If I set a quiz to one attempt and then save settings, it does not seem to work correctly?!
I then attempt a quiz, see all the answers.
Without saving anything, I click out, back or whatever and low and behold I'm able to get back in the quiz.
I say this is not correct because students can effectively cheat by reading the questions and not answer them and return another time.
No system of evaluation is safe from cheating, but a cookie someplace would fix this?
I have the same problem.
John Bristor created something that put a stop to this problem - back button prevention (including right click, the hotkeys and control p to print the page)http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2931
But alas John is no longer a member of these forums so it seems we are going to miss out on his extensive upgrade to the quiz module. This is very sad.
I have about 11 classes a week (it is meant to be 12 but I skip one!) and I like to set some home work that I mark by hand so I need computer help. I have used moodle to set comprehension tests but some students have worked out how to use the print out and back button functions. John Bristors' modification made printing out impossible too.
Timothy Takemoto
Actually, entering a quiz triggers the attempt counter, so even if a student enters the quiz and then clicks out of it, the clock is running. It means that if he enters the same quiz the next day, and answers all the questions in 5 minutes, the time spent on the quiz will actually be more than 24 hours, so you, as a teacher, know that there was something bad going on there. On the other hand, if mechanisms were introduced to disallow students completely from re-entering the quiz, I think it would create more problems than it would solve. Think of all those browser crashes, electricity failures, etc.
I believe the most important thing here is redefining our attitudes to testing when we teach online. You wrote: No system of evaluation is safe from cheating and this is true. Actually, I believe we, as teachers, are cheating ourselves if we think we can prevent online students from cheating. There is absolutely no way to stop them, retinal scanning included
$$$.$$$s are spent trying to develop a cheat-safe online testing system (see Perception Secure Browser, for example), but the money is wasted if the testing is not conducted in a proctored environment.
In my opinion, it is much better to tell them openly that there are ways for them to cheat in online quizzes (you don't have to tell them what ways, though) and make them aware that they are in fact cheating themselves. And we should never use online quizzes in high- or medium-stakes testing contexts, unless the tests are taken in a proctored lab. In my courses, I treat the quizzes more as self-tests for the students than tests and I give very little significance to the actual quiz score, but I do grade just the fact of taking a quiz. Have you noticed that in Moodle the testing module is not even called "Tests", but "Quizzes" - that means something.
I believe the most important thing here is redefining our attitudes to testing when we teach online. You wrote: No system of evaluation is safe from cheating and this is true. Actually, I believe we, as teachers, are cheating ourselves if we think we can prevent online students from cheating. There is absolutely no way to stop them, retinal scanning included
$$$.$$$s are spent trying to develop a cheat-safe online testing system (see Perception Secure Browser, for example), but the money is wasted if the testing is not conducted in a proctored environment.In my opinion, it is much better to tell them openly that there are ways for them to cheat in online quizzes (you don't have to tell them what ways, though) and make them aware that they are in fact cheating themselves. And we should never use online quizzes in high- or medium-stakes testing contexts, unless the tests are taken in a proctored lab. In my courses, I treat the quizzes more as self-tests for the students than tests and I give very little significance to the actual quiz score, but I do grade just the fact of taking a quiz. Have you noticed that in Moodle the testing module is not even called "Tests", but "Quizzes" - that means something.
I agree that there is always some that are going to be able to cheat. I think that with John Bristor's system those students, at my university, would be very rare. This would mean that I would be able to FORCE most of my students (through pain of failiure) to do some studying.
I would love it if I could encourage my students to study by persuading them that they are cheating themselves if they do not, or by providing them with tasks that are so interesting and so rewarding that they they want to do it even if there is no course credit.
I am at the moment making videos of the system for finding penpals on a penpal introductions site, so that my students can use English in the way that they seem to find the most meaningful, speaking to real others in an international context. I spend my research funds on stocking up on interesting "reader" versions of my favourite novels, and write a blog on interesting ways to study. If anyone has any more tips, I am all ears.
However I find that my attempts at intrinsic motivation have limits. They do not work on all of my students but only a small minority. Only about 10 percent of students will write mails to penpals if they are not threated with force. Why? Because I presume that they feel it is more rewarding speaking to people on campus than in Finland (I have this strange prejudice that Fins are trustworthy and recommend them to the Japanese girls).
I find that using moodle quizes I can effectively force my students to study. I find that this improves their English. This is great. Strangely some of the students in my class where I am forcing them to do the most have chosen my classes next year. Perhaps because their efforts go rewarded. Perhaps because they want to be forced to study.
The only problem is that by about half way through a semester a fair proportion of the students are using the back button and other simple measures to reduce the amount of study that I can force them to do.
Timothy Takemoto
Defender of non-constructivism
Przemyslaw Stencel, the problem is that the quiz counter DOES NOT click off the counter. That is the problem.
You can click into the quiz by pressing a submit button. Somewhere it should be, but it is not logged.
Low medium high or well-done, a cookie would fix this. As for lectures on testing and evaluation, I'm a linguistics prof.
John
You can click into the quiz by pressing a submit button. Somewhere it should be, but it is not logged.
Low medium high or well-done, a cookie would fix this. As for lectures on testing and evaluation, I'm a linguistics prof.
John
Yes it does. When you view the attempt later it tells you how long the quiz took. This time is measured from the first moment the student saw the quiz to the moment they submitted their answers. What they do in between is their business.
So if I click out go elsewhere, come back, and use a submit to get back in, shouldn't it prevent me if I set tries=1?
John
I think that the "tries" counts the number of "submits" not the number of "attempts".
Since it seems that attempts are being recorded as well, it sounds like it would
be pretty easy to hack.
Tim
Timothy Takemoto
No. Their browser could have crashed, they might have exited the window accidentally, their internet connection could have gone down etc .... there are any amount of reasons. An attempt is not an attempt until they submit their answers.