1. Methods for
Encouraging
Academic Honesty

2. 22
Workshop Objectives
By the end of the workshop, participants will
be able to:
• 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 to minimize cheating.

3. 3
The percentage 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 device to
obtain information during a test
or exam
McCabe, 2005
?

4. 4
McCabe, 2005
20%
The percentage 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 device to
obtain information during a test
or exam

5. 5
70
70%
McCabe, Butterfield & Trevino, 2006
86%
60%
Klein, Levenburg, McKendall & Mothersell, 2007
Rokovski & Levy, 2007
McCabe, 2005
20%

6. 6
70
About 40,000
results

7. 7
70
A majority of students and instructors believe it is
easier to cheat in online courses. Faculty with less experience
teaching online tend to have this mindset.
Kennedy, Nowak, Raghuraman Thomas & Davis, 2000

8. 8
70

9. 9
The Shadow Scholar
By Ed Dante

10. 10
70
Cheating Countermeasures
1. Honor Code/Code of Conduct
2. Course and Assessment Design
3. Proctoring (both human and web-based)
4. Other Technology

11. 11
70
Burns, 2009; Mastin, Peszka & Lilly, 2009; McCabe & Pavela, 2004
1. 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.

12. 12
70
Simkin & McLeod, 2010
1. Honor Code/Codes of Conduct
Evidence
• Students who do not cheat state
that the presence of a
“moral anchor,” such as an
ethical professor, is important.

13. 13
70
Harmon, Lambrinos & Buffolino, 2010; McCabe & Pavela, 2004; Rowe, 2004;
Sibbernsen, 2009
2. 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

14. 14
70
Harmon, Lambrinos, 2008
3. Proctoring (human)
Evidence
• Research indicates that cheating
was taking placing in the
online environment; instances
of cheating were minimized
by employing proctored
online exams.

15. 15
70
Mizra & Staples, 2010
Blackboard Partner Solutions3. Proctoring (web)
Evidence
• A majority of study
participants felt that web
proctoring was effective
in preventing cheating.
• Respondus Lockdown Browser
• Digital Proctor
• iParadigms (Turnitin)
• Kryterion
• Proctor U
• Software Secure
• Respondus Monitor

16. 16
70• SafeAssign
• Timed tests
• Auto submit
• Use of question pools and random blocks
• Randomized answer choices
• Test availability exceptions
• Feedback options
• Adaptive release
• Mark reviewed
4. Other Technology
Features within Blackboard

17. 17
70Identify Verification Management
• Acxiom
• Biometric Signature ID
• CSIdentity Corporation
• Digital Proctor
• Fischer International Security
• Incita S.L.
• iParadigms (Turnitin)
• Kryterion
• Omnibond
4. Other Technology
Blackboard Partner Solutions

18. 18
70
Academic Dishonesty Prevention Plan
• Assessment strategy
• Participant level
• Resources
• Time
• Importance of results
• Technological skill set
• Instructor knowledge
• Institutional support and policies

19. 1919
• 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 to minimize cheating.
• Select at least one appropriate technological approach
and one appropriate non-technological approach for
minimizing cheating.
Let’s Review

20. 20
Burns, C. M. (2009). Sold! Web-Based Auction Sites Have Just Compromised Your Test Bank. Nurse Educator, 34(3), 95-96.
Dante, E. (2010). The shadow scholar. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12.
Facts About Plagiarism. (n.d.) Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_facts.html
Harmon, O. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat?. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(2),
116-125.
Harmon, O. R., Lambrinos, J., & Buffolino, J. (2010). Assessment design and cheating risk in online instruction. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3).
Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007). Cheating during the college years: How do
business school students compare?. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 197-206.
Mastin, D. F., Peszka, J., & Lilly, D. R. (2009). Online academic integrity. Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 174-178.
McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. (2004). Ten (updated) principles of academic integrity: How faculty can foster student
honesty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(3), 10-15.
McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International
Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1), 10-11.
References

21. 21
References
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 & Education, 5(3), 294-305.
Mirza, N., & Staples, E. (2010). Webcam as a new invigilation method: students' comfort and potential for cheating. The
Journal of nursing education, 49(2), 116.
Rakovski, C. C., & Levy, E. S. (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, 7(2).
Sibbernsen, K. (2008). Online academic integrity. Astronomy Education Review, 7, 98.
Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). 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).

22. 2222
Questions?
Thank
You!