The economic and organizational model of the international admission campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic (the case of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology)

Anna D. Oykher

Abstract


Relevance. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities all over the world had to deal with a major challenge – transition from face-to-face to online learning. It was necessary to make this transition without damaging the quality of education and the transparency of examinations, especially entrance examinations taken by international students. The number of the latter fell significantly because of the pandemic and the competition for overseas students became especially fierce. One of the optimal solutions to the problem of conducting entrance exams during the pandemic was the online proctoring system.

Research objective. This research aims to assess the economic efficiency of the online proctoring system by looking at the case of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT).

Data and methods. The article compares the most popular online proctoring systems on the market and used by universities in Russia and other country. Furthermore, it analyzes the results of the international admission campaign in 2020 and the economic effect of the in-house proctoring system in comparison with other readymade solutions.

Results. The research results showed that the MIPT’s in-house proctoring system is no less efficient than the most popular readymade systems used by the majority of universities in Russia and worldwide, yet the costs of developing and operating the university’s own system are significantly lower.

Conclusion. The development of an in-house online proctoring system can increase the economic efficiency of universities in terms of international admission in the forthcoming years.


Keywords


online-proctoring, international admission, international students, admission campaign, economic efficiency, cost effectiveness, education abroad, blended-learning, higher education

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alessio, H.M., & Messinger, J.D. (2021). Faculty and Student Perceptions of Academic Integrity in Technology-Assisted Learning and Testing. Frontiers in Education, 6, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.629220

Anderson, T. (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd Edition). Albert: Athabasca University Press.

Arno, S., Galassi, A., Tommasi, M., Saggino, A., & Vittorini, P. (2021). State-of-the-Art of Commercial Proctoring Systems and Their Use in Academic Online Exams. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(2), 41–60. doi: 10.4018/IJDET.20210401.oa3

Atoum, Y., Chen L., Liu, A.X., Hsu, St.D.H., & Liu, X. (2017). Automated online exam proctoring. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 19(7), 1609–1624. doi: 10.1109/TMM.2017.2656064

Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Christ Dass, L. (2020). Online learning readiness among university students in Malaysia amidst Covid-19. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 45–58. doi: 10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10294

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2004). Flexible Learning in a Digital World (2nd ed.), London: Routledge and Falmer. doi: 10.1080/0268051022000048228

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015). Deterring Cheating in Online Environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(6). doi: 10.1145/2810239

D’Souza, K.A., & Siegfeldt, D.V. (2017). A conceptual framework for detecting cheating in online and take-home exams: Conceptual framework for detecting cheating in exams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(4), 370–391. doi: 10.1111/dsji.12140

Dawson, P. (2015). Five ways to hack and cheat with bring your own device electronic examinations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 12. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12246

Gourlay, L. (2021). There Is No ‘Virtual Learning: The Materiality of Digital Education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 57–66. doi: 10.7821/naer.2021.1.649

Graham, A. (2019). Benefits of online teaching for face-to-face teaching at historically black colleges and universities. Online Learning, 23(1), 144–163. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i1.1435

Grajek, S., (2020). EDUCAUSE COVID-19 QuickPoll Results: Grading and Proctoring. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from EDUCAUSE Research Notes: https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/4/educause-covid-19-quickpoll-results-grading-and-proctoring#fn3

Grande-de-Prado, M., Garcia-Penalvo, F.J., Corell Almuzara, A., & Abella-Garcia, V. (2021). Higher Education assessment during COVID-19 pandemic. Campus Virtuales, 10(1), 49–58.

Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Guo, J., Yang, J.F., Zhao, J.H., Wei, X.F., Knyazeva, S., Li, M., Zhuang, R.X., Looi, C.K., & Chang, T.W. (2020). Guidance on Flexible Learning during Campus Closures: Ensuring course quality of higher education in COVID-19 outbreak. Beijing: Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.

Jia, J.Y., & He, Y.F. (2021). The design, implementation and pilot application of an intelligent online proctoring system for online exams. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. aheadof-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-12-2020-0246

Johnson, J.B., Reddy, P., Chand, R., & Naiker, M. (2021). Attitudes and awareness of regional Pacific Island students towards e-learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(13). doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00248-z

Kharbat, F.F., & Abu Daabes, A.S. (2021). E-proctored exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A close understanding. Educ Inf Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10458-7

Kitto, S., & Saltmarsh, S. (2007). The production of ‘Proper Cheating’ in online examinations within technological universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(2), 151. doi: 10.1080/09518390600923792

Klyagin, A.V., Abalmasova, E.S., Garev, K.V.., Gruzdev, I.A., Egorov, A.A., Zakharova, U.S., Kalinin, R.G., Kamaldinova, L.R., Karlov I.A., Korneeva, I.E., Makaryeva, A.Yu., Minaeva, E.A., Platonova, D.P., Semenova, T.V., Skokova, Yu.A., Terentyev, E.A., Frumin, I.D., Shwindt, A.N., & Shibanova, E.Yu. (2020). Storm of the first weeks: how higher education stepped into the reality of the pandemic. Modern Education Analytics, 6 (36). (In Russ.). Retrieved from: https://ioe.hse.ru/data/2020/05/26/1551527214/%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9E%206(36)_%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9.pdf

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E.J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Li, M., Luo, L., Sikdar, S., Nizam, N.I., Gao, S., Shan, H., Kruger, M., Kruger, U., Mohamed, H., Xia, L., & Wang G. (2021). Optimized collusion prevention for online exams during social distancing. Ngj Science of Learning, 6(5), doi: 10.1038/s41539-020-00083-3

Linden, K., & Gonzalez, P. (2021). Zoom invigilated exams: A protocol for rapid adoption to remote examinations. British Journal of Education Technology, 52(4), 1323–1337. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13109

Raman, R., Sairam, B., Veena, G., Vachharajani, H., & Negungadi, P. (2021). Adoption of online proctored examinations by university students during COVID-19: Innovation diffusion study. Education and Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10581-5

Reedy, A., Pfitzner, D., Rook, L., & Ellis, L. (2021). Responding to the COVID-19 emergency: student and academic staff perceptions of academic integrity in the transition to online exams at three Australian universities. International Journal for Education Integrity, 17(1). doi: 10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9

Rumbley, L.E. (2020). Coping with COVID-19: International higher education in Europe. Amsterdam: The European Association for International Education (EAIE).

Shraim, K. (2019). Online examination practices in higher education institutions: Learners’ perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 185–196.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2021.7.3.015

Copyright (c) 2021 Anna D. Oykher

Сertificate of registration media №04-27008 от 28.04.2021
Online ISSN 2412-0731