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 participants. Using direct measurements that are not dependent on self-reports, we detect significant rates of cheating in both environments. We confirm that honor codes-despite frequent use in massive open online courses (MOOCs)-lead to only a small and insignificant reduction in online cheating behaviors. To overcome these challenges, we propose a new intervention: a stern warning that spells out the potential consequences of cheating. We show that the warning leads to a significant (about twofold) reduction in cheating, consistent across experiments. We also characterize the demographic correlates of cheating on Mechanical Turk. Our findings advance the understanding of cheating in online environments, and suggest that replacing traditional honor codes with warnings could be a simple and effective way to deter cheating in online courses and online labor marketplaces.

Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

Common Concerns with MTurk as a Participant Pool: Evidence and Solutions

“…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.…”

Interaction of Proctoring and Student Major on Online Test Performance

“…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.…”