Abstract:

STEM courses are content-heavy. Computer science (CS) classes come with a high out-of-class workload. Learning to program takes hours of practice, which cannot be done during class. Many CS courses use out-of- class assignments for both practice and for assessment—up to 40% of the grade. Even though educators recognize that peer learning is effective, CS courses usually prohibit collaboration on programming assignments.

The learning challenges, how grading is weighted, and the fact that much learning happens out of class creates both motive and opportunity for students to cheat. In other words, what we call cheating is what students recognize as effective learning!

Cheating is also a problem in the classroom. As enrollment rises, classrooms become more crowded and often every seat is taken. Some undergraduate courses have more than 500 students, and Master’s (MS) courses often have more than 100. The graduate population in US universities is very international, and many MS students have differing levels of aversion to cheating. Managing large classes adds multiple challenges—including monitoring students for cheating.

The full paper discusses benefits of preventing over catching, analyzes why they cheat, and discusses the disadvantages of cheating. Then the paper offers details of techniques summarized below for preventing cheating and presents results from using those techniques. A key result is that these techniques also add inclusivity.

How do students cheat? When programming, students work together, they copy part or all of other students’ programs, they use disallowed resources such as ChatGPT, and they pay for solutions through semi-public websites. During in-class exams and quizzes, students visually copy from nearby students (made easier by overcrowded classrooms), they use surreptitious electronic communication, and they take advantage of the crowds by whispering semi-anonymously.

Preventing cheating in programming: The biggest gain comes from separating practice from assessment, and allowing students to collaborate in out-of-class assignments. Short questions and changes to their programs in class can be used to effectively assess whether the students learned the concepts the practice programs were teaching. Students can learn more from working with their peers, so everyone wins. Also, some assignments can be adapted to require divergent thinking and creative problem solving, so that every student’s submission will be unique.

Reducing the percentage of the grade allocated to out-of-class work reduces the motivation for cheating. This assessment can be replaced by in-class work, including problem-solving exercises that ensure the students learned the lessons.

Preventing cheating in the classroom: Large crowded classrooms create a perception that nobody will notice. But professors can adapt. Assigning seats during exams sends a strong message and reduces opportunity. Having different exam versions sounds hard—but can be finessed by jumbling questions and question parts, by making minor changes to problems, and by using different colored paper. Telling students their exams are different helps prevention; not telling them increases detection.

Most importantly is that if students think rules are fair, believe they can succeed, and believe we want them to succeed, they are less likely to cheat. Communicating these to students is crucial. Preventing cheating increases learning—which should be our primary goal.

Keywords:

Pedagogical Methods and Innovations (Assessment of Student Learning, Active and Experiential Learning, Collaborative Problem and Project-based Learning, Creativity and Design Thinking, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving).