A Review of Cheating in Fully Asynchronous Online Courses: A Math or Fact-Based Course Perspective

Abstract

Un-proctored fully asynchronous1 online courses now appear to be a reality in all discipline areas. With full degree programs being offered online, it has become a badge of honor, to some colleges, to graduate students that have never stepped foot on the physical college campus nor have never before met any college representative, faculty, or staff. To many involved in managing, teaching, and implementing these online courses, the idea of academic integrity related to courses taught in a fully online un-proctored modality is therefore of great interest and concern. This review represents a deliberate effort to distinguish the issue of academic integrity in fully asynchronous online courses into two categories: “Writing-Based” (WB) vs. “Math or Fact-Based” (MFB) courses. WB courses, which tend to be subjective in nature, include discipline areas such as English, history, psychology… . MFB courses, which emphasize calculation and/or factual recall, have a tendency to be highly objective in nature, and include discipline areas such as math, science, business, computers, medical technology… . While there are certainly significant areas of overlap in how different assessment instruments are administered in these two categories, most math and many science courses, for instance, tend to focus on calculation and fact-based assessment instruments (such as mid-term and final exams) and most English and history courses, for example, tend to focus on writing-based assessment instruments (such as written assignments and term papers). Based on this distinction, the notion that pedagogical mechanisms (apart from proctored assessments) are sufficient to ensure academic integrity in online MFB courses is questioned and challenged. Recommendations are given to advance the use of proctored assessments in online MFB courses through the creation of universal proctoring standards and the expansion of current and new testing center networks.

An investigation of assessment and feedback practices in fully asynchronous online undergraduate mathematics courses

“…[76] Indeed, when grouped based on the use of invigilation, no significant differences are found in participants' CCSF scale measures. Aligned with the extra purpose feedback takes on in FAO courses, we hypothesize that this may be part of an effort at addressing concerns about assessment validity.…”

“…a "takehome" final exam with no human supervision allowing considerably more time). [67,76] With these limitations in mind, the following section provides a brief review of research in this area with a particular focus on the nature of assessment schemes, which we define as the combination of instruments used together with their associated weighting. These schemes are where we assume the power of assessment (to drive and direct learning [19][20][21][22]77]) is operationalized.…”

Faculty Perceptions about Teaching Online: Exploring the Literature Using the Technology Acceptance Model as an Organizing Framework

“…Another serious concern about technology among faculty teaching online has been the potential for students to cheat (Bacow et al, 2012;Chapman, Davis, Toy, & Wright, 2004;Haber & Mills, 2008;Trenholm, 2007). Some researchers suggested that these fears were unfounded, either because they found no significant difference between cheating in online and face-to-face classes (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006) or they actually found that students cheated more in face-to-face classes (Stuber-McEwen, Wiseley, & Hoggatt, 2009;Watson & Sottile, 2010).…”

Biometrics and education: a review about facial authentication software for the identification and verification of students who use virtual learning platform (LMS)

“…As Trenholm [15] assures, there are better techniques for cheating in the classroom. As the author said, an 84% of the students say that they need to cheat to go on their academic careers.…”