网络会计评估中的学术不诚信——基于学术资源网站使用的证据

IF 1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION Pub Date : 2023-07-21 DOI:10.2308/issues-2021-059
Jenelle K. Conaway, Taylor Wiesen
{"title":"网络会计评估中的学术不诚信——基于学术资源网站使用的证据","authors":"Jenelle K. Conaway, Taylor Wiesen","doi":"10.2308/issues-2021-059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n As accounting programs increase their online offerings, understanding the challenges of maintaining academic integrity online is crucial. This study documents an emerging method of online academic dishonesty—on-demand services from academic resource sites (ARS) such as Chegg.com. ARS are web-based repositories of textbook problems, homework solutions, etc., and many of them employ subject-matter experts to answer questions in real time, potentially during active exams. In periods of fewer online exam safeguards, 13–25 percent of intermediate accounting students are identified as using Chegg during exams. Corroborating evidence shows an anomalous improvement in student performance in online exams with minimal safeguards, which is attenuated by an increase in mitigation policies. Survey responses confirm that students are familiar with and use ARS, including 10 percent who acknowledge use during quizzes or exams. These findings help formulate suggestions about practices educators can employ to decrease pervasive use of ARS in online learning.\n JEL Classifications: M49.","PeriodicalId":46324,"journal":{"name":"ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic Dishonesty in Online Accounting Assessments—Evidence on the Use of Academic Resource Sites\",\"authors\":\"Jenelle K. Conaway, Taylor Wiesen\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/issues-2021-059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n As accounting programs increase their online offerings, understanding the challenges of maintaining academic integrity online is crucial. This study documents an emerging method of online academic dishonesty—on-demand services from academic resource sites (ARS) such as Chegg.com. ARS are web-based repositories of textbook problems, homework solutions, etc., and many of them employ subject-matter experts to answer questions in real time, potentially during active exams. In periods of fewer online exam safeguards, 13–25 percent of intermediate accounting students are identified as using Chegg during exams. Corroborating evidence shows an anomalous improvement in student performance in online exams with minimal safeguards, which is attenuated by an increase in mitigation policies. Survey responses confirm that students are familiar with and use ARS, including 10 percent who acknowledge use during quizzes or exams. These findings help formulate suggestions about practices educators can employ to decrease pervasive use of ARS in online learning.\\n JEL Classifications: M49.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/issues-2021-059\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/issues-2021-059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

随着会计项目增加其在线课程,了解保持在线学术诚信的挑战至关重要。这项研究记录了一种新出现的在线学术不诚实的方法——来自Chegg.com等学术资源网站(ARS)的点播服务。ARS是基于网络的教科书问题、家庭作业解决方案等的存储库,其中许多网站聘请主题专家实时回答问题,可能在考试期间。在在线考试保障较少的时期,13-25%的中级会计学生被认定在考试期间使用Chegg。确凿的证据表明,在最低限度的保障措施下,学生在网上考试中的表现出现了异常改善,而缓解政策的增加则削弱了这种改善。调查结果证实,学生熟悉并使用ARS,其中10%的学生承认在测验或考试中使用ARS。这些发现有助于制定关于教育工作者可以采用的做法的建议,以减少ARS在在线学习中的普遍使用。JEL分类:M49。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Academic Dishonesty in Online Accounting Assessments—Evidence on the Use of Academic Resource Sites
As accounting programs increase their online offerings, understanding the challenges of maintaining academic integrity online is crucial. This study documents an emerging method of online academic dishonesty—on-demand services from academic resource sites (ARS) such as Chegg.com. ARS are web-based repositories of textbook problems, homework solutions, etc., and many of them employ subject-matter experts to answer questions in real time, potentially during active exams. In periods of fewer online exam safeguards, 13–25 percent of intermediate accounting students are identified as using Chegg during exams. Corroborating evidence shows an anomalous improvement in student performance in online exams with minimal safeguards, which is attenuated by an increase in mitigation policies. Survey responses confirm that students are familiar with and use ARS, including 10 percent who acknowledge use during quizzes or exams. These findings help formulate suggestions about practices educators can employ to decrease pervasive use of ARS in online learning. JEL Classifications: M49.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION
ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The mission of Issues in Accounting Education is to publish research, commentaries, instructional resources, and book reviews that assist accounting faculty in teaching and that address important issues in accounting education. The journal will consist of two major sections, “Research and Commentary” and “Instructional Resources”.
期刊最新文献
Beyond GAAP: A Case Study Analyzing Non-GAAP Financial Measures and SEC Comment Letters through the Lens of the FASB Conceptual Framework Classifying Internal Control Deficiencies: The Case of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation Using AAERs in Financial Accounting Courses: A Case Study to Integrate Ethical and Technical Competencies Advice for Senior Faculty: Supporting and Building Your School Editorial Policy and Style Information
×
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