Vol. 39 No. 1 (2024)
Research Articles

Exploring the Impact: How Online Exam Proctoring Reduces Cheating and Enhances Course Legitimacy

HTML PDF
Daniel Woldeab
Metro State University
Bio
Thomas Brothen
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2024.v39.i1.1327

Published 2024-08-30

How to Cite

Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2024). Exploring the Impact: How Online Exam Proctoring Reduces Cheating and Enhances Course Legitimacy. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2024.v39.i1.1327
Copyright Notice

Abstract

In this study, we analyze undergraduate student responses in 1,364 surveys to better understand student reactions to online proctoring. We present findings regarding two aspects of student reactions to online proctoring: First, we assess whether students believe that the act of cheating in online exams diminishes the legitimacy of their courses; and second, whether students think online proctoring reduces cheating and enhances the perceived legitimacy of their course performance in the eyes of graduate schools or employers. Additionally, we explore how anxiety interacts with these student perceptions. The data collected in this study support the contention that cheating reduces perceived course legitimacy, and online proctoring minimizes cheating and increases perceived course legitimacy. Finally, the data shows that when asked if they would prefer to take their examinations in the classroom or with online proctoring, students who participated in this study said they would pick online proctored exams.

Keywords: online proctoring, cheating, legitimacy, anxiety

Exploration de l'impact de la surveillance des examens en ligne : réduction de la tricherie et renforcement de la légitimité des cours

Résumé : Dans cette étude, nous analysons les réponses d'étudiants de premier cycle dans 1 364 enquêtes afin de mieux comprendre les réactions des étudiants à la surveillance en ligne. Nous présentons les résultats concernant deux aspects des réactions des étudiants à la surveillance en ligne : d'une part, nous évaluons si les étudiants pensent que la tricherie dans les examens en ligne diminue la légitimité de leurs cours et, d'autre part, si les étudiants pensent que la surveillance en ligne réduit la tricherie et améliore la légitimité perçue de leurs résultats dans les cours aux yeux des établissements d’enseignement supérieur ou des employeurs. En outre, nous étudions l'interaction entre l'anxiété et ces perceptions des étudiants. Les données recueillies dans le cadre de cette étude confirment que la tricherie réduit la légitimité perçue des cours et que le contrôle en ligne minimise la tricherie et augmente la légitimité perçue des cours. Enfin, les données montrent que lorsqu'on leur a demandé s'ils préféraient passer leurs examens en classe ou avec un système de surveillance en ligne, les étudiants qui ont participé à cette étude ont déclaré qu'ils choisiraient les examens surveillés en ligne.

Mots clés : surveillance en ligne, tricherie, légitimité, anxiété

 

HTML PDF

References

  1. Abdi, H. M., Bageri, S., Shoghi, S., Goodarzi, S., & Hosseinzadeh, A. (2012, November). The role of metacognitive and self-efficacy beliefs in students’ test anxiety and academic achievement. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(12), 418–422. https://www.ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2012/
  2. Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885
  3. Alessio, H., & Maurer, K. (2018). The impact of video proctoring in online courses. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 29(4), 183–192. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1195526
  4. Alin, P., Arendt, A., & Gurell, S. (2023). Addressing cheating in virtual proctored examinations: Toward a framework of relevant mitigation strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2075317
  5. Buchwald, P. (2010). Test anxiety and performance in the framework of the conservation of resources theory. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 283–293.
  6. Cassady, J. C., & Gridley, B. E. (2005). The effects of online formative and summative assessment on test anxiety and performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(1). n1.
  7. Chen, H. (2012). The moderating effects of item order arranged by difficulty on the relationship between test anxiety and test performance. Creative Education, 3(03), 328–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.33052
  8. Claybourn, C. (2024, January 23). How cheating in college hurts students. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-cheating-in-college-hurts-students
  9. Dendir, S., & Stockton Maxwell, R. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033
  10. Driscoll, R. (2007, March 1). Westside Test Anxiety Scale validation. Online Submission. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED495968
  11. Elman, B. A. (1989, October). Imperial politics and Confucian societies in late imperial China: The Hanlin and Donglin Academies. Modern China, 15(4), 379–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009770048901500401
  12. Henderson, M., Chung, J., Awdry, R., Mundy, M., Bryant, M., Ashford, C., & Ryan, K. (2023). Factors associated with online examination cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(7), 980–994.
  13. Honorlock Inc. (2023, May 1). Online proctoring isn’t just for online courses. eCAMPUS NEWS. https://www.ecampusnews.com/teaching-learning/2023/05/01/online-proctoring-isnt-just-for-online-courses/
  14. Jenkins, B. D., Golding, J. M., Le Grand, A. M., Levi, M. M., & Pals, A. M. (2023). When opportunity knocks: College students’ cheating amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching of Psychology, 50(4), 407–419. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/00986283211059067
  15. Kentnor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1), 21–34.
  16. Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170612
  17. Mandler, G., & Sarason, S. B. (1952). A study of anxiety and learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2), 166–173. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0062855
  18. McDonald, A. S. (2001). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 89–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410020019867
  19. Milone, A. S., Cortese, A. M., Balestrieri, R. L., & Pittenger, A. L. (2017). The impact of proctored online exams on the educational experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.037
  20. Musacchio, M. (2022, June 22). How to balance security and student experience with online proctoring. PSI Knowledge Hub. https://www.psiexams.com/knowledge-hub/how-to-balance-security-and-student-experience-with-online-proctoring/
  21. Nicola-Richmond, K., Dawson, P., & Partridge, H. (2024). Online proctored exams: Rhetoric vs reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(2), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2234310
  22. Norris, A. (2021, January 4). Why students should insist on remote test proctoring. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/why-students-should-insist-on-remote-test-proctoring
  23. Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., & Aleksieva, L. (2021, March). Forced introduction of e-assessment during COVID-19 pandemic: How did the students feel about that? (Sofia University case). In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2333, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0041862
  24. Proctorio. (n.d.) Our platform. https://proctorio.com/
  25. Qualtrics. (n.d.). Qualtrics AI + the XM platform. https://www.qualtrics.com/
  26. Rana, R., & Mahmood, N. (2010, December). The relationship between test anxiety and academic achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(2), 63–74.
  27. Salend, S. J. (2012, March 1). Teaching students not to sweat the test. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209300605
  28. Williams, J. B., & First, M. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Encyclopedia of Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104
  29. Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2019). 21st century assessment: Online proctoring, test anxiety, and student performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(1), 1–10. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1106/0
  30. Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2021). Video surveillance of online exam proctoring: Exam anxiety and student performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 36(1), 1–26. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1204
  31. Woldeab, D., Lindsay, T., & Brothen, T. (2017). Under the watchful eye of online proctoring. In I. E. Alexander & R. K. Poch (Eds.), Innovative learning and teaching: Experiments across the disciplines (pp. 147–160). University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.
  32. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. Kluwer Boston.