Factors That Can Undermine the Credibility of Assessment

1. Introduction

This material provides a theoretical introduction to the challenges of ensuring the credibility of assessment in digital environments, along with recommendations on how to mitigate them. It serves as a basis for analysing case studies in accordance with the task and the provided template.

The terms digital assessment and online assessment are often used as synonyms, but they in fact refer to somewhat different concepts. Assessment in a digital environment (digital assessment) is a broader term that refers to any form of assessment involving the use of digital technologies, regardless of whether it takes place in a physical classroom or remotely. Online assessment is a narrower term, referring specifically to assessment conducted via the internet, in virtual spaces, often as part of online teaching or hybrid teaching models.

Online environments and digital assessment offer numerous advantages, well-documented in the literature. At the same time, assessment in a digital environment, and especially online assessment, is associated with challenges such as the potential compromise of assessment credibility and reduced opportunities for communication between teachers and students.

Assessment credibility may be compromised because some learning outcomes are difficult to assess reliably in digital settings due to the expanded range of opportunities for students to cheat in online environments, but also because not all students have adequate technical conditions for online assessment.

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence and the almost universal availability of generative AI, opportunities for cheating in digital environments are increasing day by day.

Cheating in online environments

In online learning environments, students may be more inclined to cheat due to feelings of anonymity, weak connections with teachers and peers, and the lack of direct supervision. According to Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement, individuals employ cognitive mechanisms—such as moral justification—to rationalise unethical behaviour and reduce feelings of responsibility for cheating (Bandura, 1999).

Sometimes, the boundary between cheating and acceptable forms of assistance is unclear, and teachers or institutions must clearly define what is permitted and what is not.

However, some behaviours are almost always perceived as cheating.
Examples of such behaviours (Sevnarayan-Maphoto, M, 2024) in online learning include:

• copying material from the internet without citing the source
  
• using generative artificial intelligence to produce content without citing the source or prompt
  
• using unauthorised online resources or tools during assessment activities
  
• seeking answers from others via social media during tests
  
• copying another student’s work
  
• unauthorised collaboration during exams
  
• false identity representation during online exams
  
• purchasing ready-made essays or projects.

It should be noted that many of these cheating practices also appear in traditional in-person teaching.

Students generally attempt to cheat in summative assessments because such assessments carry higher stakes related to the risk of failure.

Noorbehbahani et al. (2022), in a systematic review of the literature, state that the primary reasons for cheating in digital exams are the opportunities offered by the internet and online platforms. Other factors include deadline pressure, lack of motivation, and the perception that cheating does not harm others.

Similarly, Rüth et al. (2024) emphasise that a human-centred approach (focusing on the needs and perceptions of students) can reduce academic dishonesty in online exam contexts not through surveillance technologies, but through thoughtful exam design and clear communication regarding the purpose and benefits of assessment.

2. Factors That Can Undermine the Credibility of Assessment

3. Recommendations for Maintaining the Integrity of Assessment in a Digital Environment

1. Institutional policies on academic integrity and specific sanctions for cheating

• All students should have equal (or at least appropriate) conditions in digital assessment (assessment fairness).

2. Introduction of authentication and proctoring tools with respect for privacy.

• Shifting the focus from exclusive testing to authentic tasks, projects, collaborative activities, and reflections (authentic assessment).
• If learning outcomes at lower levels (up to level 3) are assessed, it is necessary to use large question banks with a significant number of questions and tasks that are clearly aligned with defined learning outcomes.
• Clearly defined assessment criteria and transparent communication with students (assessment transparency).

3. Use of plagiarism detection tools

• Development of digital and pedagogical competences of instructors, as well as training in academic integrity, communication skills, and fraud detection.
• Working with and communicating with students to foster a sense of belonging and responsibility.
• Dynamic course content and active student engagement through interactions and tasks.
• Emphasizing why the course, as well as the knowledge and skills that students develop within it, are important for their future profession.
• Designing exams that are purposeful and relevant for students and connected to real-life situations (authentic assessment).

4. Study Cases

Participants are encouraged to independently read and analyse the case studies (the full article) according to the task and the proposed analysis framework. Each participant selects one case study.

Case Study 1: Cheating in First-Year Online Modules (Sevnarayan & Maphoto, 2024)

The study was conducted with first-year students of English as a second language at an open distance-learning university in South Africa. The objectives of the study were to identify motives for cheating in online exams, to explore the factors that encourage such behaviour, and to propose strategies for reducing dishonesty in online assessment.

Case Study 2: Reasons Why Students Cheat (Rüth et al., 2024)

Rüth et al. (2023) examined the impact of students’ needs, perceptions, and motives on cheating during online exams among university students in Germany (N = 339). The objectives were to determine how the fulfilment of educational needs influences the intention to cheat, to link perceptions of online exams with actual behaviour, and to assess the reasons why students cheat or refrain from cheating.

5. Literature

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. 

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. 

Lancaster, T. (2021). Contract cheating in higher education: Global perspectives, policy, and prevention. Routledge. 

Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A. Aminazadeh, M. A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Educ Inf Technol 27, 8413–8460 (2022).

Oravec, J. A. (2022). AI, biometric analysis, and emerging cheating detection systems: The engineering of academic integrity? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30, 175. 

Rüth, M., Jansen, M., Kaspar, K. (2024). Cheating behaviour in online exams: On the role of needs, conceptions and reasons of university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(5), 1987–2008.

Valızadeh, M. (2022). Cheating in online learning programs: Learners’ perceptions and solutions. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 195–209.

Sevnarayan, K., Maphoto, M. (2024). Academic dishonesty in a first-year English module in open distance e-learning (ODeL). Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(2), 357–374.