LEVEL OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY ON ONLINE EXAMINATIONS

OF BEED – III STUDENTS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

An Undergraduate Thesis
presented to The Faculty of College of Teacher Education
Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges – Marbel Inc.
Koronadal City

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Elementary Education - Generalist

MERVIN N. GARDOSE

October 2021
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With boundless love and appreciation, we would like to extend our heartfelt
gratitude and appreciation to following individuals for their steadfast support,
contributions to the preparation and help us bring this study into reality.

We would like to extend our profound gratitude to the following:

To Albert P. Balongoy, PhD, who expertise, ample time spent and

consistent advices that helped this study into success.
To my groupmates, for their constructive comments, suggestions and
critiquing.
To those students who allowed us to conduct interview and
answered our questions.
To validators and thesis committee.
To the family, especially, parents, brothers and sisters who greatly inspired and

motivated the writers. The researchers thank them for inspiring and motivating to

continue and finish the study.

Lastly, to our Almighty God; Who gave us strength, courage and consistent

guidance in making this study possible.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING…………………….………. 1

Introduction………………………………………………………………......... 1

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………… 2

Null Hypothesis…….…………………………………………………........ 3

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………….….... 3

Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………... 4

Significance of the Study………………………………………………… 6

Scope and Delimitation of the Study……………....………………..…. 7

Definition of Terms…………………………………………………….… 8

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES ……. 10

Reason Why Students Cheat………………………............... 10

Students Engage in Academic Dishonesty.………………...… 13

Synthesis……………………………………………………………......... 19

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………. 21

Research Design…………………………………………………………… 21

Research Locale………………………………………………..……….. 22

Research Respondents…………………………….........................….. 22

Research Instrument…………………………………………………..… 22

Data Gathering Procedure…………………………….………………… 23

Statistical Treatment……………………………………………………... 23
 Chapter I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

The term academic integrity was coined by the late Donald L. McCabe, one of

the principal researchers in educational ethics in the 20th Century (Star-Ledger, 2016).

Academic integrity (also called academic honesty) is referred to as either the moral

code or ethical policies of an academic institution. Typically, institutions refer to their

academic code of student conduct when referencing the definitions of academic

integrity. The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) identifies academic integrity as a core

criterion in creating the fabric of an institution of learning. The HLC Criteria for

Accreditation list as a requirement the need for an institution to both “ensure the

integrity of research and scholarly practice” (Higher Learning Commission [HLC], 2019,

Criterion 2.E.1) and “[have] and [enforce] policies on academic honesty and integrity”

(HLC, 2019, Criterion 2.E.3). Gallant and Drinan (2006) posit, “Integrity is so essential to

the adaptability and coherence of higher education that its dilution or absence would

have almost unimaginable consequences to the future of higher education” (p. 856). A

web search of the question "why does academic integrity matter?" returns pages of links

from colleges and universities, outlining a shared expectation that academic integrity is

at the core of a fair and honest environment where academic freedom and success can

flourish:

• "Academic assignments exist to help students learn; grades exist to show how

fully this goal is attained. Therefore all work and all grades should result from the
student's own understanding and effort." (University of Oklahoma, 2019, “What is

Academic Integrity?”)

• “Academic integrity is the moral code that builds trust between scholars.”

(Luther College, 2017, “What is Academic Integrity?”)

• “Fundamental to the academic work you do at MIT is an expectation that you

will make choices that reflect integrity and responsible behavior.” (Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, n.d., “What is Academic Integrity?”)

• “Academic integrity is a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to five

fundamental values: honest, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. From these

values flow principles of behavior that enable academic communities to translate ideals

into action.” (University of Toronto Mississauga, n.d., “What is the meaning of Academic

Integrity?”)

Furthermore, as defined above, academic integrity is a core tenet of the fabric of

higher education. The antithesis of this, academic dishonesty, has been described as

any activity in which a student violates the moral and ethical policy of an academic

institution. Academic dishonesty can sometimes be referred to as academic misconduct

or academic fraud. While academic dishonesty is often substituted with the more

specific descriptor of cheating, for the context of this paper, academic dishonesty is a

larger umbrella under which cheating is one aspect. Cheating has been defined in many

ways; when it comes specifically to education and testing, it may have been best

described by Dr. Gregory J. Cizek in 2012 at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association (AERA) in Vancouver, Canada. Dr. Cizek defined

cheating as “any action taken before, during, or after the administration of a test or

assignment, that is intended to gain an unfair advantage or produce inaccurate results”

(Cizek, 2012, p. 16). While most academics view cheating as fairly black and white in

scope, many face a dilemma when attempting to fully articulate what does and does not

constitute academic dishonesty. For example, some faculty will inform students in their

syllabi that discussing any content on an exam is academic dishonesty, while others will

solely state that cheating on a test is dishonest. This ambiguity and inconsistency within

higher education illustrate the need for continued education, discussion, and research

into the subject.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the Level of Academic Integrity in Online

Examinations of BEED III students at RMMC-MI and its implications.

