Editor’s Note:  The question of student identity verification arises from time to time. In this instance, it is requested by a United States Federal Law, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. This study collects data from administrators and faculty to discover their levels of concern and actions currently undertaken to confirm correct identity for distance learning students.

Student Identity Verification
and the Higher Education Opportunity Act:
A Faculty Perspective

Thomas Schaefer,  Marguerite Barta,  Theresa Pavone

USA

Abstract

This study examined faculty familiarity with Public Law 110-315, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008, Section 602.17, Subsection G. This section of the HEOA addresses the challenge regarding the way in which online postsecondary institutions verify and validate that the students who are awarded college degrees actually completed the coursework. In addition to investigating the level of faculty familiarity with the law, this exploratory study sought to identify the level of student identity verification currently being utilized, the perceived need for improved methodologies, and the role of faculty in student identity verification.

Keywords: distance learning, e-learning, ethical issues, governance, on-line learning, technology in education, identity verification, Higher Education Opportunity Act

Section I: Introduction

Although online learning is in its infancy when compared to brick-and-mortar institutions of higher learning, the popularity of online programs and courses continues to outpace that of education in traditional venues. Allen and Seaman (2008) noted that the growth rate for online enrollments has been 12.9%, compared to a 1.2% overall growth rate of the student population in higher education. They reported that “over 3.9 million students were taking at least one online course during the fall of 2007 term” and that “over twenty percent of all U.S. higher education students were taking at least one online course in the fall of 2007. (p. 1). It is likely that this trend will continue into the near future as the United States continues to reinvent and reinvest in itself after a prolonged economic struggle.

In a speech delivered before a joint session of Congress, President Obama called for every “American to commit to attending at least one year of postsecondary education” (as cited in Lederman, 2009, ¶ 1). He further asserted that the dropout rate for Americans at the secondary level has grown and that Americans who have a secondary education and a postsecondary education has decreased. Obama asked “Americans to commit to attending at least one year of college so that the country can reclaim its mantle as the best educated nation in the world” (as cited in Lederman, 2009, ¶ 1). This presidential declaration came following congressional passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) in 2008.

The HEOA is an amendment and extension of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The current bill was introduced to the 110^th Congress in November 2007. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives in February 2008 and by the Senate in July 2008. The bill was ratified by President Bush on August 14, 2008, and became Public Law 110-315. Of particular interest to institutions that offer online courses is Section 602.17, Subsection G, which explains the application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision and includes the following passages:

(g) Requires institutions that offer distance education or correspondence education to have processes in place through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance education or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the academic credit.

      The agency meets the requirement if it –

(1) Requires institutions to verify the identity of a student who participates in class or coursework by using such methods as –

(i) A secure login and pass code, randomly generated personal questions, or proctored examinations; and

(ii) New identification technologies as they become widely accepted; and

(2) Makes clear that institutions should not use or rely on technologies that interfere with student privacy (H.R. 4137: HEOA, 2007, n.p.)

According to Bailie and Jortberg (2008), this section of the HEOA supports the concerns of those who have been critical of distance education and the ways in which institutions attempt to validate the identities of students who complete the coursework. It further provides a foundation that will spawn additional requirements in the process of seeking and maintaining accreditation from regional and national bodies.

Discussion has ensued about students’ opportunity and proclivity to cheat or plagiarize, factors that impact the level of academic integrity and the authenticity of their work (Virtual Student, n.d.). Although students complete the required coursework and receive their degrees, their universities are responsible for implementing safeguards and processes to maintain the integrity of the academic system. This includes the ability to confirm and verify online students’ identities.

This study was an exploratory project directed at assessing the level of student identity verification currently being utilized by online postsecondary institutions from the perspectives of faculty and administration. This study also assessed the perceived need for improved methodologies to ensure that the students receiving the credit for coursework actually completed the work. A brief overview of current identity verification technology and new educational partnerships, as well as conclusions and insights gained from this study, is provided.

