Do Online Exams Facilitate Cheating? An Experiment Designed to Separate Possible Cheating from the Effect of the Online Test Taking Environment

被引：69

作者：

Fask A. ^{[1
]}

Englander F. ^{[2
]}

Wang Z. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ

[2] Department of Economics and Finance, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ

来源：

Journal of Academic Ethics | 2014年 / 12卷 / 2期

关键词：

Experimental design; Online assessment; Student cheating; Student performance;

D O I：

10.1007/s10805-014-9207-1

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Despite recent growth in distance education, there has been relatively little research on whether online examinations facilitate student cheating. The present paper utilizes an experimental design to assess the difference in student performance between students taking a traditional, proctored exam and those taking an online, unproctored exam. This difference in performance is examined in a manner which considers both the effect of the different physical test environments and the possible effect of a difference in the opportunity for students to cheat. This study, utilizing regression models that also account for relevant control variables, examines 44 undergraduate statistics students, finds evidence that the difference in the testing environment creates a disadvantage to students taking the online exam which somewhat offsets the advantage that the unproctored students gain from greater opportunities to cheat. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

引用

页码：101 / 112

页数：11

共 32 条

[1]

Allen I., Seaman J., Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010, (2010)

[2]

Brown B., McInerney M., Changes in academic dishonesty among business students in the United States, 1999-2006, International Journal of Management, 25, 4, pp. 621-632, (2008)

[3]

Campbell D.T., Stanley J.C., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, (1966)

[4]

Cluskey G., Ehlen C., Raiborn M., Thwarting online exam cheating without proctor supervision, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 4, pp. 1-7, (2011)

[5]

Coalter T., Lim C.L., Wanorie T., Factors that influence faculty actions: a study of faculty responses to academic dishonesty, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 1, pp. 1-19, (2007)

[6]

Crown D., Spiller M., Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: a review of empirical research, Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 6, pp. 683-700, (1998)

[7]

Durden G., Ellis L., Is class attendance a proxy variable for student motivation in economics classes? An empirical analysis, International Social Science Review, 78, 1-2, pp. 42-46, (2003)

[8]

Grijalva T., Nowell C., Kerkvliet J., Academic honesty and online courses, College Student Journal, 40, 1, pp. 180-185, (2006)

[9]

Harding T., Carpenter D., Finelli C., Passow H., Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study, Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 2, pp. 311-324, (2004)

[10]

Harmon O., Lambrinos J., Are online exams an invitation to cheat?, Journal of Economic Education, 39, 2, pp. 116-125, (2008)

← 1 2 3 4 →