Content uploaded by Cynthia C. Barnes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cynthia C. Barnes on Jul 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
AN ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY TECHNIQUES
USED IN ONLINE COURSES AT A SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
Cynthia Barnes
Lamar University
P.O. Box 10033
Beaumont, TX 77710
(409) 880-8049
cynthia.barnes@lamar.edu
Beverly L. Paris
Lamar University
P.O. Box 10033
Beaumont, TX 77710
(409) 223-3636
blparis@my.lamar.edu
ABSTRACT
The trend of universities offering online courses is popular today. While students love the
convenience that online courses offer, instructors are concerned with ensuring that academic
integrity is maintained. Research suggests that students are using multiple ways to degrade the
integrity of the course. While unethical methods have been used for years in traditional classes,
it appears that online courses may be more susceptible to violations of academic integrity unless
the instructor implements techniques to prevent these incidents from occurring. The purpose of
this research was to analyze the academic integrity techniques used by instructors of online
courses at a southern university.
Keywords: academic integrity techniques, online classes, cheating, unethical behavior
INTRODUCTION: THE CHALLENGES OF TEACHING ONLINE COURSES
Ask any instructor who has never taught an online course what their major concern would be if
they were to teach one and they most likely would say “maintaining academic integrity of the
course.” Another likely concern of these instructors would be the many different ways students
can misrepresent themselves online. This can occur if the student enrolled has someone else take
their exam or complete their assignments. In fact, this concern about academic dishonesty was
so prevalent that the Federal government addressed this online issue in the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 [12].
Changes affecting distance education are found in Title 1 and Title IV, part H of the act:
“Recognition of Accrediting Agencies.” It states that accrediting agencies must require
institutions that offer distance education to have processes to establish that the student who
registers is the same student who participates in and completes the work and gets the academic
credit. However, this act does not clearly address the problem of student cheating. But
concerns about the lack of face-to-face faculty-student interactions have forced online and
distance education providers to continuously examine their programs and develop sophisticated
approaches to ensure the academic integrity of their programs [4].
The problem of academic dishonesty
While there has been disagreement as to whether more academic dishonesty occurs in online
classes compared to traditional classes, there is agreement that cheating on exams or assignments
has always occurred, regardless of how the class is delivered [4] [5] [6] [10].
Some authors believe that our culture contributes to academic dishonesty. Kitahara and
Westfall [7] write about a growing problem in online courses in which students cheat on exams
and assignments, then seek redress for wrongs against them when they are caught. “The
McDonald’s generation expects everything now and they don’t want to work for it. They want it
short and quick.” According to research Kitahara [7] has surveyed, up to 75 percent of students
report engaging in some form of academic dishonesty. Gomez [3] reported that many students
view cheating as a victimless crime, and that students feel it’s no big deal to cheat. McCabe [11,
p. 304] reported that “graduate students in general are cheating at an alarming rate, and business
school students are cheating even more than others.” According to Boehm et. al., [1, p. 10],
academic dishonesty costs institutions administrative time, loss of integrity within the school,
and student lack of respect for ethics and values. Faculty members point to a failure of
institutional leadership to establish integrity standards and practices across campus.
The purpose of this research was to investigate what instructors are doing to maintain academic
integrity in online courses in a regional university in the south. Different approaches and
strategies will be discussed which could be used to deter academic dishonesty specifically when
teaching online courses.
Boundaries of the research
An overview of techniques used by other universities to maintain academic integrity will be
presented, but the primary research conducted will focus only on academic integrity techniques
used by online instructors at Lamar University, a regional university located in southeast Texas.
This paper will not discuss the reasons why students engage in unethical behavior, the methods
that they use to cheat or misrepresent themselves, nor will it compare online cheating to
traditional cheating in face-to-face classes. The paper will only focus on methods of preventing
academic dishonesty and methods of maintaining academic integrity in online courses.
Data gathering methods used
Both primary and secondary research sources were used for this research. A letter explaining the
survey was emailed to 120 instructors asking for their participation in this important research
project. A link was contained in the letter indicating where the survey could be found and
completed. The purpose of the survey was to find out what techniques, if any, these instructors
used when teaching their online courses. The survey consisted of 25 questions in close-ended
format. Approximately 25 percent of the instructors completed the survey.
Secondary research came from written and electronic sources. Any sources cited in the paper
are listed at the end in the References section.
AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES THAT CAN BE USED TO MAINTAIN ACADEMIC
INTEGRITY IN ONLINE COURSES
There are several methods of providing security that will increase academic integrity in online
courses [1] [3] [4] [5] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [15]. This paper will classify these methods as
Prevention and Compliance Strategies.