Furthermore, it specifically sought to answer the following questions:

1. Determine the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Raise

d. Religion

2. What is the level of academic integrity in online examinations of BEED-III

students at RMMC-MI?

3. What implication can be drawn for the result of the study?

Theoretical Framework

Social cognitive theory (SCT) is a psychological model of behavior that asserts

that learning occurs through observation within a social context. According to SCT,

people observe the behaviors of others and the resulting consequences and use those

observations to inform their own behaviors. The theory emerged largely from the work

of Albert Bandura. According to Bandura, SCT is founded on reciprocal triadic relations

among personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. The major theoretical

components of SCT include modeling, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, goal setting,

and self-regulation. SCT has been applied to a variety of disciplines such as

psychology, education, business, and health communication. Within education, SCT

has been used to understand classroom learning, student motivation, and academic

achievement. 

Conceptual Framework

Describes the conceptual framework of the study wherein the input is Academic

Integrity on Online Examination of BEED-III students while the output is its Implication.

The researcher wants to find out the implications of the student’s integrity in Online

Examination at RMMC-MI.
 INPUT
Academic Integrity
On Online
Examination of
BEED – III
students

OUPUT
It’s Implication
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The researchers envisioned that the findings of this study are useful, and

beneficial to the following individuals:

To the Administrators. It will provide them information on the benefits of

involvement of their students in terms of academic integrity. As facilitators, they could

apply what they have understood in this study and possess honesty that their students

could emulate. This study will help them be more dedicated in providing the students’

best possible environment and tools for learning.

To the Students. Through this study, the BEED III will determine the academic

integrity on online examinations. It will help them to build ideas, knowledge and become

more creative while respecting and recognizing the owners. This study will also help

them learn how to respect and value their own character and capabilities.

To the Parents. This study will inform the parents on how cheating affects their

children’s reputation and how important to be consistent enough in reinforcing family

values to them. It will give them insights about the academic integrity on online

examination to their child.

To the Researchers. This study will give the researchers further knowledge and

ideas about how Academic Integrity in Online Examinations of BEED III students at

RMMC-MI and its implications. They will gain more knowledge and deeper

understanding. This will also be highly beneficial to them because they would be able to

determine the Academic Integrity in Online Examinations of BEED III students at

RMMC-MI and its implications.

 To the Future Researchers. The outcome of the study is beneficial to the future

researchers because this will help them to be aware and knowledgeable of the students’

academic integrity. It will assist students in becoming better analyzers, and it will serve

as a future reference for additional investigations. It will increase their productivity and

educational well-being by expanding their knowledge.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This study was delimited to the involvement of BEED III students in their Academic

Integrity in Online Examination and its implications.

Although the study tried to reach its aims, there were some unavoidable limitations.

The following were the limitations of the research that was conducted.

In terms of respondents of the study, this research was delimited only to thirty (30)

students that studied at Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges Marbel Incorporated

school year 2021-2022 who were involved in the Academic Integrity in Online

Examinations.
DEFINITION OF TERMS

 Online learnings: is education that takes place over the internet. it is often

referred to as “e-learnings” among other terms. It is a method of education which

the students learn in virtual meeting unlike the traditional classroom setting.

 Academic Integrity: Academic dishonesty is sometimes known as 'academic

misconduct.' It is a moral and values in the academic or academic work in the

school.

 Implications: a potential future effect or result think about the consequences of

your actions. It is something that implies or suggested without being said directly.

 Assessment: It is the evaluation, assessing the students and it provides a

feedback given by a teacher to the parents of a learners. It is also the evaluation

of student’s capabilities and abilities.

 Blended Learning: It is both an online instructions and face-to-face teaching. It

provides an opportunity to every students to enjoy both the world giving its best;

to utilize online materials and a real interaction.

 Syllabus: It is the summary of topics in a course or unit. It is also an outline of

the subjects in a teaching.

 Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Review of Related Literature knows as the second chapter in every research

thesis. But it's the step to know and explore all related features on a selected area of

conducting a research. In writing a literature review as researcher, we need to supply all

the information needed. This chapter consists of four parts. First, Local Literature, it

contains the information about local surrounding. Second, Foreign Literature consists of

foreign or from another country news, information websites, and articles that gives great

relevance to your research or study. Third, Local Studies; include collections of

resources pertaining to a given geographic location. Lastly, Foreign Studies are foreign

researches, studies, thesis, surveys or any other methods.

Local Literature

Education’s New Normal

The Philippines Department of Education (DepEd) quickly devised and

implemented online curriculum and programs in March, such as the DepEd Commons

learning delivery platform, to avoid suspending classes. Additionally, The University of

the Philippines Open University (UPOU) is continuing its free classes to help educators

improve their online teaching skills. However, educational institutions in the country still

face the challenge of how to fairly and accurately assess students’ work online. While

some things, such as essay-based assignments, will remain the same in online learning

environments, other things, like in-class efforts to prevent contract cheating, will need to

adapt to online models. It may also be more difficult to build strong teacher-student
relationships that ensure academic integrity in the current, fully online environment.

