成人学员考试作弊心理及矫正对策

成人学员考试作弊现象严重,导致成人考生作弊行为的心理因素主要有考试焦虑心理、侥幸心理、对待作弊的不正确态度等诸多主观因素的影响.只有认识成人作弊心理,才能有效地采取矫正对策.     

大学生考试作弊原因及教育对策

大学生考试作弊现象时有发生,屡禁不绝,其原因是部分学生存有纯粹追求高分数的学习动机,对考试作弊行为缺乏正确的认识。加强对学生的诚实、诚信教育,改进教学与考试方法,严格执行考试管理制度是解决学生考试作弊的有效措施。     

大学生考试作弊行为的实证研究——基于西部某高校的调查

基于大学生考试作弊的现实演变,本文运用问卷调查和访谈的方法对西部某高校大学生作弊的现状、成因及行为发生机制进行了相关研究。结果表明:(1)大学生考试作弊具有普遍性,作弊行为已经进入到一些学生的基本价值体系,形成一种"作弊文化";(2)来自城乡的学生,在"对作弊的认识倾向"、"作弊动机"变量上有显著差异;(3)不同性别的学生,在"对作弊的认识倾向"、"作弊动机层面"、"管理制度层面"、"作弊原因"等方面有显著差异;(4)不同年级的学生,在"对作弊的认识和态度"上有显著差异;(5)不同专业的学生,在"作弊动机"变量上有显著差异;(6)作弊方式多样,并带有明显的时代技术特征;(7)学生对作弊的认识和态度有不同的倾向、攀比心理的影响、考试试题的结构与性质、教学管理过程的松懈、考试与评价方面的不合理性、教师监考的松懈等是促成学生作弊的重要因素。作者在指出作弊现状、分析作弊成因及其发生机制的基础上,提出了防止作弊或尽量减少作弊的干预性建议。     

高校大学生考试作弊心理分析与对策探讨

近年来,高校大学生考试作弊问题越来越严重,引起了全社会广泛关注和忧虑。通过分析大学生考试作弊心理产生的思想根源,总结归纳了“毒性思维”及其四种表现形式,从道德、技术、制度等方面探讨减少和杜绝高校大学生考试作弊的有效对策,这将有助于实现高等教育的良性发展和大学生的健康成长。     

居人学员考试作弊心理及矫正对策

成人学员考试作弊现象严重，导致成人考生作弊行为的心理因素主要有考试焦虑心理，侥幸心理，对待作弊的不正确态度等圹多主观因素的影响，只有认识成人作弊心理，才能有效地采取矫正对策。     

考试作弊现象成因分析

1．很多大学生不以考试作弊为耻辱,对考试作弊危害性的认识也越来越淡化。他们不认为作弊是欺骗性质的错误行为,而认为作弊是情有可原的,比如这个专业我根本不喜欢,课程内容没意思,这些知识没什么用处,这种又不是竞争性的考试能过就行了等;有一项关于大学生作弊问卷调查中,有56．6％大学生认为“为了考试及格     

当前大学生考试违纪问题的探析

近些年来 ,大学生考试违纪作弊的现象已屡见不鲜 ,尽管教育行政部门、高校三令五申严肃考试纪律 ,并采取了各种措施 ,但收效并不显著。这种不良现象的发生和存在已经严重地影响了高等学校的正常教学秩序和教育质量。因此 ,如何认识考试作弊的危害以及如何防治考试作弊 ,就成为整顿教学秩序、治理育人环境、加强学风建设的一项重要任务。一、考试作弊的表现及危害。据有关调查资料表明 ,当前大学生考试作弊现象在高校不同程度地存在 ,其主要表现为 :1、学生的学习态度发生明显的变化。近几年在大学生中曾出现这样的思想 :“五十九分白费、六…     

透视高校学生作弊现象构建良好的考试机制

高校学生作弊屡禁不止,严重影响了正常的教育秩序。本文从对学生作弊的基本认识和态度、以及错综复杂的作弊的成因出发,在维护考试尊严的基础上充分体现“以人为本”的教育理念,尝试为探索并构建良好的考试机制,完善高校的教学管理制度提出设想。     

