Dr. Bothel's Book Chapter--Epilogue: A cautionary note about online assessment. (2002). In Anderson, R., Bauer, J. & Speck, B. (Eds.), Assessment Strategies for the Online Teacher: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Epilogue: A Cautionary Note about Online Assessment

• unrealistic appraisal of the potential of online education
• enforcement of a code of conduct
• computer/telecommunication skills bias and other limitations of the online media

Unrealistic appraisal of the potential of online education
The future of online instruction is threatened by the unrealistic appraisal of its potential. Technologies today make it possible to deliver "any" course online enhanced with advanced media. However, the largest threat to the assessment of online activities or any other aspect of the online educational process, is trying to deliver "every" class online. Although we live in an "any thing's possible with technology" world, it does not mean that online education provides the most effective or even the most efficient delivery methodology for every class. Assessment of online courses cannot be effective or efficient if a course is placed online that is not appropriate for this medium.

Online education is caught up in the general debacle surrounding the use of technology in higher education. Ever since the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980's, technology has been developed on campuses in a piecemeal and unsystematic manner. Educational goals have been secondary to organizational or financial considerations (Katz, 2001). Although advocates of online education often cite studies such as Russell's (1999) well-know "No Significant Difference Phenomenon" as proof of the utilitarianism of distance education, there have not been major and universally accepted assessments of online learning that permit objective opinions to be formed. Although online educators may be taking a leadership role in talking about student outcome assessment, not many distance education programs rely on assessment models (Carneval, 2001). Further, it is the weakness of research on the effect of the traditional classroom environment that makes it difficult to draw specific conclusion regarding assessment of online activities.

Online education continues to proliferate without adequate assessment of its outcomes. Even more dangerous, top-level administrators do not rely on even limited assessment results to make decisions on the expansion of online programs. Too often administrators have used technology on their campuses evidenced by online programs as a mantle of educational innovation showing parents, governing boards and legislators how superb their campuses are with fiber optics and advanced media centers.

Online education is found on campuses serving resident students who may be better served in the classroom or with some form of web-enhanced class. There is considerable confusion as to what objective providing online courses really is trying to achieve. The use of a tool has been confused for a goal (O'Donnel, 1998). It is a dangerous assumption that online courses can be used across all types and sizes of institutions (Hawkins, 1999). It should be remembered that there still exist the traditional teaching methods that have been handed down from ancient philosophers to the little red schoolhouses (Maier, 2001). The traditional classroom continues to be best for many students and they cannot be fairly assessed in the online environment that may seem to foreign to them.

Enforcement of a code of conduct
A student code of conduct in the classroom is becoming a major issue in education. This problem is magnified in the online classroom. Assessment can only be effective if the vagaries of online classes are considered. Eighty percent of honors students admit to cheating (Kuperberg, 2000). And the students moving into their college years have no better record. The 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth (1998) indicate 70% of high schoolers admit to cheating on exams.

No matter how effectively you measure the outcomes of a student's work, your assessment has no value if the student who is being assessed is not the same person who is on your class roster. Online class work provides a broader range of opportunities to conceal your real identity and make cheating possible. A number of technology companies are scrambling to provide solutions, but there is little agreement among accreditation bodies as to what an adequate solution to this problem really is. When your only contact with a student is online, at some time in the course, you still need some physical verification that the student is truly "the student" and not a surrogate. When students are able to work in their homes, office, or anywhere they have access to a computer and the Internet, anyone can login with the student's ID and complete assignments. Spouses, secretaries, and a variety of other student "friends" are possible candidates to complete online assignments for the student.

Beyond verifying student identity in an online course, another real challenge to the assessment of online student work is plagiarism encouraged by a staggering volume of online cheat material (Rooks, 1998). There are thousands of venues available to cheating students (Rice, 2000). For people who are inclined to cheat, it is easier to do so in the online situation (Young, 2001). Cheater.com, Cheathouse, SchoolSucks.com, SchoolPaper.com, EssayCrawler.com, and NetEssays are just a few of the Internet sites that student can utilize to cheat.

