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.
|Commitee:||Strong, Mary, Neumann, Crystal, Ausburn, Jerry|
|School:||American College of Education|
|Department:||Leadership and Administration|
|School Location:||United States -- Indiana|
|Source:||DAI-A 81/7(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational tests & measurements, Higher education, Mathematics education|
|Keywords:||Online education, Online classes, Cheating|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be