WWTBAM Bored

With all the students taking online courses now or in the fall, I'm wondering how they stop people from cheating. We've already found out how easy it is to have ringers come in and take tests for Millionaire and Jeopardy, but with most classroom tests students would have even more time than the 10 to 15 seconds they had on the quiz shows and that would give them the opportunity to look up answers as well.

I noticed that the Florida Bar (of which I am a member) canceled its two-day in-person bar exam scheduled in July and is replacing it with a one-day online exam in August that combines multiple-choice and essay questions. I'm pretty sure that a skilled researcher could look up most multiple-choice bar questions (which are more complex than most multiple-choice exams) and make at least an informed guess in a couple of minutes.

Relying on the word of students, whether high school or bar applicants, is not a satisfactory solution.

I try to make most of my questions about ideas rather than about facts. You have to create an argument or voice an opinion. It's not foolproof, of course, but it's pretty easy to tell when the voice doesn't match the student.

The other thing this accomplishes is that it encourages teachers to build classes in such a way that the test is a small portion of the final grade, rather than a large chunk, like it used to be. I'd been doing this for a while, simply because some people just don't test well. But it's a luxury, available because I have a course built on material that is more about everyday growth than about a sudden revelation at the end.

My wife has been taking online classes for her mortuary degree and her school is using online proctors. She has to register with a proctor at a specific time who watches her take a test via computer camera. Before she starts the test, she has to show the proctor the whole room including her desk, ensure that no one else is there, and once the test starts she is not allowed to leave the room. Not fool proof, but it does provide some accountability.

We're doing something similar. Tests are more essay or problem-based. Kids have to have the webcam (we are a 1-to-1 school system, so every student has a device issued by the school) focused on their hands, and they must show work or thought process. Teachers then randomly check students' audio to make sure they are not being prompted by someone else in the room. In my classes, I can design tests so that every student gets the same questions, but in different orders, and with different numbers. We had already gone to a system where homework is worth very little in the way of points, but is supposed to be meaningful and to help the students prepare for tests. In a perfect world, doing all the homework would guarantee that the student is prepared for the test. I'm not sure it always works that way, but that's the goal.

My labs this year will take three forms: simulations, demo-driven (where I essentially do the lab in front of them and then give them data to analyze), or take-home experiments that can be done with simple equipment at home. Again, not ideal, and no substitute for in-person instruction, but a whole lot better than a bunch of dead kids, teachers, and grandparents.

A substantial percentage of last month's ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) magazine was devoted to cheating. Practically every in-person tournament has been cancelled this year because of covid danger to people in our age group, but it's so easy to cheat in online play, I expect there won't be any virtual replacements. The ACBL is permitting clubs to set up club games online through Bridge Base Online, a high-tech site with amazing capabilities. ACBL then looks for cheaters on a results basis. For example, if I started winning every week, they'd be taking a close look at my games, which are saved for two weeks.

Neither of my online partners will "talk" to me via E-mail during the hour before the game. I think that's overkill, especially since I'm playing worse than I have in years with unsurprisingly poor results, making a cheating charge very unlikely. But I'm happy to go along with it since it makes them feel safer.

SportsFan68 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:32 pm

A substantial percentage of last month's ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) magazine was devoted to cheating. Practically every in-person tournament has been cancelled this year because of covid danger to people in our age group, but it's so easy to cheat in online play, I expect there won't be any virtual replacements. The ACBL is permitting clubs to set up club games online through Bridge Base Online, a high-tech site with amazing capabilities. ACBL then looks for cheaters on a results basis. For example, if I started winning every week, they'd be taking a close look at my games, which are saved for two weeks.

Neither of my online partners will "talk" to me via E-mail during the hour before the game. I think that's overkill, especially since I'm playing worse than I have in years with unsurprisingly poor results, making a cheating charge very unlikely. But I'm happy to go along with it since it makes them feel safer.

It's gonna get worse. Two very prominent players confessed on bridgewinners.com to having cheated by anonymously self-kibitzing, which let them see all four hands. One of them simply stepped forward. The other, Sylvia Shi, confessed only after being confronted.

I'm the President of my District, and it's made me think long and hard about whether and how to hold on-line qualifying events for Grand National Teams or North American Pairs. --Bob

Don't do it. JMHO.

Maybe you'll figure out how to hold safe in-person events.

SportsFan68 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:26 pm

Don't do it. JMHO.

Maybe you'll figure out how to hold safe in-person events.

Not a chance in hell. The bottom line is that it's a game, and there's no way I'm going to materially increase people's chances of acquiring or spreading a potentially deadly illness just to play a game. As far as I'm concerned, we'll return to in-person play when there's a vaccine (or a reliable test capable of quickly ascertaining who's potentially contagious), and probably not a moment before. --Bob