Enhancing ethical behavior in online exams

Autor

  • Anna Bąkała University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Department of Computer Science in Economics
  • Marcin Bąkała University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Department of Computer Science in Economics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.23.3.03

Słowa kluczowe:

Ethics, e-cheating, cheating, online exams, cheating prevention

Abstrakt

Online exams have become a common tool in the academic didactic process, as well as in most online courses in business. Taking exams in a remote location like home, using ICT tools, brings many challenges to both sides, the learner and the examiner. The aim of this article is to show the challenges in the context of ethical attitudes, trust, and respect for one another. Some results of a broader survey in the form of Computer Aided Web Interviews are presented to highlight students’ opinions and expectations, along with the results of personal interviews with academic teachers. In the final part of the article, recommendations are given. The importance of trust and systematic assessment of learners’ progress is emphasized.

Bibliografia

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Harvard Business School Background Note 396–239.
Google Scholar

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Google Scholar

Bąkała, A. (2018). E-learning Project Management Based on IPMA Methodology. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, 19(5), 253–267.
Google Scholar

Bloom, B. S. (ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
Google Scholar

Bucciol, A., Cicognani, S., & Montinari, N. (2020). Cheating in university exams: the relevance of social factors. International Review of Economics, 67(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-019-00343-8
Google Scholar

Davis, G. (2017). Cybersecurity 101: Top Takeaways from Our Back to School Study. https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/consumer/consumer-threat-notices/back-to-school-study/?hilite=%27Cybersecurity%27%2C%27101%3A%27%2C%27Teens%27%2C%27Classroom%27 (accessed: 10.12.2020).
Google Scholar

Fontanillas, R. T., Carbonell, R. M., & Catasús, G. M. (2016). E-assessment process: Giving a voice to online learners. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0019-9
Google Scholar

Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2014). Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity. Psychological Science, 25(4), 973–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614520714
Google Scholar

Harper, R., Bretag, T., & Rundle, K. (2020). Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899
Google Scholar

Kayışoğlu, N., & Temel, C. (2017). An Examination of Attitudes towards Cheating in Exams by Physical Education and Sports High School Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(8), 1396–1402. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050813
Google Scholar

Koc, E. W., Kahn, J., Koncz, A. J., Salvadge, A., & Longenberger, A. (2019). Job Outlook 2019. Bethlehem: National Association of Colleges and Employers.
Google Scholar

Lieberman, M. (2018). Exam Proctoring for Online Students Hasn’t Yet Transformed. Inside Higher Ed, October 10. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/10/10/online-students-experience-wide-range-proctoring-situations-tech (accessed: 10.12.2020).
Google Scholar

Loseby, D. (2018). Critical Thinking Skills. In: D. Loseby, Soft skills for Hard Business. Cambridge Academic Publishers.
Google Scholar

Mercer, Mettl Report “Soup for corporate souls: Psychometric assessments”. (2020). https://mettl.com/en/content/e-books/psychometric-assessments-from-instinct-to-insight/?utm_medium=blog&utm_source=direct (accessed: 10.12.2020).
Google Scholar

Papaleontiou-Louca, E., Varnava-Marouchou, D., Mihai, S., & Konis, E. (2014). Teaching for Creativity in Universities. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(4), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v3n4a13
Google Scholar

The Future of Jobs Report. (2020). World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf (accessed: 10.12. 2020).
Google Scholar

Schwab, K., & Samans, R. (2016). Global Challenge Insight Report: The Future of Jobs. World Economic Forum, pp. 1–167. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
Google Scholar

Suryani, A. (2020). Individualized Excel-Based Exams to Prevent Students from Cheating. Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.26675/jabe.v5i1.14367
Google Scholar

Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Google Scholar

Wilson, M. S., Krause, M. J., & Xiang, T. (2010). A Redemption Strategy for Students Caught Cheating. Business Education Innovation Journal, 2(2), 80–85.
Google Scholar

##submission.downloads##

Opublikowane

2020-09-30

Jak cytować

Bąkała, A., & Bąkała, M. (2020). Enhancing ethical behavior in online exams. Annales. Etyka W Życiu Gospodarczym, 23(3), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.23.3.03

Numer

Dział

Artykuł