-
I have used Khan Academy, NetAcad, and my own university's software (as both a student and staff member) and while they are good (especially KA), there are some fairly obvious issues that I've come across here or as an educator: 1) The lack of feedback and interaction between teacher and student is a problem. A teacher who is in the same physical location can much more easily help a student who is having issues with the work. 2) Although it doesn't mention how exactly it would be used, if we tell students to simply go off and do the work whenever they want, I don't think many will, simply because they may not want to do it. If they're forced to show up to classes and participate, they're much more likely to really learn something and get their work done. 3) Computer aided testing doesn't alleviate regurgitation in the slightest. In fact, it probably makes it more of an issue since questions are [typically/sometimes] created by the publishers of the content for the class (in my experience as both a student and educator). 4) The biggest concern is collusion. If a student is sitting in a classroom or exam hall, I can walk around and see them: a) doing their own work; and b) not using additional content (ie. cheat sheets, scribbles, electronic devices). If they're working at a computer which is: a) not owned/managed by an educational institution; b) cannot be checked for illegal software (for cheating); and c) not in the same physical location as the educator I cannot know whether the answers they give are their own, from a web page, from someone on Skype, etc... This is why any online tests that exist and contribute to the overall mark cannot be worth a lot (maybe only 10%). In my experience, online tests have only really existed as an incentive to get students to read the content - if they want marks, they have to read - but not so much for competency. --- I would be very apprehensive about completely using computer-aided testing for any serious accreditation.