Effectiveness of Unproctored vs. Teacher-Proctored Exams in Reducing Students’ Cheating: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Field Experimental Study

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z
Li Zhao, Junjie Peng, Shiqi Ke, Kang Lee
{"title":"Effectiveness of Unproctored vs. Teacher-Proctored Exams in Reducing Students’ Cheating: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Field Experimental Study","authors":"Li Zhao, Junjie Peng, Shiqi Ke, Kang Lee","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Unproctored and teacher-proctored exams have been widely used to prevent cheating at many universities worldwide. However, no empirical studies have directly compared their effectiveness in promoting academic integrity in actual exams. To address this significant gap, in four preregistered field studies, we examined the effectiveness of unproctored and teacher-proctored exam formats in deterring cheating behavior among university students and the role of academic integrity reminders. All four studies used a double-blind, randomized, controlled design. Before taking an exam, students were randomly assigned to take either an unproctored condition or a teacher-proctored exam, with or without receiving an academic integrity reminder. We found that the unproctored exam format is significantly more effective in reducing cheating than the teacher-proctored exam format and adding academic integrity reminders before the exams significantly reduces cheating. These findings demonstrate that incorporating unproctored exams and pre-exam academic integrity reminders into a university’s assessment practices may be a useful strategy for reducing academic dishonesty and upholding assessment validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unproctored and teacher-proctored exams have been widely used to prevent cheating at many universities worldwide. However, no empirical studies have directly compared their effectiveness in promoting academic integrity in actual exams. To address this significant gap, in four preregistered field studies, we examined the effectiveness of unproctored and teacher-proctored exam formats in deterring cheating behavior among university students and the role of academic integrity reminders. All four studies used a double-blind, randomized, controlled design. Before taking an exam, students were randomly assigned to take either an unproctored condition or a teacher-proctored exam, with or without receiving an academic integrity reminder. We found that the unproctored exam format is significantly more effective in reducing cheating than the teacher-proctored exam format and adding academic integrity reminders before the exams significantly reduces cheating. These findings demonstrate that incorporating unproctored exams and pre-exam academic integrity reminders into a university’s assessment practices may be a useful strategy for reducing academic dishonesty and upholding assessment validity.

Abstract Image

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
未经监考与教师监考对减少学生作弊的有效性:双盲随机对照现场实验研究
为防止作弊,世界各地的许多大学都广泛采用了无人监考和教师监考两种方式。然而,还没有实证研究直接比较过它们在实际考试中促进学术诚信的效果。为了填补这一重大空白,我们在四项预先登记的实地研究中,考察了未经监考和教师监考的考试形式在阻止大学生作弊行为方面的有效性,以及学术诚信提醒的作用。所有四项研究都采用了双盲、随机、对照设计。在考试前,学生被随机分配参加未经监考的考试或教师监考的考试,并接受或不接受学术诚信提醒。我们发现,与教师监考的考试形式相比,未经监考的考试形式能更有效地减少作弊现象,而在考试前添加学术诚信提醒则能显著减少作弊现象。这些研究结果表明,在大学的评估实践中加入未经监考的考试和考前学术诚信提醒可能是减少学术不诚信和维护评估有效性的有效策略。
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
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
On Being Accepted: Interrogating How University Cultural Scripts Shape Personal and Political Facets of Belonging Linking Disparate Strands: A Critical Review of the Relationship Between Creativity and Education Exploring the Nature-Creativity Connection Across Different Settings: A Scoping Review Bold, Humble, Collaborative, and Virtuous: The Future of Theory Development in Educational Psychology Effects of School-led Greenspace Interventions on Mental, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
×
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