PREVENTION STRATEGIES FOR ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Use of multiple assessment techniques instead of major exams
Many online instructors use multi-faceted assessment strategies in place of major exams that are
proctored [3]. These assessments are designed to be frequent, varied, and authentic to what is
being taught. Instructors rely on interactive discussions, writing assignments, quizzes, capstone
projects, group work, and online exams. These assessments are usually changed from semester
to semester.
Greater reliance on written assignments and threaded discussions
Students can demonstrate knowledge of material through written assignments and interaction
with the instructor via discussions. Instructors become familiar with students’ writing styles
through online discussions. The use of discussion boards allow students to share their ideas in a
safe forum regardless of time and distance constraints. Discussion boards may also contribute to
the formation of a positive relationship between instructor and student, and research shows that
students who believe they have this sort of relationship are less likely to engage in academic
dishonesty [10].
Use of test banks and timed test delivery
Tests questions are randomly drawn from banks of questions, so each student gets a different set
of questions. The sequence of questions are randomized, along with the answer choices for each
question. Most exams are designed to be open-book, but once a student begins an exam, they
have a limited amount of time to complete it, and usually have only one attempt. Some
instructors design the exam to show only one question at a time [8]. The rationale for timing the
exams or assignments would be that students who are knowledgeable about the material and
have studied the prior concepts would be able to complete the exam/assignment in a reasonable
amount of time, while those who were not knowledgeable would not have enough time to look
up answers in the textbook or have someone not enrolled in the course complete the
exam/assignment for them [14]. This eliminates much of the possible cheating that may occur
during exam time.
Raising awareness among students about what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate
academic behavior in an online course
Many cases of academic dishonesty arise from students’ lack of awareness, such as when it is
okay and not okay to collaborate on coursework. Many instructors now include in course syllabi
a college’s academic integrity statement and a link to campus policies; a description of academic
dishonesty and information on the consequences for academic dishonesty; links to plagiarism
information as well as acceptable sources, and descriptions of permissible and non-permissible
collaboration. Some colleges even use an honor code approach where students discuss and agree
upon honor codes for courses and the use of ethical decision-making case studies as a part of the
curriculum.
COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES FOR ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Plagiarism detection software and browser lockdowns
Plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin.com, can be used for both written assignments
and class discussion. The instructor can simply cut and paste a discussion board post or any
written work into the software. Some instructors use browser lock-down software so the student
cannot open additional screens during an exam [4]. A disadvantage of this is that the student
could have another computer running, but experience has shown that if the student is not familiar
with the material, it is very difficult to demonstrate the learning outcomes.
Experienced instructors know one key to recognizing cheating or plagiarism is to become
familiar with a student’s writing style. A paper or exam that is far above the student’s usual
ability level alerts the instructor to possible dishonesty [9]. More than 50 percent of the online
instructors surveyed at Lamar University cited user dissatisfaction and lack of effectiveness
(defined on the survey as “does not adequately monitor users or their behaviors”) as potential
problems for this security method. All of the instructors of online classes said they felt cost
would not be a constraint with this method. In fact, almost 50 percent of the respondents used
discussion sessions when teaching their online courses, although not for the purpose of detecting
plagiarism. They used it primarily to start a dialogue with students on a specific topic of the
course and to add a little more structure to the class.
Physical proctoring centers for exam delivery
If a course is designed to include major exams, then physical (human) proctoring may be
appropriate and required. However, most online courses are not designed this way [4]. Physical
proctoring in many ways defeats the purpose of distance learning and, for many students, it
would be impractical for students to get to the proctored site. Instructors recognize this fact, and
83 percent of Lamar University’s online instructors who completed the survey stated that they
felt this method was not feasible because of the distance involved for many of the online
students.
Remote proctoring devices
An example of this is found at Troy University where online students are required to purchase a
monitoring device that connects to their computer and “watches” them take an exam [7]. It
requires periodic finger-print scanning, and turns on a microphone and 360-degree camera if
noise or movement thresholds are reached. Students buy these devices for $150 through the
online bookstore. The use of these devices is an expensive option for students, especially those
taking only a single course, as well as for many institutions due to the associated costs of
maintaining security for student biometric data. And this technique would place a heavy
emphasis on testing, which could affect the richness of the learning environment.
Almost 90 percent of the Lamar instructors surveyed indicated that the primary problem would
be the cost associated with purchasing the remote proctoring equipment. An additional
hindrance to this option would be user dissatisfaction, as stated by 48 percent of all of the
instructors who responded to the survey. Also, if a student had to move from one computer to
another to complete the course material, the hardware would not be readily accessible.
