{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03328850033624748, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006724949562878279, 'mean_word_length': 5.467391304347826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing Learning Style to Performance in On-Line Teaching: Impact of Proctored v. Un-Proctored Testing

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that proctored versus un-proctored testing would have on learning for an on-line content module; and examine the relationship between LASSI variables and learning. A randomized, pre-test/post-test control group design was employed. College students in a pharmacy curriculum, were randomized to two groups utilizing asynchronous, on-line content with a medical terminology module. Group A utilized proctored, on-line testing, while Group B utilized un-proctored on-line testing. Both were given a pre-test and post-test on medical terminology at the beginning and end of a sixteen week semester. The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory was administered to all students. On-line module delivery paired with proctored testing was more effective in promoting learning when compared to online module delivery paired with un-proctored testing. The constructs: anxiety, selftesting, attitude/interest and motivation were significant in predicting learning for proctored students. No significant model emerged for un-proctored students. Internet based course instruction has been advocated as accentuating the "student as worker" and the "teacher as coach" paradigm, shifting the role of instructor to Socratic questioner, resource provider and student motivator (Wegner, Holloway, & Garton, 1999). Course management systems offer the instructor a new mechanism to present content to students, as well as, provide multimedia access, student-student and studentinstructor communication (email, discussion, chat) and on-line assessment through quiz features. On-line quizzing offers the course instructor a means to provide students with ongoing, real-time assessment of learning. Virtual, "instant" grading offers a unique opportunity to truly incorporate testing into the learning process giving students the opportunity to assess their understanding asynchronously. On-line quizzing allows the instructor to integrate self-assessment with content delivery in a fashion that gives students the opportunity to measure their understanding while they are processing content. Incorporating feedback into these quiz questions can provide a valuable and interactive way for students to correct misinterpretations of material. More daunting is the idea of utilizing on-line quizzes features, not only for student self-assessment, but also for course examination and grading. On-line instruction is often paired with some mechanism to synchronously test students in a proctored setting. The concern is that un-proctored, on-line, asynchronous testing would be compromised by students collaborating without consent of the instructor (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001; Diekhoff et al., 1996; Ferrell & Fergusson, 1993; Green & Saxe, 1992). The absence of supervision has been cited as a factor in influencing cheating behavior