You are here:

Interaction of Proctoring and Student Major on Online Test Performance
ARTICLE English

, Miami University ; , , , Miami University, Oxford Ohio ; , Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC, New Caledonia

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 5, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

Traditional and online university courses share expectations for quality content and rigor. Student and faculty concerns about compromised academic integrity and actual instances of academic dishonesty in assessments, especially with online testing, are increasingly troublesome. Recent research suggests that in the absence of proctoring, the time taken to complete an exam increases significantly and online test results are inflated. This study uses a randomized design in seven sections of an online course to examine test scores from 97 students and time taken to complete online tests with and without proctoring software, controlling for exam difficulty, course design, instructor effects, and student majors. Results from fixed effects estimated from a fitted statistical model showed a significant advantage in quiz performance (7-9 points on a 100 point quiz) when students were not proctored, with all other variables statistically accounted for. Larger grade disparities and longer testing times were observed on the most difficult quizzes, and with factors that reflected the perception of high stakes of the quiz grades. Overall, use of proctoring software resulted in lower quiz scores, shorter quiz taking times, and less variation in quiz performance across exams, implying greater compliance with academic integrity compared with when quizzes were taken without proctoring software.

Citation

Alessio, H., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. & Rubin, B. (2018). Interaction of Proctoring and Student Major on Online Test Performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Alessio, H.M., Malay, N.J., Maurer, K.T., Bailer, A.J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1), 146-161. Http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885.
  2. Amigud, A., Arnedo-Moreno, J., Daradoumis, T., & Guerrero-Roldan, A. (2017). Using learning analytics for
  3. Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating-much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 65-75. Https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514646
  4. Berkey, D., & Halfond, J. (2015). Cheating, student authentication and proctoring in online programs. New England Board of Higher Education, Summer, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/cheating-student-authentication-and-proctoring-in-onlineprograms/
  5. Boehm, P.J., Justice, M., & Weeks, S. (2009). Promoting academic integrity in higher education [Electronic document]. The Community College Enterprise, Spring, 45-61. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd69/cc9738a66f10d1e049261659faba1efedc87.pdf
  6. Bunn, D.N., Caudill, S.B., & Gropper, D.M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic analyses of undergraduate student cheating behavior. The Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 197-207.
  7. Kidwell, L.A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among University students on and off campus. Accounting Education, 17(1), S3-S16.
  8. King, C.G., Guyette, R.W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1-11. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ904058
  9. Kitahara, R., Westfall, F., & Mankelwicz, J. (2011). New, multifaceted hybrid approaches to ensuring academic integrity. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 3, 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/
  10. McGee, P. (2013). Supporting academic honesty in online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1). Retrieved from https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2013_10_1
  11. McLean, R.A., Sanders, W.L., & Stroup, W.W. (1991). A unified approach to mixed linear models. The American Statistician, 45(1), 54-64.
  12. Mirza, N. & Staples, E. (2010). Webcam as a new invigilation method: Students’ comfort and potential for cheating. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(20), 116-119.
  13. Rujoiu, O. & Rujoiu, V. (2014). Academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty. An overview. Proceedings of

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.