/cheating-through-online-courses/413770/ on February 21, 2019.

Vicky Phillips. (n.d.). Big Fat Online Education Myths – students cheat like weasels in Online Classes. GetEducated. Retrieved from https://www.geteducated.com/elearning-education-blog/big-fat-online-education-myths-students-cheat-like-weasels-in-online-classes/ on February 21, 2019.

Chris Pilgrim and Christopher Scanlon. (2018). Don’t assume online students are more likely to cheat. The evidence is murky. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2018-07-dont-assume-online-students-evidence.html on February 21, 2019.

Rochester Institute of Technology. (2014). Teaching Elements: Assessing Online Students. Retrieved from https://www.rit.edu/academicaffairs/tls/sites/rit.edu.academicaffairs.tls/files/docs/TE_Online%20Assessmt.pdf on February 21, 2019.

Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. PNAS, 109, 15197–15200.

George Watson. And James Sottile. (2010). Cheating in digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 13(1). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html on February 21, 2019