Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
Reconceptualizing Curriculum Design and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in an ODeL Institution: The Introduction of Technology-Enhanced Learning
Written By
Malebo Matlala
Submitted: 07 January 2023Reviewed: 09 January 2023Published: 24 February 2023
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
The introduction of technology-enhanced learning has made higher education more accessible, especially in Africa, where the cost of higher education on its own can be a barrier to education. Technology introduced virtual classrooms and has allowed students from remote areas, access to education. Although the use of technology-enhanced learning in South African Higher Education was significantly low, the imposed lockdown as a result of Covid-19 catapulted the use of technology to unprecedented heights in a very short space of time. This chapter studies the impact of Covid-19 on teaching and learning in Higher education as presented in one of Africa’s largest ODeL institutions. The results of the study show that the introduction of remote online assessments presented ideal opportunities for academic dishonesty among students and that in order to protect the integrity of our qualifications, the curriculum should be designed in a manner that encourages active participation from students. This includes active learning through the integration of discussion forums, peer reviews, and group activities, and by taking cognizance of the student’s existing knowledge through reflective learning and their application of newly acquired knowledge.
Keywords
technology enhanced learning
open distance and electronic learning
curriculum design
scholarship of teaching and learning
comprehensive open distance and electronic learning
University of South Africa, Florida Science Campus, South Africa
*Address all correspondence to: matlamd1@unisa.ac.za
1. Introduction
Formerly referred to as distance education/correspondence education, Open Distance learning (ODL) has been around for ages, principally desired by the working-class, who were balancing work-studies and family life. This, however, has changed over the years owing to the introduction of technology. The profile of students today differs from that of students who were enrolled in distance education over 20 years ago. Open Distance Learning (ODL) combines distance education with open learning; it refers not only to access to education that is limited to distance/geographical location between the teacher and the learner but also to access that is open to everyone, irrespective of their race, age, gender, physical abilities/disabilities, as well as social or financial status. Traditionally, this kind of learning environment was preferred by the working-class, more mature students with families; however, in recent years, the student profile has changed, especially in South Africa, demonstrating an increase in the number of unemployed, straight-out-of-high-school scholars enrolling for the first time in higher education. Although costly for the student, the introduction of technology-based teaching and learning methods has also made distance learning more desirable to the younger techno-savvy cohort of students. In addition, technology-enhanced teaching and learning practices have also addressed the biggest obstacle to distance education-communication.
The success of education lies in effective communication, and in distance education, communication was traditionally non-existent, (students were limited to individually interacting with their study material in their remote locations). According to Berge [1], the most important barriers to communication in distance education include issues such as cognitive distance/conceptual understanding, language/cultural/social barriers, and aspects of emotional, psychological, and pedagogical distance as well as spatial and temporal distance. The introduction of technology-enhanced teaching and learning can therefore effectively eliminate temporal and physical/spatial barriers to communication between instructors and students, as well as between and among the students themselves. Issues of cognitive, cultural, emotional, linguistic, pedagogical, as well as psychological and social distance (not limited to distance learning) require additional efforts from all participants (instructors as well as learners) both in the more traditional residential institutions as well as in distance learning institutions. With pedagogical transformation, however, distance education (which placed greater responsibility on the instructor to educate) evolved into distance learning (encouraging students to actively participate in their own learning experiences, thus shifting much of the responsibility to the learner), thus reducing cognitive/conceptual distance between the instructor and the learner, and with learners actively participating in their own studies, issues of conceptual development and understanding are reduced.
Higher education has brought about social and economic transformation since the first industrial revolution. Nonetheless, with every industrial revolution, the transformation of higher education has lagged behind. The current Digital Industrial Revolution (DIR) has changed the way students learn, which subsequently necessitates changes in the way we teach. As a result, transformation of pedagogies in higher education can no longer take the back seat, and the growing interest in online qualifications makes it almost impossible to continue with traditional ways of teaching. Furthermore, virtual classrooms have become even more attractive for the technologically insightful learners, compelling the advancement of pedagogies in higher education. As a result, the transformation of distance learning to Open Distance E-Learning (ODeL), which focuses on expanding student access to higher education, as well as the integration of technology to enhance teaching and learning, has minimized issues of cultural, emotional, linguistic, pedagogical, as well as psychological and social distance by opening higher education to everyone who meets the minimum requirements.