Implementing technologies across educational institutions that check for plagiarism can

be a first step in helping educators ensure that students are submitting their original

work. As educational institutions press forward with online learning in the country, there

are three ways they can maintain academic integrity in these online learning

environments. The transition to online education will only become more ingrained in

societies throughout the world going forward. As educational institutions in the

Philippines adopt more permanent online learning capabilities, and educators become

more skilled in teaching online classes, deploying technology tools can help support

online curricula and classroom communities in upholding academic integrity. (Brazel

2020).

Foreign Literature

Reason Why Students Cheat

Students cheat in an attempt to obtain a higher grade. The rationale behind this

can be based on a number of issues. One theory behind cheating involves the fraud

triangle, which is based on three elements that, if present, can result in cheating (Bailie

& Jortberg, 2009). These elements are: “incentive/pressure, opportunity, and

rationalization/attitude” (King, Guyette, & Piotrowski, 2009, p. 3). Students are obviously

under pressure to earn good grades. If the opportunity presents itself to dishonestly

improve a grade in some way, many students will take advantage of that opportunity

because they have the ability to rationalize it. Thoughts such as “everyone is doing it” or

“it isn’t hurting anyone” are ways in which students rationalize their behavior. Some may

have the perception that everyone else is cheating so they are at a disadvantage if they
do not. Many students focus solely on the grade earned in a class, not what they

actually learn. As a participant in Cole and Swartz’s (2013) study stated, “I think that’s

what we students truly care about anymore…getting a good grade is more important

than learning anything anymore…because when you get to the work part, they teach

you what you want to know, your diploma is just your foot in the door for the most part”

(p. 738). The reliance on technology can also lead to the fact that many students do not

see the need to learn and memorize basic information. “Why, from a student’s

perspective, should they have to memorize basic stratigraphic principles when their

phone can produce a list of them in a matter of seconds?” (Hippensteel, 2016, p. 22).

Students Engage in Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty (or “cheating”)2 includes behaviors such as the use of

unauthorized materials, facilitation (helping others to engage in cheating), falsification

(misrepresentation of self), and plagiarism (claiming another’s work as one’s own;

e.g., Akbulut et al., 2008; Şendağ et al., 2012), providing an unearned advantage over

other students (Hylton et al., 2016). Broadly, these behaviors are not consistent with an

established University’s Standards of Conduct (Hylton et al., 2016), which

communicates expected standards of behavior (Kitahara and Westfall, 2007). “E-

dishonesty” has been used to refer to behaviors that depart from academic integrity in

the online environment, and e-dishonesty raises new considerations that may not have

been previously considered by instructors and administrators. For example, concerns in

relation to online exams typically include ‘electronic warfare’ (tampering with the laptop

or test management system), impersonation, test item leakage, and the use of

unauthorized resources such as searching the internet, communicating with others over
a messaging system, purchasing answers from others, accessing local/external storage

on their computer, or accessing a book or notes directly (e.g. Frankl et al., 2012; Moten

et al., 2013; Wahid et al., 2015). All of these types of behaviours are also considered

under the broader umbrella term of ‘academic dishonesty’ (Akbulut et al., 2008; Namlu

and Odabasi, 2007), and we highlight them here to broaden the scope of considerations

with respect to academic integrity.

There are many reasons why individuals may choose to depart from academic

integrity. Here, we synthesize existing research with consideration of individual factors,

institutional factors, medium-related factors, and assessment-specific factors. Much of

the research to date considers the on-campus, in-person instructional context, and we

note the applicability of much of this literature to online education. Where appropriate,

we also note where research is lacking, with the aim of encouraging further study.

In general students cheat for a variety of reasons. Chiesl (2009) identified several

common reasons that students cheat, in general, across educational settings. These

include: fear of failure, desire for better grades, pressure from parents to do well,

unclear instructional objectives, “everyone else is doing it” (p. 329), “there is little

chance of being caught” (p. 329) and “there is no punishment if I get caught” (p. 329).

Faucher and Caves (2009) identify a variety of reasons that students cheat including the

pressure to succeed indicated by high grades (Simkin & McLeod, 2010), getting away

with something, lack of organizational skills, and fear of failing a course (loss of time

and money). Dee and Jacob (2010) believe that students have a poor understanding of

academy dishonesty and therefore they are either ignorant that they are being

dishonest or they don’t value the reason for being honest. Whether motivation to
succeed, peer standards of behavior, or ignorance are the reasons, there is convincing

evidence that most students have cheated in their university experience, however they

may not understand that what they have done is actually unethical (McCabe, Butterfield,

& Trevino, 2012). There is a commonly reported perception that students cheat on

assessments in online learning because it is not clear what constitutes cheating or

expectations are not clear due to the delivery mode itself (Dee & Jacob, 2010; McCabe,

Butterfield, & Trevino, 2012). However, LoSchiavo and Shatz (2011) report that while

three-quarters of students in their study sample reported cheating on online quizzes,

when honor codes were clearly articulated this number decreased significantly. Thus

how expectations are presented may impact rates of dishonesty. Additionally,

dishonesty may have roots in the student. There is evidence that students who cheat on

tests are self-deceptive in other areas of their lives (Chance et al, 2010). In online

environments it may be difficult if not impossible for instructors to determine or appraise

student disposition. Thus understanding students and being proactive in the design and

implementation of an online course may impact student behavior.

