Implementing Quilgo to Monitor Online Learning Evaluations: A Qualitative Case Study

Nursyifa Azzahro; Citra Dewi; Naelul Rohmah

doi:10.58421/gehu.v4i3.628

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v4i3.628

Authors

Nursyifa Azzahro Institut Prima Bangsa Cirebon
Citra Dewi Institut Prima Bangsa Cirebon
Naelul Rohmah Institut Prima Bangsa Cirebon

Keywords:

Education, Learning Evaluation Process, Quilgo, Tool for Monitoring

Abstract

The need for a secure and efficient educational evaluation system in the digital era has been growing, especially with the increasing adoption of online exams. However, security and integrity issues remain significant challenges for educational institutions. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Quilgo in addressing these challenges through its personalized registration system and proctoring features. This research involved observations of several educational institutions implementing online exams using Quilgo. It also included interviews with educators and exam participants as the main data sources. The participants were teachers and students with direct experience using Quilgo in various exam settings. The study begins with data collection through direct observation of Quilgo's use in several educational institutions that have adopted online exams and interviews with educators and exam participants. The collected data include user experiences related to registration ease, technical obstacles, and the effectiveness of proctoring features in preventing cheating. The analysis used qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess the application’s efficiency and reliability across different exam scenarios. Moreover, the data analysis process was carried out using behaviorism theory (Skinner, 1963), which highlights the presence of stimuli, responses, and reinforcement—both positive and negative—in the learning evaluation process. The research results show that using personalized link-based registration in Quilgo facilitates registration and enhances security, especially when combined with domain-based email restrictions. Moreover, the proctoring feature that monitors the visual activities of exam participants proved effective in maintaining exam integrity, although challenges related to internet connectivity and device compatibility remain. Despite remaining challenges such as internet connectivity and device compatibility, the results imply that Quilgo has the potential to support more trustworthy and effective online examinations in educational settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

H. Lal Lamsal, “Exploring challenges and opportunities of Remote Teaching at Nepalese Community Secondary Schools during Covid-19 Pandemic,” Utamax : Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 29–38, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.31849/utamax.v4i1.7794.

A. Abdul Razak, A. Abdul Razak, and F. Haji Shukor, “Effective Practices for Educators to Increase Online Interaction Quality,” Utamax : Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.31849/utamax.v4i1.8355.

H. M. Alessio, N. J. Malay, K. Maurer, A. J. Bailer, and B. Rubin, “Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores,” Online Learning, vol. 21, no. 1, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i1.885.

L. W. Daffin Jr. and A. A. Jones, “Comparing Student Performance on Proctored and Non-Proctored Exams in Online Psychology Courses,” Online Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079.

R. Conijn, A. Kleingeld, U. Matzat, and C. Snijders, “The fear of big brother: The potential negative side‐effects of proctored exams,” J Comput Assist Learn, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1521–1534, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12651.

C. Dewi and N. Nur Rahmi Fauzah, “Studi Kasus Penggunaan Video Sebagai Media Pembelajaran Daring Dalam Mata Kuliah Japanese for Business di Era Pandemi,” IZUMI, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 154–163, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.14710/izumi.11.2.154-163.

M. Fitrah and R. Ruslan, “Eksplorasi Sistem Pelaksanaan Evaluasi Pembelajaran Di Sekolah Pada Masa Pandemi Covid-19 di Bima,” Jurnal Basicedu, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 178–187, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.31004/basicedu.v5i1.639.

T. Widayanti, “Use of Google Form in Support of Data Collection for Student Scientific Work,” JUDIMAS, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 85, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.30700/jm.v1i1.1015.

R. A. Boakes, “The Impact of Pavlov on the Psychology of Learning in English-Speaking Countries,” Span J Psychol, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 93–98, 2003.

R. E. Clark, “The classical origins of Pavlov’s conditioning,” Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 279–294, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1007/BF02734167.

E. L. Thorndike, “The Law of Effect,” Am J Psychol, vol. 39, no. 1/4, p. 212, Dec. 1927, doi: 10.2307/1415413.

R. Waters, “The Theory of Learning in Animals and Humans,” Psychol Bull, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 81–97, 1934.

J. Koblin, “Watson’s Theory of Behaviorism.” Accessed: Jul. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://sproutsschools.com/watsons-theory-of-behaviourism/

B. F. Skinner, “Operant behavior.,” American Psychologist, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 503–515, Aug. 1963, doi: 10.1037/h0045185.

A. KAPLAN, M. DURAN, and G. BAŞ, “Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Matematiksel Üstbiliş Farkındalıkları İle Problem Çözme Beceri Algıları Arasındaki İlişkinin Yapısal Eşitlik Modeliyle İncelenmesi,” İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 17, no. 1, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.17679/iuefd.17119785.

A. F. Underhıll, “Theories of Learning and Their Implications for On-Line Assesment,” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 165–174, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tojde/issue/16923/176630

P. Race, The Lecturer’s Toolkit. 5th edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020.: Routledge, 2019. doi: 10.4324/9780429060205.

S. M. R. Leba and N. L. S. Habeahan, “Pelatihan Model Pembelajaran Jarak Jauh Berbasis Google Form Sebagai Media Pembelajaran ,” KOMMAS: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 42–46, 2020.

M. E. Habsari and Ekohariadi, “Penerapan CBT (Computer Based Test) Pada Mata Pelajaran Teknologi Layanan Jaringan di SMK Negeri 1 Tuban,” Jurnal IT-Edu, vol. 04, no. 01, pp. 61–67, 2019.

N. L. Supartini and L. E. Susanti, “Implementasi Penggunaan Quizizz dalam Evaluasi Pembelajaran Online English For Food and Beverage Service,” Jurnal Pedagogi dan Pembelajaran, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 485, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.23887/jp2.v4i3.39524.

A. C. Kalew et al., “Analisis Kepuasan Pengguna Layanan Google-Forms Sebagai Media Survey Online Menggunakan Model Delone & Mclean,” Adopsi Teknologi dan Sistem Informasi (ATASI), vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 129–134, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.30872/atasi.v1i2.425.

M. Y. Iskandar, S. Aisyah, and Novrianti, “Pengembangan Computer BaTesting Menggunakan Aplikasi Kahoot! untuk Evaluasi Pembelajaran,” JURNAL KEPEMIMPINAN & PENGURUSAN SEKOLAH, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 218–226, 2024.

R. Kriyantono, Teknik praktis riset komunikasi kuantitatif dan kualitatif : disertai contoh praktis skripsi, tesis, dan disertasi riset media, publik relations, advertising, komunikasi organisasi, komunikasi pemasaran . Jakarta : Kencana, 2021.

Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2017.

Iswadi, N. Karnati, and A. Andry, Studi Kasus Desain dan Metode Robert K.Yin. Indramayu: CV. Adanu Abitama, 2023.

S. P. Dewi, L. M. Santoso, D. J. Santri, Z. Arifin, and E. Destiansari, “Pelatihan Penggunaan Google Form di Dukung dengan Aplikasi Quilgo sebagai Alat Evaluasi Pembelajaran Biologi,” Jurnal Anugerah, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 89–98, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.31629/anugerah.v4i1.4461.

M. Gribbins and C. J. Bonk, “An exploration of instructors’ perceptions about online proctoring and its value in ensuring academic integrity,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1693–1714, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13389.