Access to technology brings a plethora of information, and online qualifications have become appealing not only to the working mom who studies when her kids go to sleep but also to the post-secondary-school learners who find it cost effective to study with the best institutions without having to worry about exorbitant accommodation fees. Moreover, technology offers a multitude of benefits, allowing learners to study in the comfort of their own homes, to be actively involved in their learning, and to ask questions without fear of sounding ignorant to fellow classmates. Technology makes room for one-on-one communication possible and allows for discussions and group activities amongst learners through virtual classrooms. It provides access for a multitude of students from all over the world, necessitating a curriculum that is reflective of global concerns and yet sensitive to local issues. Technology incorporates the diversity in cultures, traditions, and beliefs and links local issues on a global scale, making inter-continental collaboration a possibility. The introduction of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) has, however, introduced a new barrier to distance learning—technological distance, where the lack of technological skills (of both the instructor and the learner) becomes a hindrance in technology-based teaching and learning.
Institutions of ODL in South Africa were slowly “testing the waters” of an e-learning environment; however, the imposed country-wide lockdown due to Covid-19 necessitated significant changes; institutions of higher learning were forced to abruptly implement online learning in all qualifications in an effort to save the academic year. This led to the implementation of “mystery” alternative remote online summative assessments, at least for the first remote online assessments (between May and July 2020), where online tools were implemented without being understood by both the students and the instructors. Instructors/academics had to design and develop online summative assessments that would accommodate all students, and students needed to have access to all the relevant tools that would allow them to successfully complete their assessments.
As mentioned earlier, distance teaching methods shift much of the responsibility to the student. The student must be disciplined and make time to study; the onus here is more on the student than in traditional face-to face teaching where the student’s responsibility is to attend lectures. With the onus on the student, much of the responsibility of the instructor is on assessments. The instructor has to ensure that an assessment for learning (formative assessment) affords the student an opportunity to learn and understand concepts (through constructive feedback) and that an assessment of learning (summative assessment) presents an opportunity to evaluate the student’s learning and application of knowledge. This, however, becomes more difficult in a developing country where majority of the students lack the requisite technological skills. Moreover, students are faced with unstable internet connections coupled with exorbitant data prices. As a result, the introduction of online summative assessments resulted in increased anxiety among students who could not afford data as well as those who did not have access to the very technology needed to complete the summative assessments. Coupled with the country’s unreliable electricity systems, network problems, and poor internet connectivity, students were facing an increasing list of things that could go wrong, which made online summative assessments more stressful for students. The first online summative assessments written in 2020 were imposed on all parties involved, forcing the more technologically disadvantaged students to either “lose” the academic year or find “alternative ways” of completing the academic year, where students found themselves confronted with opportunities of participating in academic dishonesty.These assessments were implemented without any form of proctoring, a condition that students were well aware of, thus presenting more “secure” environments and opportunities for students to participate in acts of academic dishonesty.
Academic dishonesty in higher education has been around for decades [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]; it includes cheating in assessments through the use of hidden notes and texts written on concealed parts of the body, on clothes, and on permissible stationery such as rulers [3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12]. Academic dishonesty also includes collaboration with other students (sometimes exchanging or even sharing work), acts of plagiarism, as well as paying someone to do the assessment for you. It is, however, not a new phenomenon restricted to e-learning. Students have always engaged in academic dishonesty; however, the introduction of technology-based learning has made cheating even more accessible. Although online teaching and learning has been gradually introduced in ODL in higher education in South Africa, due to its nature, the use of technology-based learning methods was reserved for formative assessments, whereas summative assessments still employed the use of the more stringent, traditional venue-based exams. However, as mentioned earlier, this was apprehensively changed due to the imposed lockdown as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The aim of this study is to determine the impact of TEL on teaching and learning (particularly curriculum design and student success) in a postgraduate module offered at an ODeL institution of higher education in South Africa. The study evaluated changes in curriculum design coupled with student success rates over a period of 10 years, from 2011 to 2022. The study follows the progressive evolution of the mode of delivery of an honors module in Environmental Management from distance education, through distance learning, to the current technology-enhanced online learning.