The Problem of Cheating

Cheating is an institutional and societal problem. And academic dishonesty is

more detrimental to the educational community than stakeholders realize because it

affects faculty, students, and administration. Explained this issue by stating:

―Academic dishonesty costs institutions administrative time, loss of integrity within the

school, and student lack of respect for ethics and values. Faculty members point to a

failure of institutional leadership to establish integrity standards and practices across

campus (Boehm, et al, 2009). Danielsen et al. (2006), in their discussion of a culture of
cheating, noted that One might assume that cheating among medical, physician

assistant (PA), and nursing students would be significantly lower than that among

undergraduates— that professions that are viewed as highly ethical would be expected

to attract students with strong codes of personal ethics. However, this does not always

appear to be the case.

Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty is an insidious problem that besets most tertiary

institutions, where considerable resources are expended to prevent and manage

students' dishonest actions within academia. Using a mixed retrospective and

prospective design this research investigated Gottfredson and Hirschi's self-control

theory as a possible explanation for academic dishonesty in 264 university students.

The relationship between academic dishonesty and general criminality was also

examined. A significant but small to moderate relationship between academic

dishonesty and general criminality was present, including correlations with general

dishonesty, violent crime and drug offending subcategories. These findings suggested

that a general criminological theory may be of use in explaining academic dishonesty,

but the overall ability of self-control variables to explain academic dishonesty was not

strong. Controlled logistic regressions indicated that a significant positive association

with academic dishonesty was only present for one of 6 self-control subscales (self-

centeredness), and even this association was only present in the prospective study

component. A strong relationship between past and future academic dishonesty was

present. Implications of the study for institutions are discussed (Williams and

William,2012).
Local Studies

In the Philippine educational system, its participants, learners in particular, are

required to faithfully follow the mandate of excellence, mastery and integrity of learning

knowledge and skills, which are intended for the proliferation of their infinite potentials

which lie dormant if untouched with the graces of academic instructions. In this sense,

this purpose is nowadays almost and always frustrated by misconducts or undisciplined

performances among the learners of this 21st century era. Technological advancements

have made cheating easier and more prolific (McGregor & Stuebs, 2012)

The process of how students cheat has been the topic of extensive research”

(Baker, et al., 2008, p. 28). This paper supplements the established findings on

academic dishonesty by delineating the innovative techniques that students use to

respond to perceived difficulty and frustrations encountered within the context of Junior

and Senior High School learners in Roxas National Comprehensive High School,

Roxas, and Palawan, Philippines.

Online examination system is used by educational institutions to improve the

quality of instruction by having a supervised measure of outcomes for self-paced

learning environments of their students. The reason E-learning became so popular is

because of its fast feedback in assessing the examiners or candidates. An online

examination system that has the ability to address academic malpractice should be the

main concern to be able to trim down those acts at some degree. Saving time is one of

the perks in having an online examination system, but it also had limitations on

dependency to the quality of Internet service leaving both the proctor and the examiners

not being able to use the system. The research looked into interviewing through a focus
group the proctors of online exams to identify root causes of academic malpractice at

the same time interview exam content creators on possible approaches on exam

questions generators that allow a validity of measure of outcomes. Generally, a final

validation done by the focus group respondents and end users for effectively and

usability. (Chua et al., (2019).

DepEd stressed that academic honesty is a “foundational element of learning

and fundamental principle of all academic institutions.” On the other hand, DepEd

strongly warned against academic dishonesty which is “defined as any conduct that

obstructs the evaluation of learner’s progress by misinterpreting the work being

assessed and evaluated, as well as the learners actual knowledge”. DepEd noted that

academic dishonesty “can take many forms which can be broadly classified” which

include cheating, plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, sabotage, and contract cheating.

“As self-directed learning materials, the self-learning modules (SLMs) are given to

learners to allow them to manage their learning through the different formative

assessments,” San Antonio said. “Although these are not graded and are used to

monitor learning progress and prepare learners for summative assessments, cheating

on the answers to the SLMs has become prevalent online,” he added. Thus, the agency

noted that “violations of the principle deprive learners of the opportunity to gain a

confident command of the material they are credited with knowing, degrade the learning

process, and demean the learning quality” that the DepEd is committed to promote. The

“Online Kopyahan” – before it became inaccessible – leaked answers from online

learning tests, exams, and modules. San Antonio said that while the SLMs have key to

correction — as an inherent feature of self-instructional materials — it is not intended to

be used to cheat and bypass authentic learning. “Regardless of the design of the SLMs

and the extent of freedom in online space, cheating cannot be justified under any

circumstance,” San Antonio said. Due to challenges under distance learning which is

being implemented on its second year due to the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-

19) situation in the country, students reportedly resort to online cheating. While DepEd

recognizes the limitations of managing assessments in the current learning set-up, San

Antonio said that this should never be tolerated. “Teachers, parents, and school heads

are highly encouraged to seek opportunities to teach academic integrity among learners

discourage them from feeding on laziness and instant gratification as this will generate

devastating effects on their values,” San Antonio said. However, he also reminded that

when dealing with academic dishonesty, teachers, parents and school heads “should

use caution, exercise good judgment and treat learners with respect and fairness.”

