The temptation to cheat in online exams: moving beyond the binary discourse of cheating and not cheating

IF 3.8 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal for Educational Integrity Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1007/s40979-023-00143-2
Michael Henderson, Jennifer Chung, Rebecca Awdry, Cliff Ashford, Mike Bryant, Matthew Mundy, Kris Ryan
{"title":"The temptation to cheat in online exams: moving beyond the binary discourse of cheating and not cheating","authors":"Michael Henderson, Jennifer Chung, Rebecca Awdry, Cliff Ashford, Mike Bryant, Matthew Mundy, Kris Ryan","doi":"10.1007/s40979-023-00143-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Discussions around assessment integrity often focus on the exam conditions and the motivations and values of those who cheated in comparison with those who did not. We argue that discourse needs to move away from a binary representation of cheating. Instead, we propose that the conversation may be more productive and more impactful by focusing on those who do not cheat, but who are tempted to do so. We conceptualise this group as being at risk of future cheating behaviour and potentially more receptive of targeted strategies to support their integrity decisions. In this paper we report on a large-scale survey of university students ( n = 7,511) who had just completed one or more end of semester online exams. In doing so we explore students’ reported temptation to cheat. Analysis surrounding this “at risk” group reveals students who were Tempted ( n = 1379) had significant differences from those who Cheated ( n = 216) as well as those who were Not tempted ( n = 5916). We focus on four research questions exploring whether there are specific online exam conditions, security settings, student attitudes or perceptions which are more strongly associated with the temptation to cheat. The paper offers insights to help institutions to minimise factors that might lead to breaches of assessment integrity, by focusing on the temptation to cheat during assessment.","PeriodicalId":44838,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","volume":"180 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00143-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Discussions around assessment integrity often focus on the exam conditions and the motivations and values of those who cheated in comparison with those who did not. We argue that discourse needs to move away from a binary representation of cheating. Instead, we propose that the conversation may be more productive and more impactful by focusing on those who do not cheat, but who are tempted to do so. We conceptualise this group as being at risk of future cheating behaviour and potentially more receptive of targeted strategies to support their integrity decisions. In this paper we report on a large-scale survey of university students ( n = 7,511) who had just completed one or more end of semester online exams. In doing so we explore students’ reported temptation to cheat. Analysis surrounding this “at risk” group reveals students who were Tempted ( n = 1379) had significant differences from those who Cheated ( n = 216) as well as those who were Not tempted ( n = 5916). We focus on four research questions exploring whether there are specific online exam conditions, security settings, student attitudes or perceptions which are more strongly associated with the temptation to cheat. The paper offers insights to help institutions to minimise factors that might lead to breaches of assessment integrity, by focusing on the temptation to cheat during assessment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线考试作弊的诱惑:超越作弊和不作弊的二元话语
摘要围绕评估诚信的讨论往往集中在考试条件、作弊者与未作弊者的动机和价值观上。我们认为,话语需要摆脱欺骗的二元表示。相反,我们建议,通过关注那些没有欺骗,但却被诱惑要这样做的人,对话可能会更有成效,更有影响力。我们将这一群体定义为未来有作弊行为的风险,并且可能更容易接受有针对性的策略来支持他们的诚信决策。在本文中,我们报告了一项针对刚刚完成一个或多个学期末在线考试的大学生(n = 7511)的大规模调查。在这样做的过程中,我们探讨了学生报告的作弊诱惑。围绕这一“危险”群体的分析显示,被诱惑的学生(n = 1379)与被欺骗的学生(n = 216)以及没有被诱惑的学生(n = 5916)有着显著的差异。我们关注四个研究问题,探讨是否有特定的在线考试条件、安全设置、学生的态度或看法与作弊的诱惑更密切相关。本文提供了一些见解,通过关注评估过程中作弊的诱惑,帮助机构最大限度地减少可能导致违反评估完整性的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal for Educational Integrity
International Journal for Educational Integrity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
26.10%
发文量
25
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clues to fostering a program culture of academic integrity: findings from a multidimensional regression model Expressions of gratitude in education: an analysis of the #ThankYourTeacher campaign Critical thinking, assessment, and educational policy in Palestinian universities Can you spot the bot? Identifying AI-generated writing in college essays Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived Ethics regarding the use of ChatGPT among generation Z university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1