Article review

( 1 )

A Review of “Measuring Learning and Promoting Academic Integrity

in Online Instruction” by Knudson and Bopp (2021)

Runninghead: A Review of “Measuring Learning and Promoting Academic Integrity in Online Instruction” by Knudson and Bopp (2021)

A Review of “Measuring Learning and Promoting Academic Integrity

in Online Instruction” by Knudson and Bopp (2021)

Can COVID-19 pandemic favor academic dishonesty? Knudson and Bopp (2021) analyzed how effective the online exams can be during the pandemic from the professional view. Duane Knudson is a bio-mechanics professor at Texas State University's Department of Health and Human Performance. He has a Ph.D. in biomechanics and has published over 100 publications; Melissa is an Associate Professor of Kinesiology at Penn State University and the Professor in Charge of the Undergraduate Program in Kinesiology. She has Bopp a Ph.D. in Exercise Science and specializes in community-based influences on physical activity, health disparities, and public health approaches to physical activity promotion. Although the evidence is insufficient, Knudson and Bopp (2021) write an effective article because the organization is well-structured, and the professional writing style fits the audience. 

Knudson and Bopp (2021) illustrate academic dishonesty has increased since the pandemic has caused online learning for most universities across the United States, so it is critical to have well-designed, strict evaluation techniques that stick to academic integrity standards. To start, The COVID-19 epidemic forced kinesiology courses to become increasingly hybrid and online, posing the latest problems and possibilities for learning evaluation and online testing. Then the authors elaborate on the study of the Biomechanics Concept Inventory, indicating online pre- and post-testing and major examinations are prone to cheating. After that, Knudson and Bopp (2021) add that proctoring online testing is unproductive without substantial faculty commitment to investigate questionable behaviors. Finally, the authors suggest faculties to design more effective assessment methods to uphold academic integrity standards.   

The article is ineffective because an insufficient amount of evidence is provided by the authors of the article. More specifically, the authors presented a small amount of qualitative evidence which lowers the credibility of the main arguments. For instance, when the authors introduce the study sample, the authors state, "we then outline the results of systematic efforts at a large northeastern university to monitor and reduce academic dishonesty in online testing.” (Knudson & Bopp, 2021, pg. 1). Clearly, the authors choose just one “large northeastern university” as their study sample with only a few Kinesiology courses to examine academic dishonesty. In professional statistical studies, the researchers are required to conduct in multiple experiments for control tests. However, the authors only studied academic dishonesty from the limited number of online courses. The limited evidence results in the reader being less than fully convinced of the experiment's conclusions due to the bias of the sample size. Additionally, the authors also state that “one large lecture format kinesiology class that had only planned for in-person high-stakes exams for assessment experienced significant issues with cheating after the pivot to remote learning.” (Knudson & Bopp, 2021, pg. 2). For this reason, the authors only illustrate one example of unauthorized collaboration. The lack of study trials cannot convince the readers. The single study illuminated by the authors can be considered a pilot finding; however, it lacks support for the argument that online learning increases the chances of academic dishonesty. Therefore, the article is ineffective because the authors unable to provide readers with sufficient quantitative evidence for the article's arguments.

Nevertheless, the article is effective because the organization is well-structured through which the authors write the article. More specifically, the authors organize the article in well-structured order and the contents are placed effectively. For instance, when the authors introduce one study method of normalized gain score, the authors states “For example, BCI scores, learning (g), and final grades were pulled from three random classes (n = 98) taught by the same professor from student participants (N = 226) of six classes examined in two studies.” (Knudson & Bopp, 2021, pg. 1). Clearly, the authors are using an actual example to prove how the study method works as an unbiased measure of learning. In technical papers, lack of knowledge in certain research methods can cause misunderstandings and mislead the readers to comprehend. However, the authors place an example right after the complex concept for further explanations, and thereby make the essay easier to understand for the audience. The organization of the article is easy for the readers to keep track. In addition, the article also states “For many years, the faculty could detect academic integrity violations by things that they could easily see in person” as the traditional definition of academic dishonesty.” (Knudson & Bopp, 2021, pg. 2). For this reason, faculties tend to ignore the “academic dishonesty” taken place in virtual learning. As the authors put forward, this stresses the significance of their study. This content is placed effectively for readers to acknowledge the paper. Therefore, the article is effective because the organization is well-structured, and the content is effectively placed to enhance readability.

The article is effective because the professional writing style fits the article’s purpose to the professional audience appropriately. More specifically, the authors use the relevant phrases wordings to cater the level of Kinesiology department faculties. For example, when the authors introduce the learning introductory biomechanics in person and online, they state “Most kinesiology professionals have taken a motor learning course and are familiar with rigorous definitions of learning.” (Knudson & Bopp, 2021, pg. 1). Clearly, the authors are presenting ideas based on the common knowledge for “kinesiology professionals”. In this way, there are more awareness of the audience concerning the issue of academic dishonesty. They quote “kinesiology professionals” to raise common sense and make the article more relevant to the audience. Moreover, at the end of the article the authors conclude, “Well-designed, rigorous assessment methods that uphold academic integrity standards are essential to kinesiology instruction and will continue to evolve as kinesiology departments expand online learning.” (Knudson & Bopp, 2021, pg. 5). In light of this, the authors call to the kinesiology professionals to take actions and provide them with clear instructions on the next steps. The concluding sentence points out the main argument in a professional way to guide the target audience with the follow-up efforts. Hence, the article is effective because the writing style fits perfectly for the article’s purpose as well as the audience.

Although the evidence is insufficient, Knudson and Bopp (2021) write an effective article to because the article’s organization is well-structured, and the writing style fits the audience appropriately. The authors raise the awareness of the fellow professionals at Kinesiology department to prevent academic dishonesty and guide them in specific directions for efforts.

Reference

Knudson, D., & Bopp, M. (2021). Measuring Learning and Promoting Academic Integrity in Online Instruction. Kinesiology Review, 10(4), 436–442. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=154125301&site=eds-live&scope=site