의학교육에서 시험부정행위의 10가지 현상수배범(Med Educ, 2016)

의학교육에서 시험부정행위의 10가지 현상수배범(Med Educ, 2016)

The 10 most wanted test cheaters in medical education

Kenneth Royal,1 Marian-Wells Hedgpeth,1 Jamie Mulkey2 & John Fremer2

도입

INTRODUCTION

학부의학교육에서의 부정 행위에 대한 연구는 의대에서 학생의 58 %가 속임수를 쓴다고 추정한다 .1 대학원 의학 교육의 연구에 따르면 '족보 복원'(기존 시험문항 및 답변에 대한 접근)의 사용은 매우 흔하게 발생하여 레지던트 문화의 일부가된다. 2,3 부정행위에 대한 자료수집이 보통 자기보고형이라는 점을 감안할 때 부정 행위에 대한 이러한 추정은 과소 평가 되어있을 가능성이 높다. 더욱이, 의학 교육 환경은 객관식 질문 항목이 대부분이고, 학생들은 잘 해야 한다는 압박이 있고, 과중한 학업량에 시달리고 있어서 부정 행위에 특히 취약합니다.

Research on cheating in under- graduate medical education esti- mates that up to 58% of studentshave cheated during medical school.1 Research from graduate medical education suggests the use of ‘examination recalls’ (ac- cess to previous examination items and answers) has become so prevalent that it is part of resi-dency culture.2,3 Most disturbing is that any estimates of cheating are likely to be underestimated given that most data are self- reported. Further, medical educa- tion environments are particularlyvulnerable to cheating as a result of the prevalent use of multiple- choice question items, the pres- sures students feel to do well, and the heavy workloads they face. 

Finn and Frone4는 부정 행위에 대한 주된 동기는 간단합니다 : 학생들은 더 높은 성적을 원합니다. Cizek5는 학생을위한 부담stake가 더 높을 때 부정 행위가 발생할 가능성이 더 높다고 말합니다. 의학 교육에서 일상적인 수업 평가조차도 학생에게 중등 및 중급 지분을 소지 할 수 있습니다. 개인이 불안감을 느낄 때 위협에 대한 인식이 증가하고, 결과적으로 더 큰 위협을 느낀다는 사실을 보여줍니다.

Finn and Frone4 note that the pri- mary motivation for cheating is simple: students want higher grades. Cizek5 notes that cheating is more likely to occur when the stakes are higher for students. In medical education, even routine classroom assessments may carry moderate to high stakes for stu- dents. Devel- oping research6 suggests that when individuals experience anxiety, their threat perception is increased, which, in turn, often results in their committing unethi- cal acts.

부정행위가 여러 가지 validity threat을 야기하기 때문에 의학 교육자들이 속임수를 억제하는 것이 중요합니다. 또한,부정 행위의 습관이 형성되면, 잠재적으로 그러한 습관은 직장에까지 확장될 수 있다.

It is critical that medical educators curb cheating because cheating poses a number of validity threats. Further, numer- ous researchers have discussed the habit-forming nature of cheating and its potential for extending to other areas, including the work- place8–10 and at home.11,12

부정행위자의 분류법

TAXONOMY FOR TEST CHEATERS

So what exactly can those responsible for maintaining a healthy academic environment do to curb cheating? We believe the answer is to educate faculty staff about the common ways

10가지 현상수배범

THE 10 MOST WANTED TEST CHEATERS IN MEDICAL EDUCATION

밀수꾼

The smuggler

This individual attempts to carry forbidden materials to an examina- tion setting. Smugglers try to bring in a wide variety of contraband, including cheat sheets, notes, for- mulas and electronic devices.

관광객

The tourist

This individual likes to take in all the sights, especially in examina- tion settings. Tourists often have trouble with wandering eyes and are a constant threat to examina- tion integrity.

요실금환자

The incontinent

This individual requires frequent restroom breaks during an exami- nation, often to access unautho- rised notes and materials. The incontinent knows that surveil- lance in restrooms is off-limits, so he or she uses these safe zones to review notes or locate answers. For example, the incontinent will con- ceal crib notes in rolls of bath- room tissue.

위장술사

The impersonator

This individual utilises a number of strategies to impersonate other students. Impersonators often present a false ID or credential to a proctor in order to take an exami- nation on another person’s behalf, forge the name of another student on a sign-in sheet, or share electronic log-in information with an absent student to ensure the absentee receives credit for partici- pation and performance.

해커

The hacker

This individual is an ever-present threat because anyone who can access an item bank or potentially change students’ grades poses a tremendous danger to examination security and integrity.

이야기꾼

The storyteller

종종 '시간 여행자'와 함께함.

This individual attempts to share information, often innocently, with others who have yet to take an examination. Storytellers often work closely with time travellers (individuals who exploit situations in which examina- tions are offered at different points in time).

항공교통관제사

The air traffic controller

수하물 취급자, 로그 파일럿.

This individual directs traffic on secret or private Facebook and social media sites on which unauthorised materials appear and inappropriate discussions about examinations occur. Such individuals work closely with baggage handlers, who ensure there is plenty of precious cargo to go around. They are particularly difficult to catch without the assistance of a rogue pilot (an individual who has visited the website) blowing a whistle.

협력가

The collaborator

It is often desirable for students to work in teams in educational set- tings, but this is not appropriate when we are evaluating individual competence.

공감자

The empathiser

Empathy is an important character- istic for any future medical profes- sional; however, these individuals take the sentiment too far. Empathisers (typically students froma previous year) often feel the pain of upcoming students and want to help make their lives easier by sharing examination items and other unauthorised materials.

로빈훗

Robin Hood

Sometimes well-intentioned instructors also participate in cheating. A Robin Hood is an instructor who provides unfair assistance to less competent stu- dents (often at the expense of others) in order to help inflate their scores.

의학교육자와 법집행기관의 유사성

PARALLELS BETWEEN MEDICAL EDUCATORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

Parallels between law enforcement personnel and medical educators, particularly as they pertain to matters of prevention and detection, are presented in Table 1.

부정행위 방지

PREVENTION OF CHEATING

예방은 다음과 같은 행동을 포함한다 : 

• (i) 기관의 시험 보안과 관련된 정책, 절차 및 관행을 수립하는 시험 보안 핸드북 개발, 

• (ii) 시험 응시자 합의서 및 명예 훈령 개발: 평가에 있어 학생의 역할과 integrity에 대한 책임 명시 

• (iii) 테스트 관리자, 직원 및 의사에 대한 교육 개발: 상황 발생시 경계하고 대응할 수 있도록한다. 

• (iv) 직원 및 교수진에 대한 시험 보안 역할 및 책임

• (v) psychometric의 모범 사례를 활용한다 .5, 17-19

Prevention includes such actions as: (i) devel- oping a test security handbook which establishes policies, proce- dures and practices around test security for the institution;13 (ii) developing test taker agree- ments13,14 and honour codes14,15 that specify the student’s role in completing assessments and his or her responsibility to the integrity of the programme; (iii) developing training for test administrators, fac- ulty staff and proctors16 so that they can be vigilant and respond to inci- dents should they occur; (iv) creat- ing test security roles and responsibilities for staff and faculty members,16 and (v) utilising psy- chometric best practices.5,17–19

부정행위 탐색

DETECTION OF CHEATING

때때로 예방만으로는 충분하지 않습니다. 따라서 테스트 보안 사고가 언제 발생하는지 감지하기위한 메커니즘이 마련되어 있어야합니다. 이러한 메커니즘에는 다음이 포함됩니다. 

• (i) 사건이 발생했을 때 정보와 증거를 수집 할 수있는 강력한 감독 절차. 

• (ii) 학생들이 동료들 사이에 부정 행위 또는 부당 행위를 신고하는 (비밀이 보장되는) 행위의 메커니즘; 

• (iii) 속임수 또는 문항 절도를 나타내는 비정상적인 응답 패턴을 탐지하기위한 통계 분석 (데이터 포털) 5,20,21의 사용 및 

• (iv) 실제 테스트 컨텐츠가 공유되거나 판매되는지를 탐지하는 웹 모니터링 22.

Sometimes, prevention is not enough. Therefore, mechanisms must be in place to detect when test security incidents happen. These mechanisms include: (i) strong proctoring procedures that enable the collection of information and evidence when incidents transpire; (ii) mechanisms for students to report (often confidentially) inci- dents of cheating or misconduct among their peers; (iii) the use of statistical analysis (data foren- sics)5,20,21 to detect unusual response patterns indicative of cheating or test theft, and (iv) web monitoring22 to detect if actual test content is being shared or sold.

기타 고려사항

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

부정행위의 효과가 그 시험에만 localize되어 있다고 종종 생각하지만, 반드시 그러한 것은 아니다. 연구 결과에 따르면 비윤리적 행위를 하는 사람은 종종 시간이 지남에 따라 빈도와 심각성이 증가하는 행동 양식을 보인다. 또한 Royal과 Puffer7에 따르면 부정 행위는 수험생뿐만 아니라 항목의 난이도, 비교 가능한 형태의 시험 출제 능력, 미래의 수험생의 합격 기준에까지 영향을 미친다.

Although faculty staff often assume the effects of cheat- ing are localised, this is not neces- sarily true. Research suggests persons who commit ethical trans- gressions often develop patterns of behaviour that increase in fre- quency and severity over time.23 Further, Royal and Puffer7 have described how cheating may impact not only examinees, but also the calibration of item diffi- culty estimates, the ability to pro- duce comparable forms of an examination, and even the passing standard for future examinees.

---

Med Educ. 2016 Dec;50(12):1241-1244. doi: 10.1111/medu.13096.

The 10 most wanted test cheaters in medical education.

Royal K1, Hedgpeth MW1, Mulkey J2, Fremer J2.

Author information

1

Department of Clinical Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

2

Caveon Test Security, Midvale, Utah, USA.

Abstract

This paper takes on a list of the 10 most wanted test cheaters comparable with 'most wanted' lists used by law enforcement agencies to bring attention to the issue of test cheating in medical education. The research provides an overview of test cheating in modern medical education, presents a typology of common cheaters, and provides guidelines for the prevention and detection of cheating.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

PMID:

 

27873405

 

DOI:

 

10.1111/medu.13096