Biometrics Authentication of E-Exams
A Theoretical Approach for
Biometrics Authentication of e-Exams
In the past fifteen years the use of Internet technologies has been substantially growing for delivery of educational content. E-learning environments have been incorporated in many universities for the delivery of e-learning courses. However, opponents of e-learning claim that a central disadvantage of such teaching medium is the growing unethical conduct in such environments. In particular, opponents of e-learning argue that the inability to authenticate exam takers is a major challenge of e-learning environments. As a result, some institutions proposed to take extreme measures including asking students to take exams in proctor centers or even abandon completely the offering of e-learning courses in their institutions. This paper attempts to address this important problem by proposing a theoretical approach that incorporates available fingerprint biometrics authentication technologies in conjunction with e-learning environments to curb unethical conduct during e-learning exam taking. The proposed approach suggests practical solution that can incorporate a random fingerprint biometrics user authentication during exam taking in e-learning courses.
Doing so is hypothesized to curb exam cheating in e-learning environments.
This paper proposed a theoretical approach for fingerprint biometrics authentication of exam takers in e-learning environments. Teaching via the Internet has become a popular choice for academic institutions (Hiltz & Turoff, 2005). Advances in information systems have enabled educational institutions to implement e-learning systems as teaching environments (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Furthermore, e-learning has become a powerful medium for academic institutions due to cutting edge technologies. Hiltz and Turoff (2005) noted that e-learning is “the latest of social technologies that ... has improved distance learning” (p. 59).
Gunasekaran et al. (2002)
Biometrics Authentication of e-Exams
In the past fifteen years the use of Internet technologies has been substantially growing for delivery of educational content. E-learning environments have been incorporated in many universities for the delivery of e-learning courses. However, opponents of e-learning claim that a central disadvantage of such teaching medium is the growing unethical conduct in such environments. In particular, opponents of e-learning argue that the inability to authenticate exam takers is a major challenge of e-learning environments. As a result, some institutions proposed to take extreme measures including asking students to take exams in proctor centers or even abandon completely the offering of e-learning courses in their institutions. This paper attempts to address this important problem by proposing a theoretical approach that incorporates available fingerprint biometrics authentication technologies in conjunction with e-learning environments to curb unethical conduct during e-learning exam taking. The proposed approach suggests practical solution that can incorporate a random fingerprint biometrics user authentication during exam taking in e-learning courses.
Doing so is hypothesized to curb exam cheating in e-learning environments.
This paper proposed a theoretical approach for fingerprint biometrics authentication of exam takers in e-learning environments. Teaching via the Internet has become a popular choice for academic institutions (Hiltz & Turoff, 2005). Advances in information systems have enabled educational institutions to implement e-learning systems as teaching environments (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Furthermore, e-learning has become a powerful medium for academic institutions due to cutting edge technologies. Hiltz and Turoff (2005) noted that e-learning is “the latest of social technologies that ... has improved distance learning” (p. 59).
Gunasekaran et al. (2002)
References: Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Research commentary: Technology mediated learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1-10. Center for Academic Integrity (2005) Decoo, W. (2002). Crisis on campus: confronting academic misconduct. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. D., & Shaul, D. (2002). E-learning: Research and applications. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), 44-54. Hamilton, D Hannabuss, S. (2001). Issues of plagiarism. Library Management, 22(6/7), 311-319. Hiltz, S Huang, W., Yen, D. C., Lin, Z. X., & Huang, J. H. (2004). How to compete in a global education market effectively: A conceptual framework for designing a next generation eEducation system. Journal of Global Information Management, 12(2), 84-107. Hugl, U JayPeetek Inc. (2005). Scan.U.Match Biometric Authentication System embedded in a mouse. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from http://www.jaypeetex.com/products/Biometrics/Fingerprints/Scanumatch.htm Kennedy, K., Nowak, S., Raghuraman, R., Thomas, J., & Dacis, S. (2000). Academic dishonesty and distance learning: student and faculty views. College Student Journal, 34(2), 309-315. McCabe, D McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college. Change, 28(1), 28¬ 34 McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522-539. McLafferty, C McGinity, M. (2005). Staying connected: Let your fingers do the talking. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), 21-23. Naude, E., & Hörne, T United States Department of Education, National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) (2005). Mini-digest of educational statistics. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005017.pdf