implications and perspectives on cheating

COPYRIGHT © 2011. Digital Proctor Inc. | CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Implications and Perspectives on Cheating

COPYRIGHT © 2011. Digital Proctor Inc. | CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2

Troubling Statistics

• Out of every 1,000 students at your

campus, 750 have admitted to

cheating, 15 have been caught and

only 7 have received any kind of

academic penalty.*

• An unwinnable battle?

*According to studies done by Josephson Institute of Ethics


The Stereotypical Cheater Profiles

Soci

al G

roup

s

Beha

vior

s


There is a gap between what we know about

cheater profiles and what institutions do to

reduce the incidence of cheating.


Three types of students

5

Group 1Always Honest

Group 2Habitual Cheaters


Three types of students

6

• Attitude• Perception• Extrinsic Motivators

Group 3Situational Cheaters


Virtual Classroom

7


The Cheating Virus

8


The Cheating Virus

9


The Cheating Virus

10


The Cheating Virus

11


Life-Long Implications of Cheating

Students who are dishonest in

class are more likely to engage

in fraud and theft when they

enter the workplace.

Sarath Nonis and Cathy Owens Swift, "An Examination of the Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty”, Journal of Business Education 77, no. 2, (November-December 2001), 69-77.

Sims, R.L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207-211


Life-Long Implications of Cheating

Students who cheat cannot perform roles for which they were hired.


Degree Dilution

Bernard, E. W. (2002). Academic Dishonesty: An Educators Guide. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc Publishers 5-8.

Academic dishonesty hurts

general employability and

the potential for promotions.


Cheating Impacts Your Institution

• Reputation

• Lower quality faculty and

students

• Donations suffer


Faculty Beliefs About Cheating

43%

28%

15%11%

3%

OccasionallyOftenVery OftenRarelyNo Response

86% believe students cheat at least occasionally!


The enforcement factor (an analogy)

15%

85%

SeatbeltsNo Seatbelts• Education Only (1984)

• Local, county and state campaigns, increase

national seat belt usage to 15%



• Education Only (1984)• Local, county and state campaigns, increase


• Education + Mild Enforcement (1990)• “Secondary safety seat belt laws” passes in 38

states. National usage rate climbs to 50%

50%50%

SeatbeltsNo Seatbelts



• Education Only (1984)• Local, county and state campaigns, increase


• Education + Mild Enforcement (1990)• “Secondary safety seat belt laws” passes in 38

states. National usage rate climbs to 50%

• Education + “Click It or Ticket” (2004)• Today, all States participate in Click It or Ticket

each year. National usage rates hits 79% 79%

21%

SeatbeltsNo Seatbelts


Our belief

20

• We believe in an academic environment that not only removes opportunities to cheat but

focuses on developing a personal value system that demands ethical behavior in the

student.

Every level of the institution is invested in creating this intrinsic change.


How we help institutions

Cheating Analytics

•Which students are cheating?

•Which courses?

•Which assignments?

We are not a webcam company!


•Student Identity Verification

•Plagiarism 2.0

•Collusion

How we help institutions

Cheating Analytics

We are not a webcam company!


Shaun [email protected]

m(512) 921-6138

implications and perspectives on cheating

Education

types of students

habitual cheaters

incidence of cheating

situational cheaters

kind of academic penalty

josephson institute

unwinnable battle

troubling statisticsout