(DepEd 2020).

Foreign Studies

Learning to E-Cheat

An increasing problem of great concern for academic institutions is the

pervasiveness of cheating among students. Further compounding this problem is

advancements in technology that have created new ways for students to engage in

cheating. Despite a growing interest in technology facilitated cheating, little is known

about why students may employ electronic resources to cheat. However, Akers’ social

learning theory offers one plausible explanation. Surveys were collected from a sample

of 534 college students at a large southeastern university in order to quantify the

prevalence and frequency of Internet facilitated cheating. These surveys allowed for an
exploration of factors associated with this form of cheating and a comparison between

what we refer to as E-cheating and traditional forms of cheating. Results indicate that

approximately 40% of students have engaged in some form of E-cheating in the last

year. Social learning variables emerge as the strongest predictors of both the

occurrence and frequency of E-cheating while self-control and strain variables have little

effect. An exploration of the relationship between E-cheating and similar technology free

cheating behaviors suggests that there is significant overlap, but that some students do

“specialize” in E-cheating or technology free cheating. We conclude by offering

suggestions for teaching strategies, course and assignment design, and testing that will

best limit E-cheating (Stogner et al, 2012).

An investigation into the ethical behaviors of generation Z

Cheating in higher education has numerous negative implications, including

degrading program reputations, inflating student retention rates, and cultivating poor

ethical practices, all of which have implications for what students do in the workplace

after graduation. Therefore, by understanding the current student population,

Generation Z, it is argued that faculty are better equipped to combat cheating behaviors.

Grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior and Deterrence Theory, this study

examines factors that faculty can influence, in particular, assignment controls to deter

cheating and types of assignments given. Generation Z students indicated that their

perceptions of faculty’s use of assignment controls increased their perception of getting

caught, which, in turn, decreased cheating intentions. Students were more likely to

cheat on coursework over written assignments and examinations. Furthermore,

assignment controls create the greatest decrease in coursework cheating. This study
has important implications for those involved in minimizing cheating opportunities (Flom

et al,2021).

An Examination of Academic Misconduct Intentions and the Ineffectiveness of

Syllabus Statements

This experiment uses quantitative and qualitative measures to address the effect

of two syllabus statements on academic misconduct: one based on prohibitions and one

on academic integrity. Students expressed favorable attitudes toward the statements,

showed an increase in guilt compared to a control group, but showed no decrease in

intentions to cheat. Including only a standard academic misconduct statement in one's

syllabus is not sufficient to alter behavior, which should be acknowledged by faculty

(Staats and Hupp, 2012).

Today’s learners are faced with a plethora of possibilities to interact and

collaborate online in the university context. Elliott (2009) has stressed that

education as such is in transformation and being heavily affected by information

and communication technology (ICT). Students are offered various forms of

learning management systems in order to make efficient use of their learning

time, and allocate their resources to maximize learning outcomes. Thus, teaching is

continuously adapting to the new needs and requirements of “digital natives” (as

defined by Prensky, 2010). Testing, on the other hand, is generally conducted in the

same, antiqued paper-and-pencil way (Elliott, 2009). In his historical review of

examinations, Elliott (2008) positions paper-and-pencil exams as Generation 1.0

instruments: fixed in terms of time and space, formalized and controlled. This era was

followed by Generation 1.5 examinations that were electronic and held in computer
rooms, but which simply mirrored Generation 1.0 instruments by moving the “off-line”

modality into an “on-line” context. But the critical issue, writes Elliott, is that testing

became the focal point of learning and occupied much of the time that could have

been otherwise used for teaching. He views Assessment 2.0 as an era

corresponding to Web 2.0, aimed at generating answers and evaluating procedural

knowledge in the form of interactive e-assessments (Elliott, 2008). Chao et al. (2011)

have assessed the adequacy of tools for online synchronous assessment in terms of

cyber classes and distance assessment via camera monitoring. This research identifies

challenges and issues such as the extent of monitoring and cheating, finds that

there is a lack of adequate software tools, and discusses the requirements for

various online synchronous assessment methods. 2.1 Benefits and obstacles of online

testing Online testing methods increase assessment objectivity, and also lighten

correction workloads. This is particularly advantageous in classes with hundreds of

