Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.



Methods for Encouraging Academic Honesty

Misty Cobb

on 17 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Honesty

Honesty Methods for
Encouraging Academic Honesty 1 in 5 The number of students who admit to cheating copying from another student on a test or exam
using unauthorized crib or cheat notes
helping someone else to cheat on a test or exam
using an unauthorized electronic device to obtain information during a test or exam ~ McCabe (2005) 39,900 hits academic honesty online courses The Shadow Scholar http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329/ Cheating Countermeasures:

Honor code/code of conduct
Course and assessment design
Proctoring (both human and web-based)
Other technology A majority of students and instructors it is (Kennedy, Nowak, Raghuraman, Thomas, & Davis, 2000) faculty with less experience teaching online
tend to have this mindset Honor Code/Codes of Conduct Evidence: Fewer students cheat when they must "interact" with an honor code/code of conduct. When combined with other measures the increase in academic honesty is more significant.

Students who do not cheat state that the presence of a "moral anchor", such as an ethical professor, is important. (Burns, 2009; Mastin, Peszka, & Lilly, 2009; McCabe & Pavela, 2004) Course and assessment design Evidence:
Fewer than 2/3 of faculty put any information in their syllabi about expectations
44% have ignored at least one suspected incident of cheating (Harmon, Lambrinos, & Buffolino; 2010; McCabe & Pavela, 2004; Rowe, 2004; Sibberson, 2009) Proctoring (human) Evidence: Research indicates that cheating was taking place in the online environment; instances of cheating were minimized by employing proctored online exams. (Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008) (Mirza & Staples, 2010) Evidence: A majority of study participants felt that web proctoring was effective in preventing cheating Proctoring (web) http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/09/04/costello.outsourcing.homework.cnn Klien, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007). Cheating During the College Years: How Do Business Students Compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 197-206.

Mastin, D., Peszka, J., & Lilly, D. (2009). Online academic integrity. Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 174-8. doi: 10.1080/00986280902739768

McCabe, D.L. & Pavela, G. (2004). Ten (updated) principles of academic integrity: How faculty can foster student honesty. Change, 36(3). Retrieved from

McCabe, D.L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1, no. 1. Available online at http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs: Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294-305.

Mirza, N., & Staples, E. (2010). Webcam as a new invigilation method: Students' comfort and potential for cheating. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(2), 116-19. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090916-06

Rokovski, C., & Levy, E. (2007). Academic Dishonesty: Perceptions of Business Students. College Student Journal, 41(2), 466-481

Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(2).

Sibbernsen, K. (2008). Online academic integrity. Astronomy Education Review, 7(2), p. 98-102. doi: 10.3847/AER2008024

Simkin, M. G. & McLeod, A. (2010, July). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441-453.

Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, Click, and Cheat: Frequency and Type of Academic Dishonesty in the Virtual Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3). References:
Burns, C. (2009). Sold! Web-based auction sites have just compromised your test bank. Nurse Educator, 34(3), 95-6. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0b013e3181a18c25.

Facts About Plagiarism. (n.d.) Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_facts.html

Harmon, O., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat?. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(2), 116-25. doi: 10.3200/JECE.39.2.116-125

Kennedy, K., Nowak, S. Raghuraman, R., Thomas, J., & Davis, S. F. (2000). Academic dishonesty and distance learning: student and faculty views. College Student Journal, 34(2). Considerations for developing your own
academic dishonesty prevention plan:

assessment strategy
participant level
importance of results
technological skill set
instructor knowledge
institutional support and policies easier to cheat in online courses Objectives:
Explain the context of the problem of cheating.

Discuss perceptions of cheating in online, hybrid, and web-facilitated courses.

Identify a variety of effective practices, Blackboard features, and Blackboard Building Blocks that can be used for minimizing cheating in your courses. Objectives:
Explain the context of the problem of cheating.

Discuss perceptions of cheating in online, hybrid, and web-facilitated courses.

Identify a variety of best practices, Blackboard features, and Blackboard Building Blocks that can be used for minimizing cheating in your courses.

Select at least one technological approach and one non-technological approach for minimizing cheating that would be appropriate for use one of your courses.
Timed tests
Auto submit
Use of question pools and random blocks
Randomized answer choices
Test availability exceptions
Feedback options
Adaptive release
Mark reviewed Misty Cobb
Solutions Engineer
North America Higher Education
Blackboard Learn believe Respondus Lockdown Browser
Digital Proctor
iParadigms (TurnItIn)
Proctor U
Software Secure Features within Blackboard Blackboard Partner
Solutions Identify Verification Management
Biometric Signature ID
CSIdentity Corporation
Digital Proctor
Fischer International Identity
Incita S.L.
iParadigms (TurnItIn.com)
Omnibond Blackboard Partner Solutions But in other studies (Klien, Levenburg, McKendall, & Mothersell, 2007; McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006; Rokovski & Levy, 2007), the means were 70%, 86%, and 60%, (Simkin & McLeod, 2010)
Full transcript