Enhancing ethical behavior in online exams
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.23.3.03Słowa kluczowe:
Ethics, e-cheating, cheating, online exams, cheating preventionAbstrakt
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-019-00343-8
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0019-9
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614520714
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050813
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v3n4a13
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26675/jabe.v5i1.14367
Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410608277
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
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