Using a webcam is another form of remote proctoring. A webcam is a camera attached to the
student’s computer that can transmit video images in real time and can allow the instructors to
monitor tests and communicate with the students. “Several online universities have been using
webcams for some time now – with good results” [2]. According to the Director of Distance
Learning at Lamar University, currently, the only hardware device used is the web cam, but only
a few instructors require students to use it [12]. The reason more instructors at Lamar don’t use
webcams when offering their online classes is because of cost and privacy issues, according to
more than 50 percent of the survey participants. Additionally, 40 percent of these participants
also cited lack of effectiveness and user dissatisfaction as other problems with this device.
Western Governors University in Salt Lake City uses a different type of online proctoring. One
of the most interesting aspects of WGU’s online proctoring system (OLP) is its “keystrokes
analytics,” used as a biometric that ensures that the person taking the exam is the same
throughout the exam, and that this person is the same as the one registered under that name for
subsequent tests or assignments. “It turns out that typing is more unique than fingerprints” [10].
The OLP program measures the keystroke rhythms of a given user, creating a profile of that
user’s typing patterns.
Other student identity technologies
Large companies that provide data security for the banking industry have data mining systems
that are being used in online courses. Students are asked multiple choice questions about their
personal history, such as last street address, name of high school, or mother’s maiden name. The
student must answer the personal question in order to proceed with an assessment or assignment,
and such questions may also appear randomly during an exam. Nearly two-thirds of the
respondents at Lamar felt that the main problem with this method was lack of effectiveness,
where the method does not successfully monitor users or their behavior. And 48 percent had
concerns with reliability of the information from the source who was answering the questions.
Instructors in some universities require a pre-registration process so that students enrolled in
online classes can be verified throughout the semester when audio, video or written information
is exchanged between the student and instructor [7]. This verification would involve using
hardware connected to each student’s computer with the main purpose being used for monitoring
and identification purposes. Some scanners can be connected to a campus network, capturing
data on a user from an initial interaction, then sending that data to a central database that runs the
comparison, grants or denies access, and returns a red- or green-light message back to the
scanner itself. This latter approach is used by institutions that wish to monitor which users are
accessing a certain scanner. Biometric technology uses unique biological properties to identify
individual users in a confined group. Since no two humans have the same handprints,
fingerprints, or retinal impressions, these are the characteristics that best lend themselves to be
used as identifiers [15].
Another method of verifying student identity is the fingerprint scanner. Students who are
enrolled in online classes may pay other students to take their classes for them. The fingerprint
scanners would require the pre-registered students to validate their identities by scanning their
fingerprints on the scanners upon sign-in and/or at random intervals [6]. Of those instructors
who participated in the survey, 91 percent cited cost as the main problem associated with this
hardware. Conversely, 4 percent considered this equipment to have too many disadvantages
associated with it due to possibly being incompatible with other technology and techniques.
Another way to verify student identity is by using microphones. “…many programs are now
available for recording and transmitting audio. Students in an online course can be required to
complete all or part of an exam or assessment orally and then send the file in some manner to the
instructor” [9]. While 40 percent of survey participants felt that this would not be an effective
way to communicate, the number was slightly higher for instructors who cited user
dissatisfaction as the most common disadvantage with this communication method. User
dissatisfaction was defined as “not a method students or instructors feel is convenient,
comfortable, or useful.”
The last technique discussed for verifying student identity is the retinal scanner, which is a
device that uses a low-intensity light ray to scan the iris in the eye [15]. That scan would be used
to identify the students upon logging in to the online class so the instructor would be certain the
students participating in the class are who they are supposed to be, based on the information
gathered during the pre-registration process. Since there is no way to reproduce a human eye
with technology, this method would undoubtedly be one of the best at providing security, but the
cost, according to 87 percent of the survey participants, would far outweigh the benefits that
would be realized by this technology.
In summary, all of these methods would deter academic dishonesty and would probably be used
more than they are now, if not for the cost involved. However, some techniques don’t cost
anything to use (i.e. multiple assessment techniques, discussion boards, and timing the test). The
webcam was the only technique used by a small number of instructors at Lamar University. In
reality, most students enrolled in online courses do not come to campus to take exams or submit
projects where one set of monitoring devices is used. Therefore, if the students enrolled in these
classes are scattered around the world, it would not be feasible to require that each student
purchase a combination of these devices in order to maintain integrity of an online course.