让学生自己教育自己

初二第二学期期中考试后,有学生反映我班某些同学考试时作弊。于是,我利用班会课,讲了这种现象,表扬了敢于反映情况的同学,并要求同学们将自己知道的考试作弊情况反映给我。不一会儿,同学们的纸条都传上来了,一统计,全班只有一小部分同学考试时没有作弊,其他同学都程度不同地违反了考场纪律。 面对着这么多作弊的学生,应该怎么办?想来想去,我觉得只有启发他们自己教育自己才能端正学习态度,纠正错误。于是我结合语文教学,布置了一篇作文,题目是“谈作弊”,要求同学们通过自己的思考和认识,谈考试作弊的危害性。作文交上来后,我全部批阅,看到一部分学生对作弊的认识很肤浅,只觉得这样做暂时取得好成绩,可是升学考试时,单人单桌,外校教师监考,很可能考不上高中。这样的认识显然是没有涉及问题的本质。为     

动机和态度对学生考试作弊的影响模型研究

针对目前考试作弊现象屡禁不止和考试作弊的影响因素的多样性,以1747名辽宁省大学生的考试作弊影响的测试数据为依据建立理论模型,研究大学生的考试作弊动机、态度对考试作弊的影响。研究结果表明不同因素对考试作弊的影响差距很大,可以通过控制内在动机和外在动机减少考试作弊。研究结果将为减少考试作弊现象、改进考试制度提供有效的参考。     

Certainty of Punishment and Criminal Thinking: Do the Rational and Non-rational Parameters of a Student’s Decision to Cheat on an Exam Interact?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether criminal thinking interacts with the rational requirements of human decision-making in a group of college students. A convenience sample of 315 undergraduates (114 males, 201 females) completed self-report measures of criminal thinking and estimated their likelihood of cheating on an exam given different levels of certainty of apprehension. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance revealed that students were significantly more likely to seize on the opportunity to cheat when the certainty of getting caught was 10% than when it was 50% and that students with higher levels of criminal thinking were more likely to take the opportunity to cheat than students with lower levels of criminal thinking. In addition, students exhibiting moderate proactive criminal thinking and moderate to high reactive criminal thinking were significantly less likely to be deterred from cheating when the odds of getting caught were low.     

教师的疲惫与疲惫的教师:问题与对策

有关调查数据显示,疲惫是今日中小学教师的普遍感受。社会期待的叠加、工作负荷的失据、管理思维的线性及教师心态的失衡导致了教师的疲惫,而疲惫的教师则以“做假帐”或负担转嫁作为回应,并在这样的回应中丢失了创新意识和创新行动。解决这一问题,需要把“分离期待”并“注释期待”、“有组织地舍弃”过度负荷、树立科学的成本观和辩证的闲暇观作为应对教师疲惫的管理策略。同时,也有赖于教师自身心态的调适。     

大学生诚信缺失的主要表现及其对策思考

列举了大学生诚信缺失的主要表现,如考试作弊、恶意欠费、背信违约、弄虚作假、虚荣攀比等。针对大学生的诚信现状和诚信缺失的主要表现,提出了对加强大学生诚信教育的几点思考。     

Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study

Contract cheating is the purchasing of custom-made university assignments with the intention of submitting them. Websites providing contract cheating services often claim this form of cheating is undetectable, and no published research has examined this claim. This paper documents a pilot study where markers were paid to mark a mixture of real student work and contract cheating assignments, to establish their accuracy at detecting contract cheating. Seven experienced markers individually blind marked the same bundle of 20 second-year psychology assignments, which included 6 that were purchased from contract cheating websites. Sensitivity analyses showed markers detected contract cheating 62% of the time. Specificity analyses showed markers correctly identified real student work 96% of the time. Our results contrast with contract cheating sites’ claims that contract cheating is undetectable. However, they should be taken with caution as they are from one course unit in one discipline.     

