ror.org/05nbqxr67
Résumés
Abstract
Traditional and online university courses share expectations for quality content and rigor. Student and faculty concerns about compromised academic integrity and actual instances of academic dishonesty in assessments, especially with online testing, are increasingly troublesome. Recent research suggests that in the absence of proctoring, the time taken to complete an exam increases significantly and online test results are inflated. This study uses a randomized design in seven sections of an online course to examine test scores from 97 students and time taken to complete online tests with and without proctoring software, controlling for exam difficulty, course design, instructor effects, and student majors. Results from fixed effects estimated from a fitted statistical model showed a significant advantage in quiz performance (7-9 points on a 100 point quiz) when students were not proctored, with all other variables statistically accounted for. Larger grade disparities and longer testing times were observed on the most difficult quizzes, and with factors that reflected the perception of high stakes of the quiz grades. Overall, use of proctoring software resulted in lower quiz scores, shorter quiz taking times, and less variation in quiz performance across exams, implying greater compliance with academic integrity compared with when quizzes were taken without proctoring software.
Keywords:
- online learning,
- online testing,
- academic integrity,
- academic honesty,
- proctoring,
- distance learning
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Alessio, H.M., Malay, N.J., Maurer, K.T., Bailer, A.J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1), 146-161. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i1.885.
- Amigud, A., Arnedo-Moreno, J., Daradoumis, T., & Guerrero-Roldan, A. (2017). Using learning analytics for preserving academic integrity. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3103
- Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating - much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 65-75. doi: 10.1177/1469787413514646
- Berkey, D., & Halfond, J. (2015). Cheating, student authentication and proctoring in online programs. New England Board of Higher Education, Summer, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/cheating-student-authentication-and-proctoring-in-online-programs/
- Boehm, P.J., Justice, M., & Weeks, S. (2009). Promoting academic integrity in higher education [Electronic document]. The Community College Enterprise, Spring, 45-61. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd69/cc9738a66f10d1e049261659faba1efedc87.pdf
- Bunn, D.N., Caudill, S.B., & Gropper, D.M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic analyses of undergraduate student cheating behavior. The Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 197-207. doi: 10.1080/00220485.1992.10844753
- Christie, B. (2003). Designing online courses to discourage dishonesty: Incorporate a multilayered approach to promote honest student learning, Educause Quarterly, 26(4), 54-58. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/articles/2003/10/eqm0348.pdf?la=en
- Cluskey, G.R., Ehlen, C.R., & Raiborn, M.H. (2011). Thwarting online exam cheating without proctor supervision. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 4, 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11775.pdf
- 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), 1-23. doi: 10.1145/2810239
- D'Souza, K.A., & Siegfeldt, D.V. (2017). A conceptual framework for detecting cheating in online and take-home exams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(4), 370-391. doi: 10.1111/dsji.12140
- Etter, S., Cramer, J.J., & Finn, S. (2006). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical orientations and personality factors associated with attitudes about cheating with information technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 133-155. Retrieved from http://www.eacfaculty.org/pchidester/Eng%20102f/Plagiarism/Origins%20of%20Academic%20Dishonesty.pdf
- Fask, A., Englander, F., & Wang, Z. (2014). Do online exams facilitate cheating? An experiment designed to separate out possible cheating from the effect of the online test taking environment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(2), 101-112. doi: 10.1007/s10805-014-9207-1
- Kidwell, L.A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among University students on and off campus. Accounting Education, 17(1), S3-S16. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1141
- King, C.G., Guyette, R.W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students' views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1-11. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ904058
- Kitahara, R., Westfall, F., & Mankelwicz, J. (2011). New, multifaceted hybrid approaches to ensuring academic integrity. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 3, 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/ manuscripts/10480.pdf
- McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219-232. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2
- McGee, P. (2013). Supporting academic honesty in online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1). Retrieved from https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2013_10_1
- McLean, R.A., Sanders, W.L., & Stroup, W.W. (1991). A unified approach to mixed linear models. The American Statistician, 45(1), 54-64. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1991.10475767
- Mirza, N. & Staples, E. (2010). Webcam as a new invigilation method: Students' comfort and potential for cheating. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(20), 116-119. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090916-06
- Moten, J. Jr, Fitterer, A., Brazier, E., Leonard, J., & Brown, A. (2013). Examining online college cyber cheating methods and prevention methods. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(2), 139-146. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012879
- Nonis, S., & Swift, C. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty. A multi-campus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69-77. doi: 10.1080/08832320109599052
- Northcutt, C.G., Ho, A.D., & Chuang, I.L. (2016). Detecting and preventing "multiple-account" cheating in massive open online courses. Computers and Education, 100, 71-80. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05699
- Rogers, C.F. (2006). Faculty perceptions about e-cheating during online testing. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(2), 206-212.
- Rubin, B., & Fernandes, R. (2013). Measuring the community in online classes. Online Learning Journal, 17(3), 115-135.
- Rujoiu, O. & Rujoiu, V. (2014). Academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty. An overview. Proceedings of the 8th International Management Conference, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania,8(1), 928-938. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/mancon/v8y2014i1p928-938.html
- Schuhmann, P.W., Burrus, R.T., Barber, P.D., Graham, J.E., & Elikai, M.F. (2013). Using the scenario method to analyze cheating behaviors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 17-33. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1051661
- Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1), 1-13. Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html
- WCET (2009). Best practice strategies to promote academic integrity in online education. WCET, UT TeleCampus, and Instructional Technology Council. Retrieved from http://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Best-Practices-Promote-AcademicIntegrity-2009.pdf