CHEATING IN ONLINE LEARNING PROGRAMS: LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND SOLUTIONS

Year 2022, Volume: 23 Issue: 1, 195 - 209, 01.01.2022

Mohammadreza Valızadeh

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1050394

Cited By: 17

Abstract

This study aimed at highlighting the Turkish higher education learners’ perceptions of cheating on online learning programs, the ways of, causes for, and some suggestions to minimize cheating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from 163 online learners via a questionnaire including both open-ended and close-ended questions. Data from the close-ended items in the questionnaire were analyzed in terms of frequencies and percentages of the responses using SPSS 22. The open-ended questions were analyzed thematically and manually. Over half of the respondents believed that cheating is more frequent and easier in an online course and they take this opportunity. They cheated by ‘using online sources like Google to copy and paste the answers’, ‘consulting with others, and ‘using personal class notes or coursebook’. They cheated because of ‘lack of knowledge’, ‘getting higher marks’, ‘some technical problems’, ‘no proctoring’, and ‘exam stress’. To prevent cheating the respondents suggested that universities should disable the copy and paste features. Teachers should create different quizzes for each student, require all students to start their webcam during the online test, use alternative methods of assessment, prepare essay like thought-provoking questions, and create awareness of the problem. However, some students clearly stated that nothing can be done either due to some technical infrastructure problems or even lazy teachers.

Keywords

Cheating, learner perceptions, online distance learning, virtual/online classes, online exams

References

• Alemdar, M. (2020, December 25). A Turkish university sends every student a mirror to cheat-proof exams. TRT World. Retrieved from https://www.trtworld.com/life/a-turkish-university-sends-every- student-a-mirror-to-cheat-proof-exams-42684
• Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 5–22. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237143888_A_Review_of_Benefits_and_ Limitations_of_Online_Learning_in_the_Context_of_the_Student_the_Instructor_and_the_ Tenured_Faculty/link/5c0741efa6fdcc315f9de15a/download
• Arnold, I. J. M. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.001
• Arnold, R., Martin, B. N., & Bigby, L. (2007). Is there a relationship between honor codes and academic dishonesty? Journal of College and Character, 8(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940- 1639.1164
• Bedford, D. W., Gregg, J., & Clinton, S. (2009). Implementing technology to prevent online cheating: A case study at a small southern regional university (SSRU). MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 230–238. Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/ gregg_0609.pdf
• Bedford, D. W., Gregg, J. R., & Clinton, M. S. (2011). Preventing online cheating with technology: A pilot study of remote proctor and an update of its use. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11(2), 41–58. Retrieved from http://m.www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/BedfordWeb.pdf
• Best, L. M., & Shelley, D. J. (2018). Academic dishonesty: Does social media allow for increased and more sophisticated levels of student cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2018070101
• Black, E. W., Greaser, J., & Dawson, K. (2019). Academic dishonesty in traditional and online classrooms: Does the “media equation” hold true? Online Learning, 12(3–4), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.24059/ olj.v12i3-4.1681
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Burns, C. M. (2009). Sold! Web-based auction sites have just compromised your test bank. Nurse Educator, 34(3), 95–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e3181a18c25