了解在线考试作弊的诱惑

Michael Henderson, Jennifer Chung, R. Awdry, Shihua Yu
{"title":"了解在线考试作弊的诱惑","authors":"Michael Henderson, Jennifer Chung, R. Awdry, Shihua Yu","doi":"10.14742/apubs.2023.564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online proctored exams have become a common experience for a significant number of higher education students. The rationale behind employing online surveillance revolves around the belief that these measures are essential for upholding academic integrity. However, discussions on assessment integrity often focus on comparing the motivations, conditions, and values of cheaters and non-cheaters. This binary approach potentially oversimplifies the complex nature of human motivation and behavior (Henderson et al., 2023). Cheating is influenced by a multitude of factors and motivations that can either encourage or discourage such behaviors (Brimble, 2016; Jenkins et al., 2022; Noorbehbahani et al., 2022). Merely comparing the two groups may overlook the intricacies that push students from one category to another. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on an underexplored group: students who were tempted to cheat but chose not to. These students can be viewed in two ways. Firstly, they represent a group at risk of cheating, necessitating research to develop targeted strategies supporting their integrity decisions. Secondly, they exhibit integrity despite the temptation, potentially offering insights into the nuanced 'tipping points' that go beyond existing binary comparisons. This Pecha Kucha reports on a large-scale study conducted within a single institution that explores the implications of online exams and the integrity behaviours and motivations of three groups of students: those who did not cheat and were not tempted to do so, those who did not cheat but who were tempted to cheat, and those who cheated. The data draws on an anonymous and voluntary student survey conducted in both semester 1 and semester 2 of 2022. Institutional research ethics approval was granted. The data comprises 11,333 fully completed surveys and offers interesting, and sometimes counter-intuitive findings which can help guide institutional responses. Broad insights will be offered in the Pecha Kucha presentation. This abstract offers preliminary findings based on ongoing analysis regarding the 28 motivating factors identified by the students that encouraged or discouraged cheating behaviours. Factors that encouraged cheating: Both the tempted and cheated groups identified similar motivating factors, such as the fear of failure and the financial burden of repeating a course. Surprisingly, the students who cheated chose fewer encouraging factors than those who were tempted but did not cheat. The importance of these motivations was similar for both groups. Factors that discouraged cheating: Regarding factors that discouraged cheating, all three groups (not tempted, tempted, and cheated) were asked their opinions. The non-cheating group listed more reasons and considered them more significant compared to the other two groups. The tempted group selected fewer reasons than the non-tempted group but more than the cheated group. However, the tempted and cheated groups rated the importance of these factors similarly. The Pecha Kucha will expand on the above and comment on some of these somewhat counterintuitive results.","PeriodicalId":236417,"journal":{"name":"ASCILITE Publications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the temptation to cheat in online exams\",\"authors\":\"Michael Henderson, Jennifer Chung, R. Awdry, Shihua Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.14742/apubs.2023.564\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Online proctored exams have become a common experience for a significant number of higher education students. The rationale behind employing online surveillance revolves around the belief that these measures are essential for upholding academic integrity. However, discussions on assessment integrity often focus on comparing the motivations, conditions, and values of cheaters and non-cheaters. This binary approach potentially oversimplifies the complex nature of human motivation and behavior (Henderson et al., 2023). Cheating is influenced by a multitude of factors and motivations that can either encourage or discourage such behaviors (Brimble, 2016; Jenkins et al., 2022; Noorbehbahani et al., 2022). Merely comparing the two groups may overlook the intricacies that push students from one category to another. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on an underexplored group: students who were tempted to cheat but chose not to. These students can be viewed in two ways. Firstly, they represent a group at risk of cheating, necessitating research to develop targeted strategies supporting their integrity decisions. Secondly, they exhibit integrity despite the temptation, potentially offering insights into the nuanced 'tipping points' that go beyond existing binary comparisons. This Pecha Kucha reports on a large-scale study conducted within a single institution that explores the implications of online exams and the integrity behaviours and motivations of three groups of students: those who did not cheat and were not tempted to do so, those who did not cheat but who were tempted to cheat, and those who cheated. The data draws on an anonymous and voluntary student survey conducted in both semester 1 and semester 2 of 2022. Institutional research ethics approval was granted. The data comprises 11,333 fully completed surveys and offers interesting, and sometimes counter-intuitive findings which can help guide institutional responses. Broad insights will be offered in the Pecha Kucha