It may also be that the easy cut and paste access to information as the computer access to information expands has even blurred for students the meaning of "stealing" another's work. Students may not even understand what plagiarism is (Roach, 2001). Further complicating the situation, Don McCabe, founder of Duke University's Center for Academic Integrity, says it starts with high school teachers being clueless about the Internet. Kids can copy sentences, paragraphs, or full papers with a very low probability of getting caught (Thomas, 2001).
Assessment cannot have meaning unless additional safeguards are included in the online course that discourages the Internet "cut and paste" mentality of many of today's students. In addition, assessment of student work must somehow include a verification of student identity.
Computer/telecommunication skills bias and other limitations of the online media
Computer and telecommunication skills and experience can make a great deal of difference in the student's learning experience and success in an online course. But, how many online courses provide the instructor with a post assessment of a student's computer/online skills or experience in taking an online class?

Face-to-face interaction and social bonds are crucial in education (Shoemaker, 2000). Yet, how is human interaction be facilitated in the digital environment? Many faculty are anxious about the dehumanization and alienation their students might face in a computer-dominated learning environment (Novek, 1999).

Consistently good online student interaction is dependent on teacher/facilitator skills much more than in the traditional classroom. The teacher might have to filter, facilitate, edit, help or promote what is going on in the online class. The online teacher must wear many hats and assume technical, managerial, pedagogical and social roles. Some online instructors may have these skills. But it is the exception rather than the rule for higher education faculty to be trained in all these areas. Higher education faculty are conscientious teachers, but the majority have no formal training in teaching and learning alternatives to the traditional classroom environment (Gilbert, 2000). Without this training, it is difficult to have effective student interaction (Bonk, 2000). And how can student's performance be fairly assessed when it is so closely dependent on teacher skills?

Secondly, electronic communication cannot completely replace face-to-face communication/interaction that is needed in some educational activities. Virtual relationships are like having a battery that runs down if it is not recharged periodically by being plugged into real people (Kanter, 2001). How can you assess a student's ability to deal with clients in a one-to-one office-counseling situation with online interaction? How can you assess effective use of body language in the student's electronic communication?

Computer skills are one of the largest barriers to online learning (Thiele, 1999). Learner computer phobia may even make students refuse to use of online resources (aster, 2001). Students' computer literacy should be assessed prior to the beginning of course work (Carr, 2000). Unfortunately, few programs provide this type of computer skills evaluation in courses outside a specific computer curriculum. The online chat room provides one of the most obvious examples of the problem that even the lack of keyboard skills creates. Sitting in front of a computer and watching chat room members fly comments back and forth across the screen can even be intimidating for computer users with moderate typing skills. The use of the chat room requires not only good keyboard skills, but also the ability to relate to the electronic environment.

A great deal of progress has been made in the standardization and access students have to computers, software and telecommunications. It is possible to now provide online programs throughout the world and be assured that students will have access to the Internet and at least a standard browser that enables them to access basic course materials. Unfortunately there is still a tendency of course developers to attempt to include "bells and whistles" that go beyond the reliable basic hardware/software capabilities on the Internet. The claim is that these technologies are needed to hold a student's attention, but do not consider that they may be unreliable for student use. Studies such as those of Elizabeth Pilcher (2001) in USC's College of Dental Medicine still continue to show that simple access to course materials through an intranet system, online quizzes, and difficulty in printing web-based materials are a problem.

Conclusion
A lesson can be learned from the 1930's with the introduction of the radio or from the 1950's with the advent of the television. Many educators felt both technologies either offered great opportunities or threats to our democratic society. Some saw technology's potential to democratize education, but others saw technologies becoming the tools of fascist leaders to dominate people's thinking (Gilbert, 2001). In spite of these "potentials," few changes have been seen in the options faculty provide in their classrooms.