The study evaluated the decadal progression of student success in one postgraduate module offered at an institution of ODeL in South Africa. The evaluation of student success rates was monitored from 2011 to 2022. Over 3000 students have enrolled for the postgraduate module in Environmental Management (at an average of 300 students each year) in the past ten years. The academic year for the postgraduate qualification runs for 11 months from April to February, with students writing their summative assessments in February each year. Thus, the study analyzed the results of the 2011 students who wrote their summative assessment in 2012 through to the 2021 students who wrote their summative assessment in February 2022.
Over the past 10 years, the module has evolved from an offline module (2011–2013) to a blended module (2014–2019) to now a fully online module (2020 to date). For the purpose of this study, an offline module is a module that is paper-based, where students receive hard copies of their study material (tutorial letters, study guides, and formative assessment administered through the postal service); a blended module is one where the study material is available both in hard copies as well as online and where the students still have the option of submitting hand-written or typed assessments in hard copies.
In both the offline and blended module offering types, the final summative assessment was a “traditional, pen and paper venue-based examination.” A fully online module, on the other hand, is a module offered only online, where all assessments (both formative and summative) are completed online.
Through the evolution of the module’s mode of delivery, the design of the module also had to evolve, and the students also needed to adapt to the changes.
2.1 Offline mode of delivery
Between 2011 and 2013, students received hard copies of the study material, and they also submitted hard copies of all assessments. During these years, students received copies of the tutorial letter that informed them of all relevant information such as the name and contact details of the module lecturer.
In addition to the assessment plan, as well as the summative assessments, the tutorial letter provided a list of contact details of all relevant academic departments such as the library, assignment, as well as the examination departments. A study guide was also provided, and the module also included copies of case studies and reading material that were provided to students. Due to the institution’s high number of print production (for all qualifications), study material was prepared and finalized 6 months in advance, which meant there was no room to “add on” or alter the study material once it was finalized, meaning that the module content could only be altered for the next academic year. The offline mode of delivery administered two formative assessments which contributed 30% (15% each) to the year mark as well as a final venue-based examination, which contributed 70% to the final mark. In order to pass the module, the student needed to pass the examination with a minimum of 50%.
2.2 Blended mode of delivery
The blended mode of delivery was implemented from 2014 to 2019. During this period, students received only the tutorial letter in hard copy, and all other study materials were available on the module site. During the first 2 years of this period (2014–2015), this mode of delivery was also referred to as “paper behind glass,” simply because the study material was migrated to online. The period however presented an important milestone in distance learning. During this period, extensive adaptations were implemented, and this period also presented an opportunity to design and adapt the module to complement the cohort of enrolled students. During 2016–2019, the module was 85% online, with less than 5% of the students submitting written assessments and with the summative assessment being the only “traditional-venue-based-pen and paper assessment,” which was still administered offline.
During the blended mode of delivery, one group activity (with a weighting of 20%) was introduced into the module, increasing the total number of formative assessments to three (all contributing 30% to the year mark), and similar to the offline period, the exam mark still contributed 70% toward the final mark (with a minimum of 50% required to pass the examination).
2.3 Online mode of delivery
The implementation of TEL in South African higher education was significantly low and took place at a relatively slow pace, however, the imposed lockdown in 2020 as a result of Covid-19 catapulted the use of technology to unprecedented heights in a very short space of time. During this time (2020 to date), the mode of delivery has become strictly online.
The introduction of technology-enhanced teaching and learning in 2014 meant that the transition of the module to being fully online in 2020 was manageable. During this time, only the exams were “transitioning,” and as a result, the final venue-based exams became remote/take-home/online exams.
