专家称定制机器人笔试可遏制作弊

I really rate and really value these kinds of approaches. I've been doing similar for around 8 years now with coursework for a large physiology module where there is still cheating going on in one of the small tasks where they have several days to complete it but timers on the screen when they start. They share answers and ask questions in the WhatsApp group. My exams for the same module have also been online for several years now, but cheating is happening far less as I'm able to package and constrain those far better. A colleague in my department is doing a similar randomised data set thing as this article on his module for chemistry and maths using "Numbas". And a buddy in my office ran his genetics exam last year using a series of unique gene sequences where each student had a different one that changed the outcome of the question for each student so there was no point sharing information. We need more of this. Great stuff, Alison!

This certainly looks like a feasible solution that will get rid of the benefits of cheating. The most depressing thing is that students cheat at all. They do not seem to see the value in actually doing the work rather than just chasing the marks. The chess anecdote is really sad as players are only cheating themselves since they will one day play face-to-face again and find it more difficult without their computer assistance.

This seems like a great idea but it will only work for a very limited range of courses which require analysis on numerical data. I suspect it is also hugely time consuming to prepare such tests and to ensure that they are bug-free.

This seems like a great idea but it will only work for a very limited range of courses which require analysis on numerical data. I suspect it is also hugely time consuming to prepare such tests and to ensure that they are bug-free.

This seems like a great idea but it will only work for a very limited range of courses which require analysis on numerical data. I suspect it is also hugely time consuming to prepare such tests and to ensure that they are bug-free.

It's your classic "a little effort up front saves infinite time later" situation. Yes, the first year is a bit of a faff. But after that? You have more time to dedicate to other innovations, research, and better quality and quantity of feedback on those assessments that cannot be so easily automated and protected. And if you start to building different question formats as well as things like branched scenarios to change the outcomes based on single decision points, you can really start to get creative with how these assessments run in different, non-numerical areas.

Nothing new here (apart from the robot). To avoid cheating or rote learning back in the 1970s (before all the cheating mills and online learning) we at Sociology at Birminghan Poly 'personalised' assessment by, for example, asking for a comparison between two case studies, from a list of 50 or so. Once a pairing had been selected no one else could offer the same pairing. Seemed an obvious way to deal with the problem but, of course, requires more work on the part of the assessor/examiner!