Daily Archives: June 21, 2007

Web cam watches students taking tests online

MSNBC | Jun 19, 2007

White predicts some students will find it odd and even threatening, and may decide to drop out. “I think there will be some people who won’t take any more courses with us because they feel like during the test they’re being watched,” he said.

360_big_brother

360_big_brother

Educators look to curb cheating; gadget records 360-degree video, audio

By Justin Pope

The number of college students taking courses online is surging, creating a tough dilemma for educators who want to prevent cheating.

Do you trust students to take an exam on their own computer from home or work, even though it may be easy to sneak a peek at the textbook? Or do you force them to trek to a proctored test center, detracting from the convenience that drew them to online classes in the first place?

The dilemma is one reason many online programs do little testing at all. But some new technology that places a camera inside students’ homes may be the way of the future — as long as students don’t find it too creepy.

This fall, Troy University in Alabama will begin rolling out the new camera technology for many of its approximately 11,000 online students, about a third of whom are at U.S. military installations around the world.

The device, made by Cambridge, Mass.-based Software Secure, is similar in many respects to other test-taking software. It locks down a computer while the test is being taken, preventing students from searching files or the Internet. The latest version also includes fingerprint authentication, to help ensure the person taking the test isn’t a ringer.

But the new development is a small Web cam and microphone that is set up where a student takes the exam. The camera points into a reflective ball, which allows it to capture a full 360-degree image. (The first prototype was made with a Christmas ornament.)

When the exam begins, the device records audio and video. Software detects significant noises and motions and flags them in the recording. An instructor can go back and watch only the portions flagged by the software to see if anything untoward is going on — a student making a phone call, leaving the room — and if there is a sudden surge in performance afterward.

The inventors admit it’s far from a perfect defense against a determined cheater. But a human test proctor isn’t necessarily better. And the camera at least “ensures that those people that are taking classes at a distance are on a level playing field,” said Douglas Winneg, Software Secure’s president and CEO.

Troy graduate students will start using the device starting this fall, and undergraduates a year later. Software Secure says it has talked to other distance learning providers, too. A potential future market is the standardized testing industry, which has struggled to find enough secure testing sites to accommodate growing worldwide demand for tests like the SAT college entrance exam and the GMAT for graduate school.

An estimated 3.2 million students were taking online classes in the fall of 2005, according to the most recent figures from the Sloan Consortium, a group of online learning providers that studies trends in the field, and that figure is almost certainly substantially higher today.

But many distance learning providers do very little testing, including some of the largest, for-profit ones such as the University of Phoenix, Capella University and Walden University. Officials at all three schools said they rely mostly on student writing assignments. They say that’s the best method to assess their students, most of whom are working adults.

Still, they need to be thinking about assessment. The military, whose tuition assistance programs are a huge source of revenue for online universities, is asking questions about testing to make sure students are earning credible degrees, Winneg said. Distance learning programs also need to keep their accreditation agencies happy, as well as Congress, so that the programs can continue to receive federal financial aid dollars.

At Troy, like at many distance learning programs, past testing options have been less than ideal. One was to line up a proctor from a list of acceptable exam monitors such as clergy or commanding officers.

“We just assumed and hoped the proctor would follow the instructions,” said David White, direct of the Southeast region for Troy. “In some cases they did, and probably in some cases they didn’t.”

The other was to arrange proctoring with a testing company and travel to one of their centers. But that was inconvenient for many students — and, of course, impossible for soldiers in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The device will cost Troy students $125, White said.

Richard Garrett, a senior research analyst at Eduventures who closely follows online learning, said he finds the technology promising, particularly for large companies trying to streamline a now-messy part of their operation.

“The great unknown is, ‘Will it be seen as too invasive?'” he said.

Clearly, it won’t be a good idea for everyone. Stephen Slavin, dean of corporate and professional education at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, said his institution is always looking at new technologies, but recording students by camera “would be probably pushing the boundary of our comfort level.”

