2015
DOI: 10.1145/2810239
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deterring Cheating in Online Environments

Abstract: Many Internet services depend on the integrity of their users, even when these users have strong incentives to behave dishonestly. Drawing on experiments in two different online contexts, this study measures the prevalence of cheating and evaluates two different methods for deterring it. Our first experiment investigates cheating behavior in a pair of online exams spanning 632 students in India. Our second experiment examines dishonest behavior on Mechanical Turk through an online task with 2,378 total partici… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
36
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
36
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Much research argues that cheating is prevalent in online courses, but few studies measure actual cheating behavior. Some found evidence of significant cheating in online tests (Corrigan-Gibbs, et al, 2015), while others did not (Ladyshewsky, 2015). The current study did not assess cheating behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Much research argues that cheating is prevalent in online courses, but few studies measure actual cheating behavior. Some found evidence of significant cheating in online tests (Corrigan-Gibbs, et al, 2015), while others did not (Ladyshewsky, 2015). The current study did not assess cheating behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…Student perception of cheating online may be different than in a face-to-face situation (Rains, et al, 2011) even when instructions clearly state otherwise. The potential for academic dishonesty (Corrigan-Gibbs et al, 2015;Jones, Blankenship, & Hollier, 2013;Moten, et al, 2013) and the perception that cheating occurs more frequently in online classes (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006;Raines et al, 2011) present challenges to all stakeholders. Much research argues that cheating is prevalent in online courses, but few studies measure actual cheating behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are few clear-cut solutions to avoid participants cheating when asked to provide answers to factual questions. Explicit warnings to not cheat may attenuate cheating (Corrigan-Gibbs, Gupta, Northcutt, Cutrell, & Thies, 2015;Goodman et al, 2013) but rarely eliminate it. Therefore, knowledge-based questions for which the answer is searchable online should be avoided if possible.…”
Section: Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Student-instructor relations can be further challenged when teaching and assessment roles become separated due to automation in popular modular teaching systems (Amigud, Arnedo-Moreno, Daradoumis, & Guerrero-Roldan, 2017). The sense of distance, weak personal ties to classmates and instructors, and perceived anonymity, may yield a detached feeling that enables a student to engage in dishonest behavior in an online assessment (Corrigan-Gibbs, Gupta, Northcutt, Cutrell, & Thies, 2015). Nevertheless, the success of distance learning requires careful attention to the design of the course as WCET (2009) describes, including establishing policy, incentives for honesty, and holding accountable students who demonstrate dishonesty.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%