Click here to view the video transcript
Well, the research is really interesting because it was conducted over the last 30 years, primarily, before the pandemic and the abrupt shift to remote instruction. So what we know about the research prior to the pandemic was that there was not necessarily any more or less cheating in online learning environments compared to in-person environments. However, it’s important to note that the research conducted at that time with online learners was with a different population than who became online learners during the pandemic.
So before, people chose online learning. They chose whether they were going to go to a virtual university or an in-person university. They could choose whether they were going to take a remote class or an online class or not. And the students who tended to choose, say, fully virtual universities tended to be older working adults who were doing their degrees part-time, not the traditional-age undergraduate students that we typically have in our brick and mortar institutions, the 17 to 21 year olds. And so none of our students, for those of us who are traditionally brick and mortar, chose to be remote distance or online learners and that makes a big difference. And so it’s challenging to know from that research whether we should have expected more or less cheating during the pandemic.
Prior to the pandemic, the research suggested that incidences of cheating were broadly the same in online and in-person settings. However, ‘traditional’ online learning environments attracted a different type of student than the in-person learning environments, primarily older, working professionals who chose online learning. During the pandemic, traditionally in-person instruction shifted to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) and Emergency Remote Learning (ERL), which meant that students who didn’t choose to learn in a virtual setting were now required to. The lack of proctoring arguably led to an increase in exam and contract cheating.
Click here to view the video transcript
We know from the research on academic integrity, whether we’re looking at online remote environments, hybrid classroom environments, or in-person classroom environments that there are three theories that are essential to teaching with and for integrity.
The first one, our first set of theories, are motivational theories. So we actually know that a lot of students are extrinsically motivated. They’re motivated to get the grades, to get the degree, to get the job. Although as children we started off very intrinsically motivated to learn, it’s just a natural curiosity when we’re children to learn, the school system, which also tends to be extrinsically oriented or performance orientated because it emphasises test scores, and grades, and degree attainment reinforces this extrinsic motivation for students and we know that that is more likely to lead to cheating, whereas intrinsic motivation is more likely to lead to learning and therefore integrity.
The second set of theories we might just call learning theories. Pedagogical and assessment design that is focused on superficial or rote levels of learning are going to reinforce in students that superficial or surface approach to their education. This is more likely to lead to cheating than a mastery oriented classroom which focuses students on learning or achieving certain learning objectives and specifically certain learning objectives for each assessment or activity in which they are engaged. Surface learning is more conducive to cheating. Mastery learning is more conducive to integrity.
And of course students are people and so they are also shaped by their environment, and in particular they’re shaped by what their peers are doing or what they perceive their peers are doing. And if they perceive or see their peers cheating, they are more likely to cheat even though they know that integrity is the type of quality that they want to have. So there’s a moral thought action gap that students might experience based on the environment surrounding them. And we’re really good, we as in human beings and so students as well, are really good at rationalising, neutralising, and justifying their behaviours to make us feel like we still have integrity even while we’re doing something that is unethical or immoral.
We know from the research that whether we are teaching in-person, online or hybrid, there are some common theories essential to teaching with and for integrity:
A – Motivational Theories. Students who are extrinsically motivated (i.e., focused on grades; completing assignments) are more likely to cheat than those who are intrinsically motivated (i.e., focused on learning). We also know that if the classroom is extrinsically oriented (e.g., the teacher is focused on helping students ‘get points’, or ‘make up credit’ or giving points away for things not connected to learning), students will respond in kind and be more likely to cheat than if they are in an intrinsically oriented (i.e., focused on learning or mastery) class.
B – Learning Theories. Pedagogy and assessment design that is superficial, rote, or artificial, shapes students who stay at the surface level of learning rather than delving deep into mastery. Surface level approaches to learning are more conducive to cheating; mastery is more conducive to integrity. Pedagogy and assessment design that is geared towards mastery (e.g., active learning; scaffolded learning; multiple low/no stakes attempts) are more conducive to integrity than cheating.
C – Moral reasoning. People are shaped by their environment, and in particular what they perceive others are doing and what they actually see others do. If students perceive or know that other students are cheating, they are more likely to cheat even when they know it’s wrong – in other words, there’s a moral thought-action gap. Because people are so good at rationalising, neutralising, and justifying their actions, this gap can exist without creating any cognitive dissonance for the actor.
Discussions
What good examples have you seen of the three theories in practice?
Please share your thoughts and questions in the comments section below.