College Students' Cheating Behaviors

Küçüktepe, Seval Eminoğlu

doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.s101

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The diversity of nomenclatures and taxonomies will not make it easy for educational agents to identify clearly which fraudulent practices they should avoid and which behaviour they should prioritise, incorporating behaviour that respects academic integrity. The analysis of perceptions of academic fraud has therefore received attention from researchers [18,[22][23][24][25][26].…”

Section: Representations and Academic Fraud Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unbearable Lightness of Academic Fraud: Portuguese Higher Education Students’ Perceptions

Ramos

Gonçalves

2020

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perception that academic fraud is widespread in higher education affects the credibility of higher education schools, giving rise to doubts concerning the quality of learning and the students’ preparation for their professional life. Academic misconduct is presently a common research area. However, higher education schools still seem unable to contain academic fraud, given its prevalence and scope. Therefore, understanding students’ perceptions and attitudes remains critical for schools to define effective policies in promoting and defending academic integrity. Towards that aim, the results from a set of focus groups of students from a higher education school are presented. Students do not link academic fraud with unethical professional behaviour, propose more sanctions for those who commit academic fraud, and consider that certain evaluation methods favour unethical behaviour.

show abstract

Section: Representations and Academic Fraud Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unbearable Lightness of Academic Fraud: Portuguese Higher Education Students’ Perceptions

Ramos

Gonçalves

2020

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Keçeci et al (2011) made use of the ADTS scale with nursing students, finding a 'medium level' of academic dishonesty. There are also a number of studies of staff and student perceptions of cheating in Turkey (Küçüktepe 2014;Yazici et al 2011) and a cross-cultural study using the theory of planned behaviour (Chudzicka-Czupała et al 2016) which suggested that 'subjective norms' may play a greater role in predicting intention to cheat in Turkey (and Poland and the Ukraine) than in Switzerland, USA and New Zealand.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: teachers’ perspectives

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student authentication and authorship checking systems are intended to help teachers address cheating and plagiarism. This study set out to investigate higher education teachers' perceptions of the prevalence and types of cheating in their courses with a focus on the possible changes that might come about as a result of an increased use of eassessment, ways of addressing cheating, and how the use of student authentication and authorship checking systems might impact on assessment practice. This study was carried out within the context of the project TeSLA (an Adaptive Trust-based e-assessment System for Learning) which is developing a system intended for integration within an institution's Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) offering a variety of instruments to assure student authentication and authorship checking. Data was collected at two universities that were trialling the TeSLA system, one in Turkey, where the main modes of teaching are face-toface teaching and distance education, and one in Bulgaria, where the main modes of teaching are face-to-face teaching and blended learning. The study used questionnaires and interviews, building on existing TeSLA project evaluation activities and extending these to explore the specific areas we wished to examine in more depth. In three of the four contexts cheating was seen by teachers as a serious and growing problem, the exception was the distance education context where the teachers believed that the existing procedures were effective in controlling cheating. Most teachers in all four contexts expected cheating to become a greater problem with increased use of eassessment. Student authentication was not seen as a major problem in any of the contexts, as this was felt to be well controlled through face-to-face proctored assessments, though the problem of assuring effective authentication was seen by many teachers as a barrier to increased use of e-assessment. Authorship checking was seen as a major issue in all contexts, as copying and pasting from the web, ghost writing and plagiarism were all reported as widely prevalent, and authorship checking was seen as becoming even more important with increased use of e-assessment. Teachers identified a third category of cheating behaviours, which was the accessing of information from other students, from written materials, and from the internet during assessments. Teachers identified a number of approaches to addressing the problem of cheating: education, technology, assessment design, sanctions, policy, and surveillance. Whilst technology was not seen as the most important approach to prevention, student authentication and authorship checking systems were seen as relevant in terms of reducing reliance on face-to-face proctored examinations, and in improving the quality of assessment through supporting the employment of a wider range of assessment methods. The development of authorship checking based on computational linguistic (Continued on next page)

show abstract

“…We appreciate that it is certainly challenging to mimic a real exam. Although we tried to maintain a challenging exam task and created a reward mechanism to entice cheating (Petisca et al, 2020), it was difficult to recreate the fear of failure and stress caused by a real exam (Küçüktepe, 2014;Fendler and Godbey, 2016). These factors affect a student's propensity to cheat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“No Chit Chat!” A Warning From a Physical Versus Virtual Robot Invigilator: Which Matters Most?

Ahmad

Refik

2022

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past work has not considered social robots as proctors or monitors to prevent cheating or maintain discipline in the context of exam invigilation with adults. Further, we do not see an investigation into the role of invigilation for the robot presented in two different embodiments (physical vs. virtual). We demonstrate a system that enables a robot (physical and virtual) to act as an invigilator and deploy an exam setup with two participants completing a programming task. We conducted two studies (an online video-based survey and an in-person evaluation) to understand participants’ perceptions of the invigilator robot presented in two different embodiments. Additionally, we investigated whether participants showed cheating behaviours in one condition more than the other. The findings showed that participants’ ratings did not differ significantly. Further, participants were more talkative in the virtual robot condition compared to the physical robot condition. These findings are promising and call for further research into the invigilation role of social robots in more subtle and complex exam-like settings.

show abstract

College Students' Cheating Behaviors

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

The Unbearable Lightness of Academic Fraud: Portuguese Higher Education Students’ Perceptions

The Unbearable Lightness of Academic Fraud: Portuguese Higher Education Students’ Perceptions

Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: teachers’ perspectives

“No Chit Chat!” A Warning From a Physical Versus Virtual Robot Invigilator: Which Matters Most?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About