Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs. ‘unsupervised online’ multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security

Ladyshewsky, Richard K.

doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.956683

Cited by 60 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Richardson and North postulated that the more mature a student is, the less likely the student is to cheat. This analysis would match what others have said about maturity reducing cheating (Ladyshewsky, 2015).…”

Section: Review Of Relevant Literaturesupporting

confidence: 53%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Howard

2020

OLJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Relevant Literaturesupporting

confidence: 53%

“…The research on the subject was also somewhat contradictory and inconclusive. Some claimed that students cheat less online than in a face-to-face class (Ladyshewsky, 2015), while others indicate there is significantly more cheating in unproctored classes (Alessio, Malay, Maurer, Bailer, & Rubin, 2017;Daffin & Jones, 2018).…”

Section: Review Of Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Howard

2020

OLJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research focusing on actual student behavior has found conflicting results. For example, Ladyshewsky (2015) analyzed graduate student test scores and found no difference between the test scores in unproctored online tests when compared to face-to-face, proctored tests. Similarly, Yates and Beaudrie (2009) found no differences in course grades between community college students who took monitored versus unmonitored exams.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores

Alessio

Malay

Maurer

et al. 2017

OLJ

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online education continues to grow, bringing opportunities and challenges for students and instructors. One challenge is the perception that academic integrity associated with online tests is compromised due to undetected cheating that yields artificially higher grades. To address these concerns, proctoring software has been developed to address and prevent academic dishonesty. The purpose of this study was to compare online test results from proctored versus unproctored online tests. Test performance of 147 students enrolled in multiple sections of an online course were compared using linear mixed effects models with nearly half the students having no proctoring and the remainder required to use online proctoring software. Students scored, on average, 17 points lower [95% CI: 14, 20] and used significantly less time in online tests that used proctoring software versus unproctored tests. Significant grade disparity and different time usage occurred on different exams, both across and within sections of the same course where some students used test proctoring software and others did not. Implications and suggestions for incorporating strategic interventions to address integrity, addressing disparate test scores, and validating student knowledge in online classes are discussed.

show abstract

“…An additional concern is with unsupervised testing (using online learning management systems, for example), which can open the door to possible cheating ( Schultz et al. , 2008 ; Styron and Styron, 2010 ; Ladyshewsky, 2014 ). There is also the concern that students will take screenshots of items and pass these to their peers or even post them online, which would devalue their future use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%