students, such as mandatory courses of the study entry and orientation phase

(STEOP). It would seem clear that at this point in time, up-to-date teaching requires

up-to-date testing. Hewson (2012) has conducted a literature review regarding the

benefits associated with online exams. She finds that this examination modality has

proved particularly beneficial since it saves time and money given its automatic

delivery, scoring and storage. She also finds that online exams increase student

engagement due to their relative novelty, and provide greater flexibility as compared

with traditional testing methods. Anakwe (2008) has assessed the application of

online exams in traditional class-based courses, comparing student performance on

online exams and traditional in-class exams. While no significant differences were
found, she determined that the greater efficiency of online exams lightened teaching

workload and administration: “Thus, instructors may include online tests in their

traditional in-class courses without affecting the students’ test performance, while

reaping the benefits of online testing, which include instant grading and feedback

to the students.” (Anakwe, 2008, pp. 16-17). Feedback plays a key role in

assessment processes and is an important element of the learning process

(Anakwe, 2008; Marriott, 2009). The importance of feedback options in the

teaching and learning process relate to the determination of knowledge gaps

between achieved and expected learning outcomes (Marriott, 2009). Online exams

provide both standardized and individualized feedback possibilities (Hewson, 2012).

Furthermore, online exams free up time that lecturers would have otherwise

dedicated to the administration and correction of the tests; hence, the time savings

can be devoted to new topics or in-depth discussion (Anakwe, 2008). Moreover,

“[o]nline testing also makes it easy to provide repeated testing opportunities for practice

purposes. Multiple-choice, true or false, and matching items can be easily administered

through the Internet.” (Anakwe, 2008, p. 13). A study by Marriott (2009) has found

that phased online assessment encourages classroom participation and student

engagement in the teaching and learning process, as well as improved feedback

possibilities. Hewson’s results also stress that online examination methods, “…offer

a fair and valid alternative to traditional pen and paper approaches, and thus allows

practitioners to more confidently adopt such methods, taking advantage of the

various benefits they can offer.” (Hewson, 2012, p. 8). Online exams also face

challenges, however, and among them the critical issue of reliability is paramount
since this modality is dependent on computers and computer networking

technologies (Hewson, 2012). 2.2 Testing as an integral part of the learning process

Biggs and Tang (2011) argue that a well-founded lecture design includes assessment,

and they relate this to the concept of “constructive alignment” – the necessity of

establishing coherence between all phases of the learning process. They argue

that all elements of the learning process (intended learning outcomes,

teaching/learning activities, assessment tasks and grading) should support one

another other (Biggs and Tang, 2011, p. 109). It is therefore possible to suggest

that in order to ensure coherence, the software tools used for teaching should be

part of the examination process. Müller and Schmidt (2009) similarly argue that

learning targets, methods and examination methods should act in harmony. The

Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt has developed a “Secure Exam Environment” (SEE)

that is in line with such thinking. A pilot project was launched in 2011 to implement

the SEE for online testing (Frankl et al., 2011) with the objective of providing up-to-date

testing methods that go hand-in-hand with the blended learning strategies in

operation. The implemented learning management system (LMS) at the Alpen-Adria-

Universität is Moodle. Online exams are usually conducted in computer rooms that are

often too small, and larger computer rooms are usually unavailable or not

economically feasible. Hence, the SEE makes use of existing student resources,

specifically their personal computers (typically notebooks and netbooks). The fact that

on site computer rooms severely restrict the number of students for synchronous

testing (a maximum 15-20 students per run) was an important motivator for

developing the system. The efficiencies of allowing students to use their own devices
are complimented by an effectiveness factor since they are presumably familiar with

these devices. The institution therefore is not faced with expensive investments in

new computing facilities and the associated maintenance costs. We are currently

able to test up to 70 students synchronously and plan to increase this to 200 by

Autumn 2012. It has also become common that many courses are based on or

supported by different software tools and programs, for example statistical programs

or special mathematical software packages. Traditional testing methods do not offer

the possibility of testing student knowledge related to the use and application of such

software programs; the SEE, in contrast, does offer this possibility which is

consistent with pedagogical coherence suggested by Biggs and Tang (2011). For

example, if Excel is used in a course and students require the program, they will be in

a position to use it for the exam. We integrated a Libre-office solution into the SEE

and students can easily switch between the program and the exam (contingent on

lecturer preferences). We also conducted literature-focused essay exams using

Open Office word processing programs, and we plan to integrate Eclipse into the SEE

so that programming can be tested more efficiently for the student as well as for the

lecturer. A recent research study has stated, “…there is also a clear need for

further studies investigating students’ attitudes, perceptions and preferences in

relation to online assessment methods…” (Hewson, 2012, p. 4). Our study

contributes to current research in this vein by providing some additional insights

concerning student attitudes related to online testing.

An impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 on higher education was the rapid

transition from face-to-face invigilated exams to online exams at many universities

around the world (Grajek 2020; UNESCO 2020). While there was also some shift to

alternative assessment forms (Bearman et al. 2020; Grajek 2020), in many disciplines

and nations, high-stakes summative testing in the form of examinations continues to be

the accepted form of assessment (CPA Australia n.d.; Raaheim et al. 2019). Invigilated

examinations are used because they are “useful logistically and for assuring the public

that plagiarism is under control” (Biggs 2001, p. 234) although there is longstanding

concern that “invigilated examinations are hard to justify educationally” (Biggs 2001, p.

234).

Indeed, there is ample research indicating that approaches such as invigilation

are needed as breaches of academic integrity are a significant problem in Australian

higher education (Bretag et al. 2014) with self-reported incidences of plagiarism

reportedly as high as 81% (Marsden et al. 2005). The issue of academic misconduct

may be the “most commonly reported challenge in online assessment” (Hollister,

Berenson 2009 p 272), although studies have also found that cheating may be reduced

in online environments as some students are less inclined to cheat in digital

environments because of a greater fear of detection (Selwyn 2008a).

There is concern that using technological approaches to replicate high stakes

examinations in proctored online environments does not solve the underlying “social

problem of cheating” (Stockwell 2020, last sentence) and that as new technological

solutions are put in place “students find new ways to cheat” (Joel 2020 7 paragraphs

from end). Mitigation strategies aimed to counter academic misconduct in online

assessment include low tech interventions such as proctoring or the use of time-stamps

on assignment submissions and high tech interventions such as “engaging biometrics,

such as fingerprint scans, optic–retinal tests, facial recognition, and keystroke pattern

analysis” (Sullivan 2016 p 196). Most success in countering cheating is realised when

technological solutions are used along with approaches to enhance integrity and “ethical

consciousness” (Sullivan 2016 p 195) by merging the concept of academic integrity with

personal integrity and “ideas of social responsibility” (Abdalqhadr 2020 p 93). The need

for education around academic integrity extends to staff (Curtis et al. 2021) as much as

it does to students in order to develop consistent understandings of academic integrity

across all stakeholders within an institution.

In Australia, the transition to online examinations due to COVID-19 was

supported by the higher education regulatory body, the Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency (TEQSA), if changes in modality were “in the best interests of

students and the quality of learning” (TEQSA 2020 paragraph 3). Australian universities

had flexibility to determine their individual approaches to online teaching and

assessment, including what alternatives they would use to replace high stakes

invigilated examinations. Research has found “no statistically significant difference in

the students’ academic achievement in online and traditional exams” (Ilgaz and Afacan

Adanır 2020 p 1255), however, the decision to move examinations online requires

judgement about the relative merits of different assessment and examination types in

securing the integrity of the assessment or exam environment. Given the speed needed

to respond to the changing educational environment because of the pandemic, many

Australian and New Zealand universities substituted traditional face-to-face invigilated

examinations with their digital equivalent, proctored online exams (Sankey 2020). Over

three quarters of universities were predicted to use online proctoring in Semester

12,020 examinations (Grajek 2020), although a subsequent survey of public universities

in Australia and New Zealand conducted after that examination period reported that

51% used online proctoring solutions and 49% moved to alternate modes of

examination or assessment (Sankey 2020). Some universities that did use online

proctoring chose to minimise its use to where it was “completely

necessary” (Sankey 2020 p. 2), although the use of proctoring does not negatively

impact on student performance (Rios and Liu 2017).

The significant use of online proctoring services by Australian and New Zealand

universities during the pandemic is despite ethical, equity and technical issues with

online proctoring (Allan 2020; Cramp et al. 2019; Grajek 2020; James 2016). An

additional concern is that the effectiveness of online proctoring in curbing cheating

behaviours is unclear. While there are studies that suggest that cheating increases

when online exams are not proctored (Harmon and Lambrinos 2008; Reich et al. 2018),

other studies indicate that cheating behaviours are not linked to surveillance but to the

nature of the exam itself, with cheating less likely to take place when authentic forms of

assessment are used (Bearman et al. 2020; Harper, Bretag, Rundle 2020;

Harrison 2020). This is despite authenticity alone not being a panacea to academic

misconduct (Ellis et al. 2020). The effectiveness of online proctoring is further put in

doubt by student posts on how to cheat in proctored online exams

(Blumenfeldwitz 2020).

Securing integrity in digital examinations is conceptually different to traditional

approaches, with research indicating that categories of academic misconduct and their

definitions need to be reconsidered for the digital age (Evering and Moorman 2012; Sidi
et al. 2019). The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher

Education (INQAAHE) identifies six behaviours that are commonly regarded as

constituting academic misconduct. They define one of these, impersonation, as: “falsely

presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person

examination” (INQAAHE 2020, p. 5, our emphasis). This definition clearly does not

consider the context of digital examinations and evidences the need to rework

definitions of academic misconduct (Sidi et al. 2019).

