Methods for academic honesty workshop presentation
Methods forEncouragingAcademic Honesty
22Workshop ObjectivesBy the end of the workshop, participants willbe able to:• Explain the context of the problem of cheating.• Discuss perceptions of cheating in online, hybrid, andweb-facilitated courses.• Identify a variety of effective practices, Blackboardfeatures, and Blackboard Building Blocks that can beused to minimize cheating.
3The percentage of students whoadmit to cheating• Copying from another student on atest or exam• Using unauthorized crib or cheatnotes• Helping someone else to cheaton a test or exam• Using an unauthorized device toobtain information during a testor examMcCabe, 2005?
4McCabe, 200520%The percentage of students whoadmit to cheating• Copying from another student on atest or exam• Using unauthorized crib or cheatnotes• Helping someone else to cheaton a test or exam• Using an unauthorized device toobtain information during a testor exam
770A majority of students and instructors believe it iseasier to cheat in online courses. Faculty with less experienceteaching online tend to have this mindset.Kennedy, Nowak, Raghuraman Thomas & Davis, 2000
1070Cheating Countermeasures1. Honor Code/Code of Conduct2. Course and Assessment Design3. Proctoring (both human and web-based)4. Other Technology
1170Burns, 2009; Mastin, Peszka & Lilly, 2009; McCabe & Pavela, 20041. Honor Code/Codes of ConductEvidence• Fewer students cheat when theymust “interact” with anhonor code/code of conduct.• When combined with othermeasures the increase inacademic honesty is moresignificant.
1270Simkin & McLeod, 20101. Honor Code/Codes of ConductEvidence• Students who do not cheat statethat the presence of a“moral anchor,” such as anethical professor, is important.
1370Harmon, Lambrinos & Buffolino, 2010; McCabe & Pavela, 2004; Rowe, 2004;Sibbernsen, 20092. Course and Assessment DesignEvidence• Fewer than 2/3 of faculty putany information in their syllabiabout expectations• 44% have ignored at leastone suspected incident ofcheating
1470Harmon, Lambrinos, 20083. Proctoring (human)Evidence• Research indicates that cheatingwas taking placing in theonline environment; instancesof cheating were minimizedby employing proctoredonline exams.
1570Mizra & Staples, 2010Blackboard Partner Solutions3. Proctoring (web)Evidence• A majority of studyparticipants felt that webproctoring was effectivein preventing cheating.• Respondus Lockdown Browser• Digital Proctor• iParadigms (Turnitin)• Kryterion• Proctor U• Software Secure• Respondus Monitor
1670• SafeAssign• Timed tests• Auto submit• Use of question pools and random blocks• Randomized answer choices• Test availability exceptions• Feedback options• Adaptive release• Mark reviewed4. Other TechnologyFeatures within Blackboard
1770Identify Verification Management• Acxiom• Biometric Signature ID• CSIdentity Corporation• Digital Proctor• Fischer International Security• Incita S.L.• iParadigms (Turnitin)• Kryterion• Omnibond4. Other TechnologyBlackboard Partner Solutions
1870Academic Dishonesty Prevention Plan• Assessment strategy• Participant level• Resources• Time• Importance of results• Technological skill set• Instructor knowledge• Institutional support and policies
1919• Explain the context of the problem of cheating.• Discuss perceptions of cheating in online, hybrid, andweb-facilitated courses.• Identify a variety of effective practices, Blackboardfeatures, and Blackboard Building Blocks that can beused to minimize cheating.• Select at least one appropriate technological approachand one appropriate non-technological approach forminimizing cheating.Let’s Review
20Burns, C. M. (2009). Sold! Web-Based Auction Sites Have Just Compromised Your Test Bank. Nurse Educator, 34(3), 95-96.Dante, E. (2010). The shadow scholar. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12.Facts About Plagiarism. (n.d.) Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_facts.htmlHarmon, O. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat?. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(2),116-125.Harmon, O. R., Lambrinos, J., & Buffolino, J. (2010). Assessment design and cheating risk in online instruction. OnlineJournal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3).Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007). Cheating during the college years: How dobusiness school students compare?. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 197-206.Mastin, D. F., Peszka, J., & Lilly, D. R. (2009). Online academic integrity. Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 174-178.McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. (2004). Ten (updated) principles of academic integrity: How faculty can foster studenthonesty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(3), 10-15.McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. InternationalJournal for Educational Integrity, 1(1), 10-11.References
21ReferencesMcCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence,causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294-305.Mirza, N., & Staples, E. (2010). Webcam as a new invigilation method: students comfort and potential for cheating. TheJournal of nursing education, 49(2), 116.Rakovski, C. C., & Levy, E. S. (2007). Academic Dishonesty: Perceptions of Business Students. College Student Journal,41(2), 466-481.Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance LearningAdministration, 7(2).Sibbernsen, K. (2008). Online academic integrity. Astronomy Education Review, 7, 98.Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat?. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441-453.Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonestyin the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3).