The Physics Today article, 'College Physics Instructors Adapt TheirTeaching To Prevent Cheating' (August 2022, page 25) was mind blowing. We learned, for example, that cheating - especially on class tests, homework has become as endemic as the pandemic since the lockdowns. Indeed, math and physics college instructors across the U.S. and beyond are grappling with how to deter cheating and reassessing how they assess their students.
Who or what are the primary culprits in this new cheating venue? Most of the profs cited in the piece appeared to blame a website called 'Chegg'. Why Chegg? Well, as we learned "Chegg offers libraries of searchable solutions and the option to post new problems with requests for solutions" The typical modus operandi is for students to do a "screen shot" of a problem - say in an exam or homework- dispatch it to the site, and wait for a solution or plausible response.
Up to now the suggested remedies might be called "tepid" or problematic at best. For example in the latest (June) issue of Physics Today one letter contributor suggests going after copyright violations. In his words:
I would like to point out what I believe is an opportunity for learning institutions to act against predatory sites that host stolen test materials. A safe harbor provision in the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) protects such sites if they don’t know that they are hosting copyrighted material. According to the law, the sites can lose that protection if the copyright owner notifies them of the infringement. That requires a serious effort from the affected party to find the materials at the sites and notify the hosts. In my case, I have stopped doing that for a simple reason: Even if the materials are removed, they are usually back up in a matter of days as other students repost them.
But OCILLA also indicates that the sites may be liable if there are red flags that they ignored. Students often upload their problems in the form of screenshots or pictures, which advanced sites make searchable by scanning the text. That means that the next time a similar picture is uploaded, the sites have the technology to detect material that the instructor has already flagged as copyrighted. By accepting the material a second time, they may be violating the red-flag criterion. I hope that colleges and universities explore that legal route as a way to reduce the unbearable levels of cheating that has put online education in serious trouble.
But is this a practical solution? I don't believe it is, especially given the sites in question may not have any interest in detecting the suspect material. (Well, because student money and accessing answers may talk louder) A far less cumbersome method is available and can remove all the problems. What is it? Giving oral examinations as opposed to written. The basic template for such an exam - in line with an online course- was provided in one Feb. 23 NY Times piece. Therein one read:
"The mandatory oral exam was held via Zoom, which allowed users to connect with video, audio and chat. Before the start of the exam, students were asked to show their student ID or a passport showing their full name and photo. Also, students were told to show their face for the duration of the exam. We told tutors administering the oral interview to record their sessions to the cloud.
Each student was asked three to four questions, depending on the duration of the exam. Then tutors sent a file containing the number of questions each student was asked and how many the student answered correctly to the course administrator."
This covers the basics and I would warrant can be extended to regular courses in physics or astronomy that are not online. Indeed, at USF when I did my Bachelors astronomy degree, oral exam finals were an accepted and integral part of many upper level courses (Stellar Structure &Evolution, Spectroscopy, Radio Astronomy etc.). This was in the late 60s, early 70s so no ChatGPT existed then. But even if it had, I suspect USF profs would have got around it using their tried and true "old school" oral testing. The advantage of such testing, often based on the Socratic method, is clear - as it enables the instructor to probe the student's greater understanding. An aspect that most written exams - as well as homework - leave out.
Example oral exam for Stellar Structure & Evolution:
1) Give the Russell-Vogt theorem in your own words. Explain - using diagrams- how it might apply to the Sun. Why can't this theorem be proven?
2) Explain the evolutionary track in the H-R diagram below, noting the physical parameters involved and how they affect the track at each phase.
3) Explain the deficiencies in the equation below, particularly as applied to the case of Sirius with M/Ms= 2:
log (Tms) = 10.11 + log (M/Ms) - log (L/Ls)
4) Describe the physical significance of the diagram shown below, and write one equation derivable from it:
I may be wrong, but I am firmly convinced that this (oral exam) approach is the best way to get around most student cheating.
See Also:
No comments:
Post a Comment