The nature and incidence of academic misconduct is changing with widespread

use of digital technology. An increase in plagiarism is “directly associated with

technology, due to the easy access to information and the ease of copying and pasting,

which makes data more easily accessible and transferrable than it is in the analog

medium” (Sidi et al. 2019, p. 3309). In contrast, other forms of academic misconduct are

higher in face-to-face as compared to digital environments (Sidi et al. 2019).

The digital age has also created a generational rift in perceptions of academic

integrity, with young people perceiving “knowledge ownership, acquisition, and

distribution in radically different terms than in previous generations” (Evering and

Moorman 2012, p.35). This has resulted in vastly different perceptions between staff

and students of the seriousness and appropriateness of penalties for different forms of

academic misconduct (Busch, Bilgin 2014) which is exacerbated by confusion stemming

from lack of clarity or ambiguity in academic integrity policy and definitions of cheating

behaviours (Merkel 2021; Owunwanne et al. 2010; Ray 2020; Sutton and Taylor 2011).

Additionally, educators and students are increasingly confused about what constitutes

academic misconduct in the digital age, which Hamblin (2017) refers to as the ‘blurred
lines’ of academic integrity when digital technologies are added to the mix. This

confusion is further exacerbated by different disciplinary traditions and approaches to

integrity and the distinct cultures of academic integrity that they generate (Sutherland-

Smith 2013).

Learning styles like cognitive, affective and physiological behaviour serve as

relatively stable IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 5 – Issue 2 – Summer 2017 124

indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning

environment. Fourth, there is a school environment where academic cheating takes

place. There are many reasons why an adolescent may choose academic cheating over

academic integrity. Adolescents compete against each other for class rank (Sarita,

2015).

Bachore (2016) [12] asserts that academic dishonesty/cheating is widespread,

particularly with regard to examination-related cheating and plagiarism on written

assignments and papers. According to the findings, the practices were motivated by the

difficulty of exams, a lack of time, the irrelevance of course material, the pressure to

earn good grades and a loss of clarity about the policy, and the need for extra points to

raise their grades, all of which were high commonly confirmed reasons.

Finally, as to how cheating could be prevented, students agree on a secure study

and assessment environment online. Also, expressing a strong ethical stand through

academic policies on the part of the university and giving clear relevant requirements on

the part of the professor make the students feel that learning is “non scholae sed vitae

discimus” (not just for school but for life).

 Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

The chapter III enclosed the methods and procedures of the research made. This

consists of four (4) parts. (1) Research Design, (2) Research Locale, (3) Research

Respondents and Sampling Technique, and (4) Research Instrument.

Research Design

This study used a descriptive evaluative research design as a type of quantitative

approach to define the level of academic integrity on online examinations of BEED-III

students at RMMC-MI and its implications. In order to assess the academic honesty of

students in taking their online examinations. The researcher applied a Survey Data

Collection.

Survey Data Collection was defined as the resultant data that is collected from a

sample of respondents that took a survey. This data is comprehensive information

gathered from a target audience about a specific topic to conduct research.  There are

many methods used for survey data collection and statistical analysis.

Research Locale

The study was conducted at Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges- Marbel Inc

Konadal City. It is a private school college that accepts students and staff with different

religion and cultural backgrounds. This study is being conducted during the COVID 19

Pandemic, since face to face interaction is prohibited at this time, the survey of

questionnaires was held on the internet through Google Forms. The respondents

responded to the survey questionnaire given to them and will be answered in any

comfortable place they will choose to.

Respondents and Sampling Technique

The respondents of this study were thirty (30) students of BEED – III who were

enrolled for school year 2021-2022. In this case each individual is chosen entirely by

chance and each member of the population has an equal chance, or probability, of

being selected. One way of obtaining a random sample is to give each individual in a

population a number, and then use a table of random numbers to decide which

individuals to include. A sample in this study is, therefore, a smaller group of elements

drawn through a definite procedure from an accessible population. The elements

making up this sample are those that are actually studied.

Research Instrument
 The data for this study was gathered using questionnaires through google forms

created by the researcher validation. There are two sections to the equipment used to

collect data for this investigation. The first section contains statements designed to elicit

personal information from respondents, such as their name (optional) and age. The

second step is to determine the students’ if they are being truthful when taking their

exams or not.

Data Gathering Procedure

For the accomplishment of the study, the following procedures were used:

In determining the students respondents, the researchers gathered data regarding the

number of BEED-III students of RMMC-MI. The researchers asked permission through

a letter from the administrator and program director of the education department. Upon

the approval of the administrator and program director, the researchers gave a letter to

the department head of education department to ask permission for a survey and after

the approval of the department head of the school, the 30 students of BEED-III were

given 20 minutes to answer all the items after which papers are possible to ensure

reliable results.

Statistical Treatment

Survey questions in this study were incorporated to directly measure and answer the

questions. To determine the level of academic integrity in online examinations of BEED-

III at RMMC-MI and its implications. The researcher used the data collected from the

field to analyze. Statistically weighted mean and then comparing it to a 5-point Likert
Scale with interpretation was used in answering the research questions. The response

options in the instrument are weighted as shown below: