ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND TECHNOLOGY 1

Sullivan (2016) is testing the ability of asynchronous assessments to be free of academic

dishonesty while also keeping the autonomy and freedom of the course structure. A main focus

of the study is how to have strong safeguards against academic dishonesty without effecting

performance anxieties, assessment effectiveness, and workplace efficiency (Sullivan, 2016). The

study was conducted with a Canvas quiz that pulled from multiple test banks to create a

multitude of possible quiz combinations. The MBA students were given two quizzes which could

be retaken up to five times; a survey followed the quiz. The survey asked agree-disagree

statements about academic dishonesty, effectiveness, anxiety, and engagement. The most

important findings were that 90.7% of students responded that since they could retake the quiz, it

was not worth cheating (Sullivan, 2016). Also, 56.3% responded that it would not have been

easy to cheat on the Canvas quiz (Sullivan, 2016). Student engagement was also improved and

anxiety was lowered due to quiz setup and delivery. Student learning and understanding

increased by retaking the quizzes.

The findings are significant because students come into the quiz not wanting to cheat;

they know they have retakes available and taking away another distraction or stress on the

student during the quiz improves effectiveness. Also, with students knowing it will not be easy to

cheat, gives them another reason to not try in the first place. Creating my assessments this way

will affect instruction positively because I think students will be more focused on retaining the

material than memorizing answers. This also connects to testing anxiety because students will

not be worried about finding answers or failing, they can just retake the quiz. What I can take

away and apply to my instructional practice is that retakes and online testing are great as long as

there is a large test bank of questions, students know the format of the quizzes, and that students

are allowed to review material between attempts.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND TECHNOLOGY 2

References

Sullivan, D. P. (2016). An integrated approach to preempt cheating on asynchronous, objective,

online assessments in graduate business classes. Online Learning, 20(3), 195–209.

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&

AN=EJ1113346&site=eds-live