科举考试中舞弊与防弊的现代教育考试管理启思

在历时1300年的科举考试当中,始终存在舞弊与防弊的尖锐斗争。科举考试中的舞弊行为可以分为考前舞弊、考试当中的现场舞弊和考后阅卷录取舞弊三大类。少数违规者的舞弊行径,不仅累及绝大多数清白士子,甚至在一定程度上挟持了整个科举考试的管理理念、管理制度和管理措施。今天,考试中的舞弊行为有愈演愈烈之势,舞弊行为也表现出一些新的动向和特点,如高科技化、团伙化、职业化、内外勾结等。治理考试舞弊,需要多管齐下,使考生不想舞弊、不敢舞弊、不能舞弊、不需舞弊。在防范和打击舞弊的同时,还需科学处理严格管理与以人为本的关系、防范舞弊与代价适度的关系、考试内容与管理手段的关系。     

College cheating: Ten years later

In this 10-year follow-up study of student cheating, we surveyed 474 university students to (1) evaluate the extent of cheating; (2) assess attitudes toward cheating; (3) identify variables that discriminate between cheaters and noncheaters; (4) assess the relative effectiveness of various deterrents to cheating; and (5) examine changes in cheating attitudes and behaviors from 1984 to 1994. Most students (61.2%) reported cheating in 1994, up significantly from 54.1% in 1984 (Haines et al., 1986). Despite this increased cheating, students in 1994 were significantly less likely than in 1984 to neutralize (rationalize) their cheating. Ten variables that discriminated between cheaters and noncheaters in 1984 did so again in 1994, and 12 additional discriminating variables were identified. A principal components analysis of these 22 variables indicated that, compared to noncheaters, cheaters are (1) less mature; (2) less reactive to observed cheating; (3) less deterred by social stigma and guilt and more likely to neutralize cheating; (4) less personally invested in their education; and (5) more likely to be receiving scholarships, but doing less well in school. Both cheaters and noncheaters rated embarrassment and fear of punishment as the strongest deterrents to cheating; disapproval of one's friends was ranked as the least effective deterrent by both groups.     

高职院校学生考试作弊情况的回归分析——以徐州工业职业技术学院为例

考风建设历来是高职院校教学管理中的一项重要内容。本文以考试作弊次数为自变量,以学生基本情况、中学时考试作弊情况加上计划行为理论提出的作弊道德观、作弊态度、作弊收益与代价估计、感受压力、学校政策共7个模块20个项目的因变量进行回归分析,并根据回归结果提出相应的建议。     

Impulsivity and Academic Cheating

The authors examined the relations between academic cheating and impulsivity in a large sample of adolescents enrolled in high school health education classes. Results indicated that impulsivity predicts academic cheating for students who report extensive involvement in cheating. However, students who engage in extensive cheating are less likely to report cheating when they perceive a mastery goal structure. In addition, both moderate and extensive cheaters report less cheating when they perceive the teacher as being credible.     

FACTORS INFLUENCING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ DECISIONS TO CHEAT BY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT

Academic dishonesty (cheating) has been prevalent on college campuses for decades, and the percentage of students reporting cheating varies by college major. This study, based on a survey of 643 undergraduate engineering majors at 11 institutions, used two parallel hierarchical multiple regression analyses to predict the frequency of cheating on exams and the frequency of cheating on homework based on eight blocks of independent variables: demographics, pre-college cheating behavior, co-curricular participation, plus five blocks organized around Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (moral obligation not to cheat, attitudes about cheating, evaluation of the costs and benefits of cheating, perceived social pressures to cheat or not to cheat, and perceived effectiveness of academic dishonesty policies). The final models significantly predict 36% of the variance in “frequency of cheating on exams” and 14% of the variance in “frequency of cheating on homework”. Students don’t see cheating as a single construct and their decisions to cheat or not to cheat are influenced differently depending on the type of assessment. Secondary findings are that a student’s conviction that cheating is wrong no matter what the circumstances is a strong deterrent to cheating across types of assessment and that a student who agrees that he/she would cheat in order to alleviate stressful situations is more likely to cheat on both exams and homework.