Section II: Methodology

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009), 1,672,000 people are employed as postsecondary teachers in the United States. This occupational category of postsecondary teachers served as the target population for this study. Applying a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of 5%, the researchers determined that a sample size of 384 respondents was required to obtain statistical viability, trustworthiness, and authenticity of the data.

The data collection instrument was a survey, and a sample of convenience was utilized. Distribution of the survey and the collection of the results were facilitated using a web-enabled survey that was administered by a third-party provider, SurveyMonkey. In the summer of 2009, during a 45-day period, an e-mail request containing a brief introduction to the study and a link to the survey instrument was transmitted to 4,093 people at the institutions for which e-mail addresses were made available. It was anticipated that approximately 10% of the requests would be bounced because of inaccurate or invalid e-mail addresses and that an additional 5% would be blocked by recipients who chose not to respond. The final response rate was expected to be 12%, but it was 10.4%, which represented 427 responses. Approximately 2.5% of the requests were blocked, and 4.7% were bounced back. The responses were provided in a blind manner and will be discussed in aggregated terms in this paper.

The researchers hypothesized that faculty members have limited knowledge about student identity verification and recent legislation on the topic. They further asserted that faculty members agree with the importance of the student verification process, the need for better methodologies, and the impact of said practices on the reputation of institutions’ online programs in the marketplace.

Section III: Review of the Results

Following is a list of survey questions. The results are illustrated in each of the tables below the questions. The results are discussed in section IV.

Question 1: What best describes your role within the institution?

Question 2: The level of student identity verification performed at my educational institution definitely confirms the identity of the student and ensures that the individual completing graded elements is in fact the student.

Question 3: The process utilized for student identity verification is (or should be) embedded within the institutions learning management system (LMS).

Question 4: The following methods are utilized as means to confirm student identity at my institution (select all that apply).

Question 5: The primary responsibility for student identity verification lies with the
(select all that apply).

Question 6: My institution is actively looking for improved methodologies to confirm student identity verification.

Question 7: The issues faced by institutions with online components in the area of student identity verification are similar to those experienced on traditional ground campuses.

Question 8: The following best describes the nature of my institution’s online learning environment.

Question 9: In my estimation, the need for improved methods of student identity verification is.

Question 10: The ability to confirm student identity in my institution’s programs impacts its reputation in the marketplace and the quality of its graduates.

Question 11: My level of familiarity of recent legislation leading to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), specifically the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (H.R. 4137), which contains verbiage directing accrediting agencies to “require an institution that offers distance education to have processes through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the program and receives the academic credit”
(H.R. 4137, 110^th Congress, 2007).

Question 12: I wish to share the following additional comments on the topic.

It was clear from the feedback that this study addressed a topic that many of the participants were interested in. Some respondents noted that they had never really thought about student identity verification, so this study brought forth new information that allowed them to reflect on how student identity verification is currently conducted and the importance of improved methodologies.

Section IV: Analysis and Interpretation of the Results

The results of the survey were examined by all three researchers independently to identify emergent themes. Notes were then compared, consolidated, and agreed upon. The identified themes are discussed next.

Over 50% of the respondents stated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their institutions’ current identity verification methodologies definitively confirm the identities of the students and ensure that the students who are registered actually are the students taking the course. The majority of respondents noted that a hybrid approach to online learning is being utilized. These outcomes, coupled with the data points indicating that username and password are the most widely used forms of verification, with a little more than half additionally using proctoring and a quarter using exam passwords, suggested that perhaps the term definitively was not clearly understood by the respondents or that they had given enough reflection to the question. Over 50% of the respondents suggested that improved methods of identity verification are very important or are urgently needed.

The respondents felt that the responsibility for student identity verification should be assumed by multiple parties within the academic institutions. In addition, there was a high level of support (over 65%) that the process should be embedded in the LMS. Despite the recognition that faculty have a significant responsibility in the process of student identity verification, the majority of the respondents were unaware of their institutions’ efforts in this area. This finding suggested a communication breakdown or many institutions have not fully launched initiatives in this area.

