Risk and Reward: Implementing a New Online Proctor System Janet Lenart, Ashley Bond, Sharee Squires Online Education Team, School of Nursing Janet slide Decided to take a look at Accreditation stardards

Introduction Janet slide

Vetting – Winter 2016 Motivation Screening Stakeholders Accreditation Standards Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities Student Request Cheating in higher education 50% to 95% (Josien, 2013) Screening 21 Vendors 7 In-depth 2 Final Stakeholders Students, Administration, Faculty, Committees, Executive Team, Technology Team Janet slide: Autumn 2015 Accreditation standards.

Piloting - Spring 2016 Course Characteristics Large course Instructors Enthusiastic Flexible Technology skills Problem Solvers Ashley Slide: Key Points for successful Piloting: picking your pilot courses instructors key Having a team capable of problem solving and instructors willing to work with you

Piloting Support Created technology team Developed Instructions Instructors Students Regular Contact Analysis of process Improvements Funding explored with administration Ashley Slide: Communication support essential

Implementation Fall 2016 Winter 2017 7 courses 7 Courses Janet slide: Course sizes ranged from 20 students to 140 students Different styles: Open book, hybrid (half in class half at home, not open to collaboration but open book Allowed to problem solve in a variety of situations.

Implementation Payment Messaging One to One Consultations Testing Email Newsletter Departmental Meetings SoN webpage and intranet One to One Consultations Testing Review of Proctorio Gradebook Improvements Janet slide: Payment / Cost to students $20 per course or $ 100 life time fee Messaging early for the requirement fall 2016 Approach was to offer one to one consultations, Only 4 people attended a workshop not very effective Canvas quizzes support Worked with Proctorio to integrate Proctorio into canvas courses Issues: Cheating, Technical issues, instructors changing or editing test once test is open. Improvements: communication to students, instructions on home page revised, Developed FAQ for students, mandate one on one consultations, Remove ability to use Proctorio without first consultation, On going, cost method is a block

Evaluation Pilot Implementation Online Student feedback Weekly Meetings Faculty Implementation Debriefing with Faculty Survey of Students Sharee slide Students were able to express their concerns whether good or bad During the pilot Fear of software install on their computer, Anxiety of wondering if their behavior of looking up or around would be flagged as suspicious. Not able to talk out loud Wi Fi problems Accidently losing connection Not remembering to share scratch paper at end Having a quiet place to take quiz/test with good connection Having family interrupt them in error Feedback was also positive Flexibility Pleased with the use of technology Suggestions White board Last question to show white board or scratch paper Instructors, Rewards out weighted the negative Good use of class time Flexibility of student work schedules Some students have very strong feelings about Proctorio that were negative. We still need to complete our evaluation. Survey of courses and DNP Curriculum committee waiting for those results from both students. We will be debriefing the instructors that used Proctorio during the Winter quarter.

Evaluation Current Survey Results Frequency of student preference: 69 Responses of 205 students surveyed Leadership committees are evaluating results Results Frequency of student preference: 31% In person test 20% Option to take test online or in person 20% 24 hour window for online test 20% Standard weekly window for online testing 4% No preference 6% Other Sharee slide Results In person test 31% Option to take test online or in person 20% 24 hour window for online test 20% Standard weekly window for online testing 20% No preference 4% Other 6%

Conclusions Lessons Learned Centralize Enabling Proctorio Evaluate Negative Feedback One to One Consultation Critical Shared Language Improvement in Messaging Responding to Innovative use of Canvas Quiz Provide Make-up Quiz Option Janet Lesson learned: Have shared language, Instructors not to edit test once available to students

Resources 17 Minute Overview of Proctorio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvvyHYS8Zlc&feature=youtu.be Accreditation Standards Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities http://www.nwccu.org/Pubs%20Forms%20and%20Updates/Publications/Standards%20for%20Accreditation.pdf References Josien, L., & Broderick, B. (2013). Cheating in Higher Education: The Case of Multi-Methods Cheaters. Academy Of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3), 93-105. Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.    

Questions Janet Lenart jlenart@uw.edu Ashley Bond aab8@uw.edu

Thank You