Academic Integrity: Online Classes Compared to Face-to-Face Classes

Trends toward an increase in online courses suggest the need for more research on differing levels of cheating and other acts of academic disintegrity as compared to face-to-face classes. We surveyed 639 students in both types of classes. Students felt it was easier to cheat in online classes than face-to-face classes. For students taking both online and face-to-face classes, we found that cheating occurred more frequently in online classes. However, students who took only online classes were less likely to cheat than students who took only face-to face classes. The relationship of age to taking online classes and cheating offered an explanation for the contradictory finding. Sex differences in cheating behavior were absent. ********** Since 2003, online enrollments have grown 358%, and 31% of students now take at least one course online (Allen & Seaman, 2011). But this research also shows that about a third of academic leaders perceive online outcomes to be inferior to traditional classes and that faculty members have misgivings about online classes. These misgivings include lack of course comparability, more opportunities to cheat in online classes, and a greater attraction to students whose goal is to cheat (Bailey & Bailey, 2011). Youngberg's (2012) commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education argues that the number one reason why online education will not replace college is "It's too easy to cheat. " The majority of faculty (64%) and students (57%) believe it is easier to cheat in online classes (Kennedy, 2000). Despite this common belief, there is a lack of adequate research comparing academic disintegrity online (OL) to face-to-face (FF) classes. Existing research has found higher levels of cheating in online classes (Lanier, 2006). But others have found lower levels of cheating in online classes (Hart & Morgan, 2010; Kidwell & Kent, 2008, Stuber-McEwen, Wisely, & Hoggatt, 2009) or cheating levels comparable to other research studies of FF classes (Grijalwa, 2006, Watson & Sottile, 2010). But comparing findings to other studies that estimate cheating in traditional classes, as Grijalwa did, is a weak methodology not suited to hypothesis testing. Research has found lower levels of cheating in online classes may have been subject to volunteer biases that influence findings. In Hart's (Hart & Morgan, 2010) study, the 44 participating students from traditional classes represented 44% of the cohort, while the 330 students from online classes represented only 16% of the cohort. Similarly, Stuber-McEwen et al. had a 100% response rate with face-to-face students completing the survey in class. Online students were emailed a link from instructors, but the authors apparently didn't know how many were sent the emailed in order to report a response rate. However, surveys done through email links with no incentive typically have a very low response rate; often less than 10% (Miller, Shoptaugh, & Parkerson, 2008). Research shows that volunteerism is related to higher levels of altruism (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1975), and thus may be selective for lower levels of cheating (Miller, et al., 2008). The online class cheating assessments, having lower response rates, would be more significantly reduced by volunteer biases. Similarly, Kidwell and Kent (2008) had a much higher response rate among traditional students (42%) relative to online students (24.8%). When comparing online students to traditional students, the glaring differences in attributes of online versus face-to-face students that are plausible explanations for any differences are often missed. Residential students are more likely to be in the 18-22 range, while non-traditional and older students are more likely to be enrolled in online classes. For example, Dutton, Dutton, and Perry (2002) found that the average age of their students in lecture classes was 22.5 as compared to the average age in online classes of 27. …