2.3.1 Continuous assessment
As of April 2022, continuous assessment was implemented in the module. The number of assessments were increased to 8, spread out throughout the duration of the course. The assessments had different weightings based on the type of assessment (multiple choice, peer assessment, group activity, essay type) as well as the level of involvement. The final assessment (assessment 08), with a weighting of 30% to the final mark, was in the form of a portfolio of evidence that was submitted in December 2022.
2.4 Summative assessments
The final summative assessments of the module were administered during the university’s January/February examination cycle, meaning that the academic year ran from April through to March of the following year when the final results were released. Summative assessments were administered throughout the world with the assistance of invigilators employed by the institution. Examination venues were available throughout South Africa, as well as in other cities internationally. Over the past 10 years, international students enrolled for the module were located in Botswana, Congo, eSwatini, Germany, Lesotho, Namibia, Qatar, as well as the United States of America. Although a majority of international students in the US, Germany, and Qatar were originally South African students living abroad, other international students were natives of their countries. Moreover, the module also accommodated incarcerated students who also completed their summative assessments at their primary locations, with the warders administering the proctoring of the assessments.
To ensure adequate evaluation of each cohort of students, the study evaluated the throughput of the 2011 students, who wrote their summative assessment in the 2012 January/February exam period, and that of the 2012–2021 students, who wrote their summative assessment during the January/February exam period of the next year. In both the offline as well as the blended-delivery period, summative assessments were conducted in a traditional pen-and-paper, venue-based exam setting, where invigilators were employed to monitor students during the examination process. However, in February 2021, summative assessments were in the form of a timed take-home exam, where the students only had their conscience as an invigilator for the duration of the exam. Due to inevitable limitations that could occur at any given time in South Africa (such as load shedding, where electricity can be shut down for a limited time in a specific area, poor internet connections in most parts of the country, and unreliable network), coupled with the poor technological skills of the majority of students enrolled for the module, as well as the general anxiety of students regarding online examinations, the instructor of the module implemented an “open, technology-based summative assessment” in the form of a timed portfolio of evidence where students were given 72 hours to complete the assessments. The aim of implementing an open, technology-based summative assessment was to ensure that “no student is left behind” (that students had enough time to complete the assessment without stressing about load shedding and connectivity issues); they were also allowed to write their assessments by hand and scan and upload their submissions online. As part of the online examination induction process during the 2020 academic year, students were made aware of different types of academic dishonesty. Students were informed of the university policy on academic dishonesty, which explicitly/unequivocally stated that “any form of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated by the university, and that students who are found to have contravened the policy will face disciplinary action.”
In addition, students were informed that due to the nature of the assessments, acts of academic dishonesty would not be tolerated. Furthermore, the question paper included a declaration form that each student had to complete, sign, and submit together with their answer scripts, stating that they were aware of the university policy on academic integrity as well as the consequences thereof. The study therefore, focused on the act of plagiarism as a form of academic dishonesty. The submitted scripts were automatically submitted to an internet-based plagiarism detection platform to evaluate or identify any similarities with other published documents.
The study identified assessments where:
students copied sections directly from their formative assessments,
students took another author (s)’ work and presented it as their own,
as well as students copied from a multitude of authors and only credited parts of the work, presenting the rest as their own thoughts and ideas.
During the 2022 January/February examination period, however, the final summative assessment was changed to an online 3 hour-examination, which administered a proctoring tool and was also ran through an internet-based plagiarism detection platform and for the 2022 continuous assessment cohort, the students submitted their final portfolio of evidence in December 2022.
The study analyzed the performance of students in the 2021 “open, technology-based summative assessment” as well as the performance of students in the 2022, 3 hour-online summative assessment who were enrolled for a postgraduate module in Environmental Management at an institution of ODeL in South Africa. The results were compared to the results of previous venue-based summative assessments (2011–2019) for the same postgraduate module. Since the academic year for the postgraduate qualification runs from April to February, with students writing their summative assessments in January/February each year, the study analyzed the results of the 2011 students, who wrote their summative examination in the 2012 January/February exam period through to those of the 2021 students, who wrote their summative assessment in the 2022 January/February examination period.
