Effects of academic dishonesty policy reminder on university students’ exam cheating – a double-blind randomized controlled experimental field study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic cheating is a pervasive problem in many universities globally. The present double-blind randomized controlled field experiment tested whether reminding university students about academic dishonesty sanction policies would reduce their cheating in an actual exam. Students were assigned to either a Sanction Reminder or a No Reminder condition. Results showed a significant condition effect: Fewer students in the Sanction Reminder condition cheated than in the No Reminder condition; among those who cheated, males and females did not differ in their extent of cheating in the No Reminder condition but in the Reminder condition, male students cheated to a lesser extent than females. These findings suggest that sanction reminder, a widely used academic integrity practice, may indeed have its utility to promote academic honesty in exams. Further, they suggest that to reduce cheating on exams, one does not need to use methods that are overtly explicit and elaborate. A brief, subtle, and simple reminder would suffice. Our research also illustrates the importance of conducting well-controlled field behavioral research to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly implemented educational practices to ascertain that they indeed serve their designed pedagogical purposes to promote optimal learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".