Online classes and the incorporation of these capabilities in the classroom provide some of the most exciting educational opportunities, but they are not the answer to every educational issue. Many of the problems of simply using traditional assessment methods on online courses can be overcome if online courses utilize assessment models that take into account the uniqueness of the online environment.

The concept of "authentic assessment" is not new, but it may answer some of the weaknesses of traditional assessment of online coursework. Authentic assessment seeks to situate problems and tasks in real-world contexts. It may take the form of paper-and-pencil tasks, performances, and portfolios. What makes this assessment "authentic" is the extent to which it provides students to use their knowledge and skills in accomplishing tasks that they might encounter outside the classroom (Posner & Rudnitsky, 1997). Many institutions specializing in the deliver of online courses are already taking the lead in utilizing authentic forms of assessment.

It should be remembered that assessment by itself is not the entire solution. Educators must take a stand against the mass introduction of online courses without clearly defined academic objectives. If not, any efforts toward effective assessment of students' performance in online programs will be lost or clouded by the inappropriate introduction of online classes.

References

1998 Report card on the ethics of American youth. (1998,
October 19). Marina del Rey, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics.
aster. (2001, July 5). Enhancing group-based learning.
Workshop at ILT Annual Conference at the University of York, City of York, England [On-line]. Available: http://ctiwebct.york.ac.uk/aster/alt-c_workshop_slides/index.htm
Bonk, C. (2000). My hat's on to the online instructor.
e-education advisor, 1 (1), 10-14.
Clay, C.C. (April, 1998). Online Instruction: Trends & Issues
II, Paper presented at Third Annual TCC Conference,
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Carnevale, D. (2001). Assessment takes center stage in
online learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (31), A43.
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the
challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (23), A39.
Finkelstein, M., Frances, C. Jewett, F., & Scholz, B.
(2000). The new economics of college teaching and learning. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
Gilbert, S. (2001) Dimensions of technology change.
Syllabus, 14 (12), 28
Gilbert, S. (2000). A widening gap: The support service
crisis. Syllabus, 14 (1), 18, 57.
Hawkins, B. (1999). Distributed learning and
institutional restructuring. Educom Review, 34 (4), 12.
Haythornthwaite, C, Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S.
(2000, September). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 (1) [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.htm.
Kanter, R. (2001). Evolve! Succeeding in the digital
culture of tomorrow. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Katz, S. (2001). In information technology, don't mistake
a tool for a goal. "The Chronicle Review," Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (40), b7-9.
Kuperberg, A. (2000). Honestly, is it okay to cheat?
Behavior Health Digest, 2 (4) 1.
Maier, T. (2001). Distance education and the little red
cyberschoolhouse. Community College Week, 13 (21), 4.
Novek, E. (1999, May). Do professors dream of electronic
students? Faculty anxiety and the new information technologies. Paper presented at the Eastern Communication Association Annual Meeting, Charleston, WV.
Pilcher, E. (2001). Students' evaluation of online
materials in Fixed Prosthodontics: a case study. European Journal of Dental Education, 5 (2), 53-59.
Posner, G. & Rudnitsky, A. (1997). Course Design: A guide to
curriculum development for teachers. New York: Longman,
Inc.
Rice, R. (2000, January 18). Plagiarism: The new online plague.
EduQuery Column [Online]. Available: http://www.eduquery.com/news/plagiarism_online_plague.htm.
Roach, R. (2001). Safeguarding against online cheating.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 18 (8), 92.
Russell, T. (1999). No Significant Difference Phenomenon.
Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Thiele, J., Allen, c., & Stucky, M. (1999). Effects of
web-based instruction on learning behaviors of undergraduate and graduate students. Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, 20 (4), 199-203.
Thomas, K. (2001). More students turn to virtual
cheating. The Detroit News, detnews.com, 2001, March 22 [Online]. Available: http://detnews.com/2001/technews/0103.23/e03-202306.htm.
Young, J. (2000, August 1). A learning-technologies professor
Warns that cheating is too easy. Logging in with…M.O.
Thirunarayanan, The Chronicle of Higher Education
[Online]. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/200108010lu.htm.