This study incorporates the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) together with the concept of learner-centered learning, in an effort to enhance the ODeL pedagogy. The SoTL introduces a paradigm shift in higher education. It can be described as a pedagogical revolution, which connects research and one’s personal learning and teaching practices with the ultimate purpose of enhancing student learning. In an effort to improve teaching and learning, as well as the overall experience and success of students, one has to evaluate their own teaching and systematically examine student learning by critically evaluating and moderating formative and summative assessments with the view of identifying areas that learners might find difficult.
As mentioned earlier, during the first 8 years of the study (2011–2019), summative assessments for the postgraduate module were administered by invigilators present at examination venues across the world. During this time, there was only one reported incident of a student who was caught cheating during the examination. The student’s script was confiscated, and the student subsequently failed the summative assessment (Table 1), thus failing the module.
Descriptive statistics showing the number of enrolled students each year, as well as the exam summary statistics between 2011 and 2022.
Exam admission is based on meeting the module-specific requirements.
Cases of academic dishonesty.
When evaluating these exam scripts over the years, the instructor was confident that students used their knowledge and also applied their own understanding when answering the exam questions. In the 2021 examination, however, it was clear that students simply copied and pasted their answers from other online sources, as well as from their own formative assessments. During the marking of the exam scripts, certain signs of cheating were identified from the answer scripts submitted by the students. The students with the lower similarity percentages tend to try and hide their cheating by presenting the answers as though it is the application of their own understanding. Some of the give-away signs that a student had engaged in academic dishonesty that were observed during the marking of the exam scripts included:
Referring to figures or tables that were not included in the text (see Table 1 below; however, there would be no Table 1 in the answer script);
Changes in the use of language (different voices coming across from different parts of the script);
Presenting contradictory statements, which the student was not even aware of;
Extracts with original names that had no meaning in the submitted scripts.
Over the past 10 years, over 3000 students have written the summative assessment of the honors module in environmental management, with an overall pass rate of 92% (Table 1). The 2012–2013 exam results represent the performance of distance-education students who completed the course fully offline. The 2014–2020 results represent the performance of students who completed the module in a blended mode of delivery. All honors modules for the Environmental Management Qualification moved partially online (blended) in the 2013 academic year. The transition to blended learning meant that students had to assume much of the responsibility in order to ensure their success. The study material was now only available online, which meant that the students had the responsibility of finding their study material (as opposed to receiving study material through the postal service) and thus had to spend time online in order to engage with the study material.
In addition to the blended migration, a group activity was introduced in the course, thus introducing interaction among the students and reducing the lonely journey experienced by distance learners. A student assessment at the end of the academic year revealed students’ perception regarding the introduced group activity (majority of the students were grateful for the opportunity to interact with other students).
The 2021 and 2022 results represent the performance of online students. Over 300 students wrote and submitted their summative assessments during the 2021 January/February examination period. Out of the 302 scripts, 46 students were found to have contravened the university policy on academic dishonesty (Table 1), resulting in an 18% reduction in the pass rate.
The Figure 1 below gives a graphical representation of the extent of cheating/academic dishonesty during the 2021 January/February summative assessments in the postgraduate module.
Figure 1.
A graphical representation of the extent of cheating carried out by 46 students who were enrolled for a postgraduate module at a South African ODL university during the 2021 January/February examination period.
Although the majority of the students copied less than 60% of their exam, the overall number of students who engaged in this activity when compared to only one reported incident in previous years shows that cheating in an online assessment is more accessible to students.
