You are here:

Cheating an Online Test: Methods and Reduction Strategies
PROCEEDINGS

, Coastal Carolina University, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Montreal, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-46-4 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper reports findings from an empirical study investigating the degree to which an online test created using a popular web-based testing development tool—Coursebuilder for Dreamweaver MX—is susceptible to student cheating. Results indicate that students at all computing ability levels are capable of discovering viable cheating methods, even when specific anti-cheating measures have been implemented. However, these measures can significantly reduce the quantity of online cheating occurrences. The paper concludes with a discussion of additional derived strategies for further reducing the probability of cheating online. Designers, developers or trainers utilizing web-based testing systems should take interest.

Citation

Winslow, J. (2002). Cheating an Online Test: Methods and Reduction Strategies. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2002--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2404-2407). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 28, 2023 from .

© 2002 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bugbee, A. (1996). The equivalence of paper -and-pencil and computer -based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 282- 299.
  2. Bunderson, C., Inouye, D., & Olsen, J. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 367 -407). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
  3. Byers, J. (1999). Interactive learning using expert system quizzes on the internet. Educational Media International , 36 (3), 191- 194.
  4. Carnevale, D. (1999). How to proctor from a distance. Chronicle of Higher Education , 46(12), A47 -A48.
  5. Cooper, L. (1999). Anatomy of an online course. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 26(7), 49 - 51.
  6. Drogemuller, R. (1997). Designing cyber - assignments. Australian Science Teachers Journal , 43(4), 42- 44.
  7. Greenberg, R. (1998). Online testing. Techniques: Making Education and Career Connections, 73(3), 2628.
  8. Kerkvliet, J. (1994). Cheating by Economics students: acomparison of survey results. Journal of Economic Education, 25(2), 121-133.
  9. McCollum, K. (1997). One way to get into college: buy an essay that worked for someone else. Chronicle of Higher Educaiton, 43(25), A25-A26 .
  10. Odom, J. (1997). Academic and clinical ramifications of integrity and cheating. Journal of Dental Education, 61(8), 681 -685.
  11. Paldy, L. (1996). The problem that won’t go away: addressing the causes of cheating. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(1), 4 -6 .
  12. Schneider, A. (1999). Why profess ors don’t do more to stop students who cheat. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(20), A8-A10.
  13. Sherry, L. (1997). Linking technology with promising practices to improve teaching and learning. Paper presented at …
  14. Van Hartesveldt (1998). The undergraduate research paper and electronic resources: a cautionary tale. Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 23(2), 51 -59.
  15. Walker, J. (1998). Copyrights and conversations: intellectual property in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 15(2), 243 -251.
  16. Whitley, B. (1998) Factors associated with cheating among college students: a review. Research in Higher Education, 39 (3) pp.235- 274.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References