Approximately 56% of the respondents felt that online and ground-based instruction face different issues in this regard; however, a substantial subset representing 30% of the sample believed that there are similarities. This finding suggested that adaptations or new methodologies need to be implemented in online learning environments and that institutions should not simply rely on the status quo. It also suggested that perhaps the methodologies utilized on ground-based campuses are not definitive in establishing student identities in all situations.

Although 60% of the respondents were not very familiar with the HEOA legislation, over 65% agreed or strongly agreed that the ability of institutions to verify student identities can impact the institutions’ reputation and quality of their graduates. This finding was supported by the high level of importance placed upon developing improved methodologies, but it also clearly indicated that increased awareness of this law and the changes it potentially will drive are required.

Section V:
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

The results of this study strongly suggested that there is a need for additional education within the occupational category of postsecondary teachers in reference to the HEOA of 2008. The focus needs to be specific to Section 602.17, Subsection G, which

Requires institutions that offer distance education or correspondence education to have processes in place through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance education or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the academic credit. (n.p.)

Regardless of this need for additional education, the respondents strongly felt that there is a need for improvement in the methods utilized to verify students’ identities. A clear majority believed that the process currently being utilized should be embedded within the LMS; however, the respondents also recognized that technology is not the entire answer and that faculty must play a significant role in implementing safeguards and processes to ensure the integrity of the academic system.

A number of extant technologies and techniques can facilitate the validation of students’ identities throughout their academic endeavors. These alternatives include, but are not limited to, improved course design that emphasizes student portfolios, projects, and papers; the utilization of proctored exams (in person and via webcam); technological solutions that validate biometric attributes such as fingerprints, retinal scans, and facial and voice characteristics; synchronous monitoring techniques that include such items as IP authentication, response pattern analysis, and telephonic callbacks; and the use of challenge questions derived from third-party data providers that are not student driven (Bailie & Jortberg, 2008). To be effective, multiple methods need to be utilized in conjunction with one another.

Pilots and partnerships are currently underway among educational institutions; corporations such as Acxiom and PupilCity; and education platform providers such as Blackboard, eCollege, and Moodle to develop, prototype, and test various methods to improve the student identity verification process. Although great strides are being made on this front, no system will fully eliminate the issue of student dishonesty. “If someone is determined to be dishonest, there is always a way around any system, whether it’s online or classroom-based” (WCET, 2005, ¶ 14).

Future research should continue to focus on the relationship between the adoption of more advanced student identity verification techniques and the perceptions of faculty, students, and other stakeholders regarding improvements in academic honesty, institutional creditability, and program accessibility. Research to find effective and efficient student verification techniques should be pursued, and consideration should be given to the return on investment of the various implementation methods and tools, along with a determination of the best fit of these methods based on the nature of the learning environment.

Although the natural assumption is that student verification will be conducted using technology-based strategies, exploration into other avenues of student verification should be considered. For example, if the solution is a technology-based student verification method, consideration should be given to the IT departments of the learning institutions to determine the difficulty of implementing technologically enabled student verification solutions. In addition, one might wish to solicit the views and opinions of universities’ boards of directors and executive bodies regarding the prioritization of online student verification. Finally, one might wish to determine whether policing compliance for student verification by online postsecondary learning institutions should become the responsibility of the accreditation bodies.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. S. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Bailie, J. L., & Jortberg, M. A. (2008). Online learning student authentication: Verifying the identity of online users. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://jolt/merlot.org.vol5no2/bailie_0609.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Teachers - Postsecondary. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2007). Retrieved August 9, 2009, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4137.

Lederman, D. (2009). College for all. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/25/obama.

Virtual Student. (n.d.). Integrity in education online. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from http://www.virtualstudent.com/html/integrity.html.

WCET. (2005). Executive briefing. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://wiche.edattachment_library/Student_Authentication/Executive_Briefing0805.pdf .