Abstract

Submissions to an online homework tutor were analyzed to determine whether they were copied. The fraction of copied submissions increased rapidly over the semester, as each weekly deadline approached and for problems later in each assignment. The majority of students, who copied less than 10% of their problems, worked steadily over the three days prior to the deadline, whereas repetitive copiers (those who copied $>30\mathrm{%}$ of their submitted problems) exerted little effort early. Importantly, copying homework problems that require an analytic answer correlates with a $2(\ensuremath{\sigma})$ decline over the semester in relative score for similar problems on exams but does not significantly correlate with the amount of conceptual learning as measured by pretesting and post-testing. An anonymous survey containing questions used in many previous studies of self-reported academic dishonesty showed $\ensuremath{\sim}1/3$ less copying than actually was detected. The observed patterns of copying, free response questions on the survey, and interview data suggest that time pressure on students who do not start their homework in a timely fashion is the proximate cause of copying. Several measures of initial ability in math or physics correlated with copying weakly or not at all. Changes in course format and instructional practices that previous self-reported academic dishonesty surveys and/or the observed copying patterns suggested would reduce copying have been accompanied by more than a factor of 4 reduction of copying from $\ensuremath{\sim}11\mathrm{%}$ of all electronic problems to less than 3%. As expected (since repetitive copiers have approximately three times the chance of failing), this was accompanied by a reduction in the overall course failure rate. Survey results indicate that students copy almost twice as much written homework as online homework and show that students nationally admit to more academic dishonesty than MIT students.

Highlights

  • Two thousand years ago, Imperial China went to great lengths to curb cheating on civil service exams only to find that examinees invented increasingly clever ideas to beat the system1͔

  • Survey results indicate that students copy almost twice as much written homework as online homework and show that students nationally admit to more academic dishonesty than MIT students

  • We suggest that the increased contact between students and teaching staff in studio physics vs lecture recitation had the largest effect on the 2003–2004 decline. ͑Calculations based on Fig. 5 indicate that the shortening of homework assignments would cause only ϳ1 / 5 of the nearly 50% reduction observed.͒ It is more difficult to attribute a single cause to the decrease in copying in Spring 2006, but the switch to grades seems paramount given the several suggestions in our interviews that “copying would not affect my grade under pass or fail.”

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Imperial China went to great lengths to curb cheating on civil service exams only to find that examinees invented increasingly clever ideas to beat the system1͔. The burden of this paper is that homework copying, not regarded as nearly so morally wrong as exam cheating2͔, is a serious educational problem that is associated with reduced learning and consequent course failure. We reach this conclusion by detecting copying of online homework, showing that it follows distinctive temporal patterns and importantly that it correlates with test performance that declines about two standard deviations over the course of the semester.

DETECTING COPYING
TEMPORAL PATTERNS
Course examinations
Mechanics baseline test vs copying
Attrition rate
SELF-REPORTED CHEATING SURVEY AND FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS
WHY DO STUDENTS COPY THEIR HOMEWORK?
EVIDENCE THAT DOING HOMEWORK CAUSES SPECIFIC LEARNING
VIII. OBSERVED FOURFOLD REDUCTION IN COPYING FOLLOWING COURSE FORMAT CHANGES
Findings
SUMMARY
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call