Unlike undergraduate students, postgraduate students are expected to have a better understanding of academic dishonesty and thus are not expected to engage in cheating; however, a study by Josien and Broderick [15] rejects that notion and states that most postgraduate students who engage in academic dishonesty have most probably had more “practice” during their undergraduate studies. This could be agreed with to an extent because the majority of these students who engaged in academic dishonesty in the 72-hour online portfolio assessment were found to have continued with these activities in two other modules where the examination conditions were similar to the traditional venue-based exams (the students wrote a 2-hour timed exam on an online platform). Although it is possible that the students have had practice in undergraduate years, the author of this paper believes that the introduction of remote online assessments has given even the most timid of students an opportunity that they would otherwise not have engaged in.
Based on the number of reported and unreported cases in a department that has previously reported less than ten cases of academic dishonesty per annum, the combined number of students who engaged in academic dishonesty (in other modules too) in the 2020 academic year is at least a hundred times more. Furthermore, the ease with which information is available in this digital era coupled with the discretion afforded by remote assessments, makes it easy for students to solicit information/answers during an online assessment.
According to Connors [16], access to the internet has made information more readily accessible, and students now have access to pre-written essays, making the sharing and recycling of assessments very easily attainable. Moreover, unrestricted access to information, as well as the level of techno-literacy, also plays a role in the increase in the number of students who commit such acts. Figure 2 below is a presentation of the age distribution of the 46 students who participated in acts of plagiarism during their remote online summative assessment.
Figure 2.
A graphical representation of the age distribution among the group of students who participated in academic dishonesty during the 2021 January/February examination period.
Over 50% of the students who participated in academic dishonesty were between the ages of 24 and 30, whereas the rest of the students were between 31 and 50 years of age. The results indicate that the younger, more techno-savvy students find it easier to engage in academic dishonesty, a case that was also observed by other authors [4, 6, 16, 17, 18]. Technology is here to stay, and the traditional pencil-and-paper type of assessment might just be a thing of the past; therefore, institutions of higher education must put measures in place to reduce or even prevent students from participating in acts of academic dishonesty during online assessments.
Some of the measures that can be put in place include the use of random question sequencing function, which will ensure that students do not work on the same question simultaneously (thus reducing collaboration among students); this, however, becomes difficult in larger classes where the number of students is a hundred times more than the number of available questions.
Other measures that can be implemented include the replication of traditional venue-based timed examinations through the use of proctoring software that allows for real-time face recognition and the use of video conferencing platforms during the assessment. Although these proctoring methods may have other inherent issues (such as lack of access to such tools for the poorer students, exorbitant data consumption during video conferencing, as well as issues of privacy, especially for remote assessments), these measures will reduce the number of students committing acts of academic dishonesty and will increase fairness as well as ensure the protection of the integrity of not only the qualification but also the institution.
During the 2022 January/February examination period, the summative assessment of the postgraduate module was changed from a 72-hour open, technology-based summative assessment to a 3 hour online summative assessment, which was administered through the use of a proctoring application. Students were informed of the importance of the proctoring software, which had to be downloaded before the administration of the online assessment at no charge to the student. The proctoring system monitored students’ conduct during the assessment, where:
random, automatic voice recordings during the 3 hour. examination period were made;
students were randomly prompted to take selfies during the exam period, and these selfies were compared to the student’s official identification in the university records;
students were requested to take pictures of their examination answer scripts during the exam;
random individualized questions were asked through the proctoring app (which students had to complete as part of their assessment);
the “out-of-app time” as well as the location of students were recorded.
As shown in Table 1, out of the 309 students who wrote the summative assessment in 2022, only 6 students were identified to have contravened the university policy on academic dishonesty. In addition to evaluating each student’s plagiarism report, the proctoring reports of all students were also scrutinized, and the students who were flagged were found to have spent a considerable amount of time “out of the app” as well as did not take photos of the examination scripts when prompted to do so. A total of 18 students were flagged by the proctoring app, and out of the 18 students, a total of 12 students did not submit their final scripts at the end of the 3 hour examination period, and these students stated network/connectivity issues as the reason for not submitting their final exam scripts for evaluation; as a result, the students were recorded as absent from exam. The plagiarism report of the remaining six students who were flagged by the proctoring app also showed high similarities with published material, indicating that the students simply copied and pasted from other sources (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
A graphical representation of the extent of cheating carried out by six students who were enrolled for a postgraduate module at a South African ODL university during the 2022 January/February examination period.
When compared to the 2021 percentage similarity (Figure 1), the results presented in Figure 3 indicates that students tend to “supplement” their written examination with borrowed material presented as their own. Although there was only one case of academic dishonesty reported for the venue-based summative assessment over the past 10 years, this showed that students were able to conceal academic dishonesty (not that it did not take place). Moreover, the integration of proctoring software as well as similarity checking software has made it easier for instructors to identify incidents where students indulge in academic dishonesty.
Changing the assessment design in 2022 has resulted in an overall reduction of reported cases of academic dishonesty in the module. Reported cases declined from 46 during the 2021 take-home exams to 6 during the 2022 online proctored examination. An assessment of the two assessment periods showed that the 72 hour take-home exam presented ample time for students to cheat and to also try and conceal the cheating. It can also be argued that the students simply left the exam to the last hour, at which they became overwhelmed and resorted to cheating. The students who were found guilty of misconduct were given an option to be awarded a zero mark and enroll for the module in the next academic year or undergo disciplinary hearing where they would be given an opportunity to present their case to the institutional student disciplinary committee. All 52 students (46 students in the 2021 exams and 6 students in the 2022 exams) opted for the 0 mark and to repeat the module in the next academic year.
Thus, to meet the university’s decision to do away with venue-based exams post the Covid-19 imposed lockdown and to protect the integrity of assessments at higher education institutions, online courses must be designed in a manner that encourages active participation from students and, thus, moves away from the traditional “paper behind glass” course development, which results in passive learning. TEL presents a plethora of opportunities to redesign learning from passive learning (where the learners consume content provided by their teachers in the form of recorded lectures, preselected readings, automated assessments, and artificial discussions) to active learning, which incorporates learning activities that guide the student’s construction of knowledge through activities and application of previous knowledge, allowing the student to apply their knowledge beyond the virtual classroom, as well as the integration of student reflections [19]. The reflective process allows students to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses during their learning journey, assisting students to assess and determine their capabilities in a particular course, thus allowing students to be active participants in their own studies. As of April 2022, the development of the postgraduate module assessed in the study has incorporated continuous assessments.
Continuous assessments, as the name suggests, are assessments that are administered at a much more continuous scale. The module design was moved from a module with two essay-type formative assessments (which contributed 30% to the student’s final mark) and one summative assessment (weight of 70%) at the end of the academic year. The module now has integrated a total of eight assessments, each with different weightings contributing to the student’s final mark. The assessments are spread out throughout the duration of the course. Students actively participate in their learning journey through the completion of multiple-choice assessments, discussion forums, peer reviews, group activities, as well as individual assessments.
In a continuous assessment module, learners cannot afford to miss one or two assessments, as this will have a negative impact on their overall final score; hence, they have to constantly engage with the study material to ensure their success. Moreover, the group activities and peer reviews administered as part of continuous assessments assist students with their own self reflections, allowing students to be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses [20]. Continuous assessments help students to achieve their learning outcomes and develop autonomy, allowing them to be active participants in their studies and also derive learning strategies that are informed by their own competencies. The assessments completed by the students relied on the student’s application of previous as well as new knowledge, also incorporating opportunities for them to demonstrate their strengths, skills, and expertise. Although the results of the 2022 academic year are not available at this period, the preliminary results indicate an improvement in the overall performance of the students.
Even though the study has assessed the performance of different students over a period of 10 years, the module has maintained an average pass rate of 92%, indicating the consistency in the module design and development as well as the assessment criteria.
Furthermore, the constant pursuit to improving the learner’s engagement with the study material has also translated to improved throughput rates. Thus, the introduction of TEL, coupled with continuous assessments and adequate student support, presents a unique opportunity for the next cohort of students to actively engage in their own learning journeys, shaping their cognitive development while reflecting on their own academic expansion as they apply their existing and newly acquired knowledge, not only in the classroom but also in all spheres of their personal lives and their communities.