presentation. This abstract offers preliminary findings based on ongoing analysis regarding the 28 motivating factors identified by the students that encouraged or discouraged cheating behaviours. Factors that encouraged cheating: Both the tempted and cheated groups identified similar motivating factors, such as the fear of failure and the financial burden of repeating a course. Surprisingly, the students who cheated chose fewer encouraging factors than those who were tempted but did not cheat. The importance of these motivations was similar for both groups. Factors that discouraged cheating: Regarding factors that discouraged cheating, all three groups (not tempted, tempted, and cheated) were asked their opinions. The non-cheating group listed more reasons and considered them more significant compared to the other two groups. The tempted group selected fewer reasons than the non-tempted group but more than the cheated group. However, the tempted and cheated groups rated the importance of these factors similarly. The Pecha Kucha will expand on the above and comment on some of these somewhat counterintuitive results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":236417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASCILITE Publications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASCILITE Publications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.564\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASCILITE Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在线监考已成为许多高校学生的共同经历。采用在线监控的理由是,这些措施对于维护学术诚信至关重要。然而,有关评估诚信的讨论往往侧重于比较作弊者和非作弊者的动机、条件和价值观。这种二元对立的方法可能会过度简化人类动机和行为的复杂本质(Henderson et al.)作弊行为受到多种因素和动机的影响,这些因素和动机既可能鼓励也可能阻止这种行为(Brimble,2016;Jenkins 等人,2022;Noorbehbahani 等人,2022)。仅仅比较这两个群体可能会忽略将学生从一个类别推向另一个类别的错综复杂的因素。因此,本研究旨在揭示一个未被充分探索的群体:那些受到作弊诱惑但选择不作弊的学生。可以从两个方面来看待这些学生。首先,他们代表了一个有作弊风险的群体,因此有必要开展研究,制定有针对性的策略来支持他们的诚信决定。其次,尽管受到诱惑,他们仍然表现出了诚信,这有可能让我们对细微的 "临界点 "有更深入的了解,从而超越现有的二元比较。 本Pecha Kucha报告了一项在单一院校内进行的大规模研究,该研究探讨了在线考试的影响以及三类学生的诚信行为和动机:没有作弊且没有受到诱惑的学生、没有作弊但受到诱惑的学生以及作弊的学生。数据来源于 2022 年第一和第二学期进行的匿名自愿学生调查。调查获得了学校研究伦理的批准。这些数据包括 11,333 份完整填写的调查问卷,提供了有趣的、有时甚至是反直觉的发现,有助于指导机构采取应对措施。 我们将在 Pecha Kucha 演示中提供广泛的见解。本摘要提供了基于正在进行的分析的初步结果,涉及学生确定的鼓励或阻止作弊行为的 28 个动机因素。 鼓励作弊的因素:受诱惑组和作弊组都发现了类似的动机因素,如对失败的恐惧和重修课程的经济负担。令人惊讶的是,作弊学生选择的鼓励因素少于受到诱惑但没有作弊的学生。两组学生对这些动机的重视程度相似。 阻止作弊的因素:关于阻止作弊的因素,我们询问了所有三组学生(未受诱惑、受诱惑和作弊)的意见。与其他两组相比,未作弊组列出了更多的理由,并认为这些理由更为重要。受诱惑组选择的理由少于未受诱惑组,但多于作弊组。不过,受诱惑组和作弊组对这些因素的重要性的评价相似。 Pecha Kucha 将对上述内容进行扩展,并对其中一些有点违反直觉的结果进行评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the temptation to cheat in online exams
Online proctored exams have become a common experience for a significant number of higher education students. The rationale behind employing online surveillance revolves around the belief that these measures are essential for upholding academic integrity. However, discussions on assessment integrity often focus on comparing the motivations, conditions, and values of cheaters and non-cheaters. This binary approach potentially oversimplifies the complex nature of human motivation and behavior (Henderson et al., 2023). Cheating is influenced by a multitude of factors and motivations that can either encourage or discourage such behaviors (Brimble, 2016; Jenkins et al., 2022; Noorbehbahani et al., 2022). Merely comparing the two groups may overlook the intricacies that push students from one category to another. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on an underexplored group: students who were tempted to cheat but chose not to. These students can be viewed in two ways. Firstly, they represent a group at risk of cheating, necessitating research to develop targeted strategies supporting their integrity decisions. Secondly, they exhibit integrity despite the temptation, potentially offering insights into the nuanced 'tipping points' that go beyond existing binary comparisons. This Pecha Kucha reports on a large-scale study conducted within a single institution that explores the implications of online exams and the integrity behaviours and motivations of three groups of students: those who did not cheat and were not tempted to do so, those who did not cheat but who were tempted to cheat, and those who cheated. The data draws on an anonymous and voluntary student survey conducted in both semester 1 and semester 2 of 2022. Institutional research ethics approval was granted. The data comprises 11,333 fully completed surveys and offers interesting, and sometimes counter-intuitive findings which can help guide institutional responses. Broad insights will be offered in the Pecha Kucha presentation. This abstract offers preliminary findings based on ongoing analysis regarding the 28 motivating factors identified by the students that encouraged or discouraged cheating behaviours. Factors that encouraged cheating: Both the tempted and cheated groups identified similar motivating factors, such as the fear of failure and the financial burden of repeating a course. Surprisingly, the students who cheated chose fewer encouraging factors than those who were tempted but did not cheat. The importance of these motivations was similar for both groups. Factors that discouraged cheating: Regarding factors that discouraged cheating, all three groups (not tempted, tempted, and cheated) were asked their opinions. The non-cheating group listed more reasons and considered them more significant compared to the other two groups. The tempted group selected fewer reasons than the non-tempted group but more than the cheated group. However, the tempted and cheated groups rated the importance of these factors similarly. The Pecha Kucha will expand on the above and comment on some of these somewhat counterintuitive results.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信