CONCLUSIONS
It is important to note that even if an institution implements all of the techniques mentioned in
this paper, a student who is determined to cheat will still probably find a way to do so. Of the
online instructors surveyed, more than 60 percent felt that academic dishonesty and unethical
practices were not more prevalent in online classes than in traditional clases. Little research has
been conducted to compare the cheating behaviors of on-campus and online students. However,
the Lamar instructors who were surveyed saw no difference between the two delivery styles
concerning academic dishonesty: students who were inclined to cheat would do so, regardless
of the delivery style (face-to-face or online). However, 71 percent of the respondents agreed
that the way the exams and assignments were designed (and if they were timed), could deter
much of the dishonest behavior of students enrolled in online courses.
Currently, online instructors at Lamar University are using few techniques to maintain academic
integrity. The findings revealed that 64 percent of Lamar University’s online faculty is not using
any of the techniques mentioned in this paper, other than some course management features
found in Blackboard (timed exams) and some instructors requiring the use of a web cam.
However, several of the methods mentioned in this paper improve communication between the
students and instructors, which helps to increase student satisfaction taking online courses. As
pointed out, many techniques are available for improving academic integrity in online courses;
however, various factors deter their use, such as cost or inconvenience.
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations are proposed to promote academic integrity in online courses:
1. Make information about academic integrity easy to find for both face-to-face and online
students. This information could be found on the university’s web site, course website, on
the syllabus, and within assignment specifics.
2. Make use of discussion boards in every online course. Ask students to reflect on the academic
integrity policy and how it relates to education in a discussion board assignment.
3. Compare student writing on the discussion board with that on assignments; a writing
sample collected at the beginning of the semester can be helpful.
4. Use a plagiarism detection service.
5. Give each student a different version of the exam. Change exam questions each semester.
6. Time all exams.
7. Lock down the student’s browser during testing.
8. Use proctored test sites where appropriate.
9. If feasible, require the use of web cams in online courses. The cost is not prohibitive for
using them and academic integrity would definitely be improved with the use of these
devices.
Online instructors should work diligently to maintain a quality educational environment, despite
the challenges presented in teaching online classes. The goal for any university should be to
provide the best quality education to a growing number of students who want to take their classes
online. Employers want to hire graduates who are knowledgeable, ethical, and honest. If there
are few integrity techniques used in online classes, will graduates meet employer expectations?
REFERENCES
[1] Boehm, P., Justice, M. and Weeks, S. (2009). “Promoting academic integrity in
higher education.” The Community College Enterprise, 15(1) 45-61.
[2] DistanceLearningAdvisor.com (2009). “Online cheating a big problem?”
Retrieved April 5, 2012 from http://distancelearningadvisor.com/2009/03/online-
cheating-a-big-problem.
[3] Gomez, D. (2001). “Putting the shame back in student cheating.” Education Digest,
67(4), 1-6.
[4] Hill, C. (2010). “Student authentication: what are your duties under the HEA
reauthorization?” Promoting academic integrity in online education,
www.facultyfocus.com.
[5] Hill, C. (2010). “A chink in our armor: can technology provide a true online
proctored exam?” Promoting academic integrity in online education,
www.facultyfocus.com.
[6] Howell, S. (2010). “The news about cheating for distance educators.” Promoting
academic integrity in online education, www.facultyfocus.com.
[7] Kitahara, R. T. & Westfall, F. (2009). “A problem of core values: academic
integrity in distance learning.” Distance Education Report.
[8] Larkin, C. and Francis, A. (2012). “Academic integrity and plagiarism.”
International Journal of Business, Humanities, and Technology, 2(1), 1-7.
[9] Lathrop, A. and Foss, K. (2005). Guiding Students from Cheating and Plagiarism
to Honesty and Integrity: Strategies for Change. Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited, 221.
[10] Lorenzetti, J. (2010). “Combating online dishonesty with communities of integrity.”
Promoting academic integrity in online education. www.facultyfocus.com
[11] McCabe, D., Butterfield, K., and Trevino, L. (2006). “Academic dishonesty in
graduate business programs: prevalence, causes, and proposed action.” Academy
of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294-305.
[12] Nichols, P. (2008) Personal Interview, Director of Distance Education, Lamar
University.
[13] US Department of Education (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008.
Retrieved December 27, 2012 from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.
[14] Varvel, V. E. Jr. (2005). “Honesty in online education.” 6 (1). Retrieved
July 19, 2011 from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/pointersclickers/2005_01/
VarvelCheatPoint2005.pdf.
[15] Villano, M. (2004). “BioSecurity comes of age: retina, hand, and fingerprint scanners
are emerging as new solutions to access and authentication concerns.” University
Business. Retrieved March 15, 2012 from
http://www.softwaresecure.com/pdf/Boimetrics_081704_.pdf