Factors associated with online examination cheating
Abstract
Online examinations are a common experience in higher education. Their security is a key concern for education communities, and has resulted in a variety of cheating countermeasures. There is broad consensus in the literature that there is no one measure, including proctoring, which eradicates cheating behaviours. As a result, this study is exploratory, seeking to add to our understanding of the range of factors that may interact with frequency of cheating behaviour in online examinations. This large-scale study (N = 7839) is based in one Australian university which pivoted to online examinations during the 2021 Covid-19 lockdowns. Students who reported cheating (n = 216) revealed a wide range of factors that may have influenced their behaviours. A key observation is that cheating, although less frequent than reported elsewhere, occurred regardless of the security measure, assessment design, examination condition, and across the spectrum of student demographic variables. However, there were statistically significant differences in relation to frequency of cheating according to certain demographics, examination conditions, motivations, attitudes and perceptions. Although some forms of proctoring did demonstrate reduced frequencies in self-reported cheating, they are demonstrably incomplete solutions due to the complexity of other variables.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The COVID-19 pandemic caused an increase in the detected number of academic dishonesty cases.
“the COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increase in both the detected number of academic dishonesty cases (Henderson et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2022; Lancaster & Cotarlan, 2021)”
From Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond (2023) · cites this paper as Henderson et al., 2022
Cites
Good proctor or “big brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities
Selwyn, N., O’Neill, C., Smith, G., Andrejevic, M., & Gu, X. (2023) · Media International Australia · doi:10.1177/1329878x211005862 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Student Academic Dishonesty: The Potential for Situational Prevention
Hodgkinson, T., Curtis, H., MacAlister, D., & Farrell, G. (2016) · Journal of Criminal Justice Education · doi:10.1080/10511253.2015.1064982 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
“Cheating in HEIs is a longstanding issue and has been compounded by the online modality, with faculty facing significant barriers to effectively countering dishonest practices [12,13].”
- Authors
- Henderson, M., Chung, J., Awdry, R., Mundy, M., Bryant, M., Ashford, C., & Ryan, K.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Henderson, Michael
- ORCID
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-11-11
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 980-994
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W4309074924
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 8.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- online examinations, academic integrity, proctoring, assessment security, student demographics, student motivation, student attitudes, COVID-19 lockdown, higher education assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review