White predicts some students will find it odd and even threatening, and may decide to drop out. “I think there will be some people who won’t take any more courses with us because they feel like during the test they’re being watched,” he said.

But he insists that’s OK because it will improve the credibility of a Troy degree.

For Sandra Kinney, a state employee from Stockbridge, Ga., pursuing a master’s in public administration and one of the students on Troy’s trial run, having a camera in her home was no big deal. It was worth it not to have to drive to an exam center.

Democrats go light on lawyer who pushed Bush’s ‘enhanced interrogation’ policies

Raw Story | Jun 19, 2007

by Nick Juliano

An architect of the terror-fighting policies enacted by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 has told the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday he had no regrets about not objecting to the administration’s “enhanced interrogation” policies when they were enacted and defended the administration’s actions that critics say amount to torture.

John A. Rizzo has been serving as the CIA’s acting general counsel without Senate confirmation since August 2004 but is only now undergoing a confirmation hearing. In a break with custom, President Bush nominated career CIA lawyer Rizzo rather than an outside attorney who had served in an oversight role.

In Tuesday’s public hearing, Democrats avoided asking Rizzo specific questions about the CIA’s secret detention program and treatment policies — promising to ask harder questions behind closed doors. Because the administration’s intelligence activities are laregly classified, members of the Senate intelligence committee were barred from disclosing specifics of programs in public.

In his testimony, Rizzo contradicted previous administration statements regarding the intelligence agency’s controversial rendition program that clandestinely transported terrorism suspects overseas to secret prisons. Human rights groups have objected to the program and accused the US of using it to “outsource” torture by transferring detainees into the custody of foreign governments that do not respect human rights.

In September 2005, President Bush publicly assured the country that the US did not transport terror suspects into countries where they would be tortured. However, under questioning from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rizzo was unable to provide a yes-or-no answer when he was asked if the CIA had ever transported a detainee to a country that condoned torture.

“The only way I can give you the proper answer would be in classified session,” Rizzo told the panel. Rizzo was privy to such internal deliberations in his previous role as deputy general counsel for the CIA’s Operations Division, which oversees clandestine activity. Sen. Levin asked that Bush’s statement be placed in the record because it conflicted with Rizzo’s account.

Rizzo further gave conflicting accounts of his opinion on Bush administration memos that advanced a narrow definition of torture, telling the committee he did not object to an August 2002 memo that defined torture as causing pain on a par with “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.”

“I did not, certainly, object to the memo,” Rizzo said after he was asked about it by Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV). But in later questioning, Rizzo said he relied more on classified memos on the torture question and that he thought that particular language went a bit overboard.

Rizzo said he played a role in defining interrogation methods and producing justifications of such methods’ legality under the Geneva Conventions, but he avoided discussing specifics until the committee had adjourned for a closed session. Rizzo did acknowledge that “some concerns” were expressed by CIA agents who feared being prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions for participating in the enhanced interrogations.

Human rights advocates have long clamored for a public investigation into the administration’s treatment of detainees in the war on terror, but Tuesday’s hearing failed to offer the insight many had been looking for.

“It was not the kind of questioning that could either produce more information on what the C.I.A. has done or that would result in people being held accountable,” Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, told The New York Times.

Torture Memo Resurfaces During CIA Lawyer’s Confirmation

allheadlinenews.com | Jun 20, 2007

by Matthew Borghese

Washington, D.C. (AHN) – John Rizzo is facing tough questions on torture after the White House nominated him to serve as the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) general counsel.

In a 2002 memo to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Rizzo, who has served as a CIA lawyer for 32 years, said that U.S. laws prohibiting torture “makes plain that it only prohibits extreme acts.”

The controversial memo has led Congress to question Rizzo’s attitudes towards torture, considering the White House and Pentagon have been feuding with lawmakers over the right amount of pressure to apply to suspected terrorists to save lives.

The memo has long been a thorn in the Bush administration’s side. During the confirmation of Attorney General Gonzales, the memo became an issue. In 2004, the White House officially rejected the memo and it’s contents, however those who passed it through the Department of Justice are still being called to answer for it.