It is widely accepted in literature that this is a significant threat, as the education establishment is unable to control the conditions in which exams are taken (Cluskey et al. 2011; Yates and Beaudrie, 2009; Lanier, 2006). However, the potential for cheating does not necessarily mean it is occurring. The research by Yates and Beaudrie, (2009) compared the results achieved by students who were assessed within a proctored environment, and students who undertook non-proctor and assessment online. The results were interesting, comparing 406 traditional students, with 444 online students, the research indicated that there was no significant difference in the grades that were achieved, arguing that this does not substantiate the worries found in other literature that cheating is taking place. The assessment is utilized argued that online testing is a viable approach. However, it maybe argued that this conclusion has a significant flaw, as an underlying assumption is that similar results indicate a general compatibility, if the students taking the online courses may have demonstrated a naturally low-grade, the correlation may be the result of increased seating, raising the scores to a coincidental level. Furthermore, the authors themselves recognize that the results are only reflective of a single educational establishment from which all of the students were drawn, possibly reflecting the specific culture for that organization. Lanier, (2006) found results the conflicted with those of Yates and Beaudrie, (2009), demonstrating that cheating was more widespread in the online...
The problem this poses is that while the majority students may be honest, significant levels of cheating students will impact on the overall academic integrity of results gained by all students, and the educational institution itself. Cluskey (et al. 2011) argues that while there is a great potential for cheating, this can be minimized with a number of control measures. One option may be the use of remote proctor, but the cost associated with this may be prohibitive. Instead, basic measures may be implemented by colleges or universities in order to increase the potential for honesty, which may reduce the potential for cheating. When assessments are undertaken in an environment where there is no direct control, there will always be some risks, but with a number of controls in place, in maybe argued that the potential benefits of increasing accessibility may balance the risks, as long as organizations are aware of the risks and seek to counteract them.
References
Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2009: pp. 1 -- 14
Cluskey, G.R. Jr.; Ehlen, Craig R; Raiborn, Mitchell H, (2011), Thwarting online exam cheating without proctor supervision, Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 4, 1-7.
Lanier, Mark M, (2006), Academic Integrity and Distance Learning, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 244-261
Yates, Ronald W; Beaudrie, Brian, (2009), the Impact of Online Assessment on…