TEL is still in its infancy in Southern Africa, and as a result, institutions of higher learning are still faced with a myriad of challenges regarding the use of technology to enhance teaching and learning, particularly in an ODeL institution. In order to take advantage of the benefits of integrating technology into teaching and learning in institutions of higher education, it is important to first tackle the issue of access to technology, as well as issues of stable and reliable Internet connection. It is also imperative to ensure that academics have the requisite skills to excel in designing and developing curricula that integrates the use of technology in their teaching, and to also ensure that students have the required basic skills to take advantage of all the opportunities that TEL provides.
1.Berge ZL. Barriers to communication in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2013;14(01):374-388. Retrieved on 21 December 2022 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1006273.pdf
2.Buckley MR, Wiese DS, Harvey MG. An investigation into the dimensions of unethical behaviour. Journal of Education for Business. 1998;73(5):284-290. DOI: 10.1080/08832329809601646
3.Meade J. Cheating: is academic dishonesty par for the course?’. Prism. 1992;1(7):30-32
4.McCabe DL, Trevino LK. Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: a multi-campus investigation. Research in Higher Education. 1997;38(3):379-396. DOI: 10.1023/A%3A1024954224675
5.Nonis S, Swift CO. Deterring cheating behaviour in the marketing classroom: an analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes and in-class deterrent strategies. Journal of Marketing Education. 1998;20(3):188-199. DOI: 10.1177/027347539802000302
6.Whitley BE. Factors associated with cheating among college students. Research in Higher Education. 1998;39:235-274. DOI: 10.1023/A:1018724900565
7.Cizek GJ. Cheating on Tests: How to Do It, Detect It, and Prevent It. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999
8.Pullen R, Ortloff V, Casey S, Payne JB. Analysis of academic misconduct using unobtrusive research: a study of discarded cheat sheets. College Student Journal. 2000;34:616
9.Kidwell LA, Wozniak K, Laurel JP. Student reports and faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. Teaching Business Ethics. 2003;7(3):205-214. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025008818338
10.Park C. In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students – literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2003;28(5):471-488. DOI: 10.1080/02602930301677
11.McCabe DL, Trevino LK. Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education. 1993;64:522-538. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.1993.11778446
12.Nonis S, Swift CO. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business. 2001;77(2):69-76. DOI: 10.1080/08832320109599052
13.Chapman KJ, Davis RD, Toy D, Wright L. Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing Education. 2004;26:236-249. DOI: 10.1177/0273475304268779
14.McCabe DL. Cheating among college and university students: a North American perspective’. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2005;1(1). DOI: 10.21913/IJEI.v1i1.14
15.Josien L, Broderick B. Cheating in higher education: the case of multi-methods cheaters. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal. 2013;17(3):93-105
16.Connors M. Cyber-cheating: The Internet could become the newest battleground in academic fraud. 1996
17.Crown DF, Spiller MS. Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: a review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics. 1998;17:683-700. DOI: 10.1023/A:1017903001888
18.Burlak GN, Hernandez J, Ochoa A, Munoz J. The Use of Data Mining to Determine Cheating in Online Student Assessment, Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference, 2006, (CERMA'06), Cuernavaca, Mexico, DOI: 10.1109/CERMA.2006.91
19.Reilly C, Reeves TC. Refining active learning design principles through design-based research. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/14697874221096140
20.Clayton J, Saravani S-J. Creating digital self-reflective frameworks to encourage learner autonomy in post-graduate courses. In: Hegarty B, McDonald J, Loke S-K, editors. Rhetoric and Reality: Critical Perspectives on Educational Technology. Proceedings Ascilite Dunedin. 2014. pp. 599-603. Retrieved on 31 January 2023 from: https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/concisepapers/204-Clayton.pdf
Written By
Malebo Matlala
Submitted: 07 January 2023Reviewed: 09 January 2023Published: 24 February 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
