Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Is the Cheating Risk Always Higher in Online Instruction Compared to Face-to-Face Instruction?


Author Info

  • Oskar Harmon

    (University of Connecticut)

  • James Lambrinos

    (Union Graduate College)

  • Judy Buffolino

    (University of Connecticut)


This article analyzes the exposure to cheating risk of online courses relative to face-to-face courses at a single institution. For our sample of 20 online courses we report that the cheating risk is higher than for equivalent face-to-face courses because of reliance on un-proctored multiple choice exams. We conclude that the combination of a proctored final exam, and strategic use cheating deterrents in the administration of un-proctored multiple choice exams, would significantly reduce the cheating risk differential without substantially altering the assessment design of online instruction.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL:
File Function: Full text (revised version)
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
File Function: Full text (original version)
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Connecticut, Department of Economics in its series Working papers with number 2008-14.

as in new window
Length: 24 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2008
Date of revision: Sep 2010
Publication status: Published in Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol. 13, no. 3, Fall 2010
Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2008-14

Contact details of provider:
Postal: University of Connecticut 341 Mansfield Road, Unit 1063 Storrs, CT 06269-1063
Phone: (860) 486-4889
Fax: (860) 486-4463
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Academic Dishonesty; Cheating; Online Instruction; Principles of Economics;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Michelle Albert Vachris, 1999. "Teaching Principles of Economics without “Chalk and Talk”: The Experience of CNU Online," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 292-303, January.
  2. William B. Walstad, 2001. "Improving Assessment in University Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 281-294, January.
  3. Stephen Buckles & John J. Siegfried, 2006. "Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 48-57, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)



This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


Access and download statistics


When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2008-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Kasey Kniffin).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.