A Synopsis of Online Testing Integrity in a General Education Math Course: A Correlational Study

Authors

  • Daris William Howard Brigham Young University - Idaho

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2148

Keywords:

online education, academic integrity, online testing, proctoring software, testing-center proctoring, cheating, testing validation

Abstract

Online education is expected to grow, bringing new challenges.  One of the biggest challenges concerns the validity of online assessments.  Questions arise about cheating, including whether or not the person taking the assessments is the student registered for the course.  Studies have tried to determine the amount of cheating in online assessments using student self-reporting.  Concern about the validity of these studies has led to quantitative studies attempting to determine the level of cheating in online classes by comparing unproctored online classes against proctored classes.  This quantitative quasi-experimental study uses such an approach, comparing test scores and the amount of time online unproctored students spend on exams against test scores and the amount of time spent on exams by students proctored in a testing center and by students proctored online using software.  The data for each of the three groups, online-unproctored, testing-center-proctored, and software-proctored, were collected for each of the three unit exams, with data samples over 1,000 for each group on each test.  The means of the exam scores of the unproctored online students were similar to the means of the exam scores of the other two groups, but the means for the amount of time the unproctored online students spent on the exams were significantly greater than were the means of the time spent by students in the either of the other two groups.  The increased amount of time spent by the unproctored students likely indicated students looked up answers during the tests.

References

th U.S. Congress. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act. Public Law. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315.pdf

Author. (2019). Online testing integrity in a general education math course: A correlational study. Unpublished

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885

Bemmel, M. B. (2014). Cheating in online classes: A preliminary investigation. Dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fse_etd/37/

Brown, V. (2018). Evaluating technology to prevent academic integrity violations in online environments. Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(1), 1–12. Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring211/brown211.html

Daffin, L. W., & Jones, A. A. (2018). Comparing student performance on proctored and non-proctored exams in online psychology courses. Online Learning, 22(1), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079

Hollister, K. K., & Berenson, M. L. (2009). Proctored versus unproctored online exams: Studying the impact of exam environment on student performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00220.x

Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2015). Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs. ‘unsupervised online’ multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956683

Polat, M. (2017). Why do students cheat in examinations in Turkey? A meta‐synthesis study. International E-Journal, 7(1), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2017.71.7

Ravasco, G. G. (2012). Technology-aided cheating in open and distance e-learning. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 71–77. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2092903/Technology-Aided_Cheating_in_Open_and_Distance_e-Learning

Richardson, R., & North, M. (2013). Strengthening the trust in online courses: a common sense approach. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(5), 266–272. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2458624

Varble, D. (2014). Reducing cheating opportunities in online tests. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 3(2), 131–150. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=amj

Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1), 798–803. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html

Downloads

Published

2020-12-01

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 4 (2020)

Section

Section II

License

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions