Topic: Student cheating

r 21st, 2009 Student name : Pham Nhu Quynh Student number: CQ483995 Class : Bussiness English 48A1 Abstract: This report investigates the current state of cheating by students. Based on the information from 100 students from colleges and universites, the discussion focuses on three main parts: how do students cheat, why do they cheat and solutions . The first part examines the variety of creative tactics that students use to cheat during in class examinations. Findings indicate that students manipulate variables divided into “qualifying” the teachers/ professors, collaborative cheating, solitary cheating. In the second part, it analyzes internal and external factors that influence students’ behaviors. It is also suggested some solutions by both students surveyed and the reporter. I. Introduction: Cheating is present in our society. We see cheating in the games we play, in the lives we lead and in our classrooms. The literature on academic dishonesty provides a structural framework for understanding exactly what constitutes cheating. It also documents the social and personal characteristics of cheaters, their motives, where they are most likely to cheat, and when they are most likely to cheat; but where the literature is less thorough is when it comes to documenting what the students do to cheat-that is, how they cheat and why they do that. This gap in the literature exists because the techniques and tactics that students use to cheat have been largely presupposed rather than thoroughly examined and the reasons also diversify along with the time and social environment. This paper examines the varieties of creative tactics that students use to cheat during in-class examinations as well as analysizes the most recent and important reasons causing this tension. Based upon this study, specific techniques for enforcing academic integrity during in-class examinations will be suggested along with speculations as to the emotional and moral attractions of academic dishonesty. II.Content: 1. How do students cheat? McCabe and Bowers (1994, p. 7) define the parameters of cheating on tests/exams as: 1) copying from another test or exam 2) helping someone on a test 3) using a crib note 4) copying from someone without their knowledge (see also McCabe and Trevino,1996, p. 31). Smith’s work offers a more specific way of differentiating and classifying cheating on tests, but his questionnaire also implicitly hints that there might be other places and ways that crib notes may be creatively imported and used during an exam. This leads to a logical question: what type of innovative and creative tactics do students use to cheat during in-class examinations? And once crib notes are used, what strategies do students use to destroy the evidence of their illicit actions? Newstead et al. (1996) and Smith (2000) note that prearranged signal systems are used to receive or communicate answers to and from others; if this is so, are hand signals and tapping one’s pencils the only way that cheating occurs? How do students avoid the obvious possibility of drawing the teacher’s suspicions while employing such intrusive methods of communication? This study was concerned with identifying and classifying the specific techniques that students use to cheat during in class exams; it was exploratory in nature, designed to elicit detailed narratives. Consequently, no hypotheses were tested. Rather than only using pre-formulated surveys, students were instructed to be as detailed and as descriptive as possible in their narratives.To capture the authenticity of students’ experiences, I have chosen to let the students represent their own stories, in their own ungrammatical voices besides completing a semi-structured questionnaire. The data for this study were collected from 100 students from colleges and universties in the first half of December, 2009. Each student was asked to complete a semistructured questionnaire. The students were asked two questions: 1) Have you ever cheated during an in-class examination? (Cheating was defined as copying a test from others, using unauthorized crib notes and “cheat sheets” during an exam.) 2) If students answered “yes” to (1), they were directed to a second question which asked them to write a detailed narrative as to how they cheated—the specific tactics they used to cheat during in-class examinations. There were wide variations in the length and detail of students’ narratives; for the purposes of this paper, narratives that are rich in descriptions and representative of the analytical category under discussion are chosen as examples. “Qualifying” the Professor “Despotic professors incur the deviant wrath of their students, thus facilitating their justifications and rationalizations for cheating” (Haines et al., 1986; McCabe, 1992). Practically, however, students who decide to cheat on in-class exams have to find innovative ways to avoid the surveillance of professors and teaching assistants. Thus, in addition to completing the exam, students who decide to cheat must first determine their potential for success; to this end, they engage in a “qualifying” process whereby they determine if “the person is desirable as a victim” (Leo, 1996, p. 266). Essentially, students “size up” their teachers, testing their vigilance. This process is similar to the way police detectives “size up” a suspect in an interrogation room. Students, too, create a psychological “profile” of their professors, and creat suitable ways to dupe them. In common, student makes a distinction between regular faculty members and department chairs, assuming that the courses taught by department chairs are substantively more difficult, the teacher more vigilant and strict—“hard” (“she would not play any games”). That assumption is initially confirmed after one or two lessons and one test. After the first test, however, the student re-evaluates the professor’s suitability as a potential target for cheating after discovering an obvious limitation in the professor’s surveillance capability: she has to remain stationary, hence, limited in her field of vision. Furthermore, the student relies on her knowledge of situational routines to mobilize and execute her illegitimate plans. In this excerpt, the student “sizes up” the professor’s constraints in her mobility, range and scope of her surveillance, and typifications of test administration and uses them to her unfair advantage; consequently, she is able to successfully cheat without detection. A student elaborates in considerable detail how he “sizes up” the professor and constructs a working “profile”: How do you do it (cheat) without getting caught? The first way is by knowing the professor. What I mean by that is knowing and understanding your professors habits and routines, especially you have to notice his habits and routine in the classroom… Another thing learn his interests. What I mean by that is notice if he brings a magazine or newspaper and if he does this everyday. If you see him reading something on campus, notice what it is and how long he’ll read than look up. Bring a watch. Most people begin reading something they like and forget what they are supposed to be doing and in about 5 minutes they’ll look up to see where they are or look at their watch to remember what they have to do. After you notice these things a few times your set. If you are going to a test and he comes in with a magazine or paper he read daily or every other day, you got him. You’ve already studied his reading habits and you know about how often he’ll look up at the class. Say he looks up about every 3 minutes. You know you have at least 2 minutes to cheat so now you got him. He is unaware of his thought less routines or habits so the chance of getting caught in virtually gone. Oh, another things, remember that group or people you learned your professor likes or is his favorites. You want to be one of them. Why? Because someone who pretends to pay attention or participates will be most unlikely to cheat right? Well, that’s what your professor thinks. So you need to participate and ask questions you know only your professor would know so he thinks your trying to learn. This is very effective. The first noteworthy—and impressive—point about the way this student “sizes up” the professor. The student does not just observe the teacher; he collects, sorts, and analyzes behavioral data, carefully noting the professor’s reading habits, body and eye movements, and general comportment in the classroom. By knowing the professor’s habits and routines, the student is able to delineate the situational, normative, and temporal boundaries of illicit action; moreover, such systematic observations reveal the victim’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses. In other words, the student knows what he can get away with and how long he can look at his cheat sheet. The second noteworthy point is that the student actually “cultivates” the professor, meaning that the student manipulates the professor through a “pattern of psychological dependence” (see Leo 1996, p. 271). Like a good confidence man or a car salesman, an experienced cheater exploits the weaknesses of professors and betrays his/her trust for a chance to improve his/her grade. Once students have “sized up” their professors, and have decided to cheat (or not), then they must decide if they are going to cheat alone or do so in collusion with others. 1.2 Collaborative cheating Some cheating methods are just uncouth and unimaginative: students sit in the back of the room and blatantly whisper answers back and forth to one another. In this section, some of the recurring, yet not so obvious, methods that students use to cheat in conjunction with their peers are discussed. a, Tactical Deployment: Tactical deployment refers to the strategic ways that students position themselves in relation to others; this method requires students to be situated in a zone of maximal surveillance in the proximity of someone who has studied for the exam, one who may or may not be an accomplice. Usually, this person is considered the “smart” one in the class, and those who seek his/her assistance simply peek at their answers unbeknownst to their victims: When I cheated myself & some buddies would position ourselves around the smartest one in the class and the one closest would copy and then we would copy off of him. Cheat sheets are to risky you can get caught Collaborative cheating requires a willing (active) or an unwitting (passive) participant, and is intricately related to environmental and social influences. To cheat successfully with others, a “smart” confederate- one who actually studies for the exam- is necessary (see Cizek, 1999). Moreover, the confederate must be willing to participate in the scheme. The person who allows his/her work to be copied can be conceptualized as a passive- social cheater since his/her role is minimally active (see Hetherington and Feldman, 1964). Through tactical and strategic body placement, several students are able to cheat successfully without detection. But what is noteworthy here is the incremental and sequential nature of collaborative cheating: no one individual bears an unfair load of the dishonest work; each participant’s role in the scheme is divided, thus diminishing the likelihood of group detection and reducing the culpability of the involved parties. The next innovative method of collaborative cheating involves more than spatial positioning; it requires communicative participation. b, Semiotic Methods: Another method of cheating that was successful on multiple choice tests for a while was using signs. This would work in the classes that had students facing each other. For example, I would watch a student and he or she would signal me the answer by touch the nose for A, touch the chin for B, the ear for C, and finally touch the top of the head for answer D. This method was harder so we had to pay attention and stay on the same question. Coughing once for A, twice for B and so on, students rely on non-verbal communication methods of cheating so as to not draw attention to themselves. This method is advantageous in that it eliminates from the outset the leaving behind of potentially incriminating evidence (e.g., crib notes). Solitary cheating Collaborative cheaters deploy themselves in strategic ways in relation to “smart” confederates; if the “smart” person is not an accomplice, then the one whose work is surreptitiously copied is not a passive cheater but a victim—a victim of theft (see Bunn et al., 1992). Using crib notes (“cheat sheets”) is mentioned as a primarily way of solitary cheating as well as peeking at someone else’s answer sheet, writing the answers on the bottom of one’s shoes, on top of desks. Futhermore, using one’s body parts in creative way has become more popular: Instead of writing the answers in my hand, I would write them on the side of my fingers. If I were asked to present my hands for inspection, there would be no visible evidence of the crime. When the teacher would scan for cheating students, I would put my hand on my forehead “in frustration” and read the answers from between my fingers. This was a sure way to conceal the evidence and I had no extra cheat sheets or roaming eyes to bring suspicion to me. Although this student relies on a rather elementary method of cheating, she adds a slight variation to the method. Instead of writing on the most visible parts of her hand (palms), she writes the answers on the sides of her fingers where they are not readily visible. Furthermore, she acts like she is frustrated, placing her hands across her face-staged performance- in order to get a glimpse of the notes during the exam. An obvious advantage of using one’s body parts as a cheat sheet is that the evidence of misconduct is removed with a student’s departure from the examination site; in other words, students who cheat in this manner do not have to concern themselves with the disposal of incriminating evidence. A similar point can be made of clothing. In my data, students regularly admitted taping crib notes onto articles of clothing on the day of the exam. For instance, sweaters, jackets, shirts, and hats were frequently used as illegitimate resources during in-class exams: Now cheating in basic classes isn’t that hard either best way is a hat just pull it low. The teacher can see the top of the head but has no clue where the eyes are going, hats give the perfect angles for viewing neighbors tests. I would tape a cheat sheet upside down on the inside bottom of my shirt. While taking the test I could turn the bottom of my shirt up and get the formula, answer, etc. 2. Why do students cheat? The thrust of this research has centered on one of the most basic ethical decisions faced by college students- to cheat or not to cheat on their academic work. The final decision is affected by both external and internal factors. 2.1 External factors With increasing competition for the most desired positions in the job market and for the few coveted places available at the nation’s leading business, law, and medical schools, today’s undergraduates experience considerable pressure to do well. Research shows that all too often these pressures lead to decisions to engage in various forms of academic dishonesty (e.g., Bowers, 1964; McCabe, Treviđo, & Butterfield, 1999). McCabe and Treviđo’s (1993) survey conducted in the 1990–1991 academic year was the first major, multicampus investigation of institution-level variables that influence cheating behavior since Bowers’s (1964) seminal work. Major variables investigated in this study included the existence of an honor code, student understanding and acceptance of a school’s academic integrity policy, perceived certainty that cheaters will be reported, perceived severity of penalties, and the degree to which students perceive that their peers engage in cheating behavior. In this report, I would like to divide variables mentioned above into: honor code and peer- related factors. a, Honor code: The last decade has actually seen a modest increase in the number of college campuses who have adopted academic honor codes. Such codes place significant responsibility on students to maintain an environment of academic integrity, and evidence suggests they can be quite successful. Although honor codes are not a panacea and are more difficult to implement on larger campuses, many of the principles on which such codes are built can be implemented on any campus. McCabe and Treviđo (1993) replicated Bowers’s (1964) finding that less cheating occurs in honor code environments. However, McCabe and Treviđo were intrigued by an additional finding: one of the lowest levels of cheating occurred at a school that lacked an honor code, and one of the higher levels of cheating occurred at a school that had a long-standing honor code. This finding led to an important insight: it is not the mere existence of an honor code that is important in deterring college cheating. An effective honor code must be well implemented and strongly embedded in the student culture. Contextual influences on cheating included the degree to which the code is deeply embedded in a culture of integrity; the degree to which a school has a supportive, trusting atmosphere; competitive pressures; the severity of punishments; the existence of clear rules regarding unacceptable behavior; faculty monitoring; peer pressure to cheat or not to cheat; the likelihood of being caught or reported; and class size. b, Peer- related factors: Students who might otherwise complete their work honestly observe this phenomenon and convince themselves they cannot afford to be disadvantaged by students who cheat and go unreported or unpunished. Although many find it distasteful, they too begin cheating to “level the playing field.” This final variable, peer behavior, was found to show the most significant relation with student cheating in this study. Based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), the strong influence of peers’ behavior may suggest that academic dishonesty not only is learned from observing the behavior of peers, but that peers’ behavior provides a kind of normative support for cheating. The fact that others are cheating may also suggest that, in such a climate, the non-cheater feels left at a disadvantage. Thus cheating may come to be viewed as an acceptable way of getting and staying ahead. (p. 533) The contextual factors (peer cheating behavior, peer disapproval of cheating behavior, and perceived severity of penalties for cheating) were significantly more influential than the individual factors (age, gender, GPA, and participation in extracurricular activities). Peer-related factors once again emerged as the most significant correlate of cheating behavior. 2.2 Internal factors Besides external factors, the relation between individual influences and academic dishonesty is consdiered to be an important impact on students’decision in cheating. Although these factors are found to be less important than contextual factors, they are nonetheless significant correlates of cheating among college students. Between the 1960s and 1990 most of the research on student cheating focused on the role of individual factors related to cheating behavior. This stream of research revealed that factors such as gender, grade point average (GPA), work ethic, competitive achievement striving, and self-esteem can significantly influence the prevalence of cheating (e.g., Baird, 1980; Eisenberger & Shank, 1985; Perry, Kane, Bernesser, & Spicker, 1990; Ward, 1986; Ward&Beck, 1990). Prior studies (e.g., Anton & Michael, 1983; Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986) have shown that younger students tend to cheat more than older students. However, it is not clear how much of this relation is accounted for by age versus class rank. These two variables are strongly correlated. Another individual factor that has received much attention in the literature is gender. The majority of prior studies have reported that men cheat more than women (e.g., Aiken, 1991; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Ward, 1986), but several studies have found no difference between men and women (e.g., Baird, 1980; Haines et al., 1986). Although McCabe and Treviđo (1997) found the more traditional result (i.e., men self-reported more cheating than women) within similar majors, gender differences are often very small. 2.3 The responsibilities of teachers/ professors and parents The research shows that these transgressions are often overlooked or treated lightly by faculty who do not want to become involved in what they perceive as the bureaucratic procedures designed to adjudicate allegations of academic dishonesty on their campus (e.g., McCabe, 1993; Nuss, 1984; Singhal, 1982). As a result, this encourages students to continue cheating in tests or exams- an easy way to get good marks without efforts or hardworking. Besides that, teachers/professors’ way of teaching is also one of the reasons students cheat: I was terrified of this class for a long time, so I put it off to the very end. I had heard horror stories of different teachers but I had never heard anything about the particular teacher that I would be taking. She was terrifically boring, her teaching is the most apathetic that I have ever experienced. The responsibilties belong to parents as well. Based on the reasearch, parental pressure is mentioned by most of students. In their process of studying, meeting parents’ high expecations for them has become an obligated duty that they must implement without any excuse or reason. In many cases, students have no choice but cheat in their tests or exams in order to “complete the important duty”. 3. Suggested effective solutions The research discussed here represents factors that influence cheating among college students. Here are some solutions suggested by students who are surveyed and by myself that faculty, administrators, academics, and students can use to help reduce cheating on their campuses: - Clearly communicate expectations (e.g., regarding behavior that constitutes appropriate conduct and behavior that constitutes cheating). - Establish and communicate cheating policies and encourage students to obey those policies. - Consider establishing a classroom honor code-one that places appropriate responsibilities and obligations on the students, not just the faculty members, to prevent cheating. - Be supportive when dealing with students; this promotes respect, which students will reciprocate by not cheating. - Be fair-develop fair and consistent grading policies and procedures; punish transgressions in a strict but fair and timely manner. - When possible, reduce pressure by not grading students on a strict curve. - Focus on learning, not on grades. - Encourage the development of good character. - Provide deterrents to cheating (e.g., harsh penalties). - Remove opportunities to cheat (e.g., monitor tests, be sure there is wide space between test takers). - Develop fair and relevant forms of assessment. - Assign interesting assignments. - Replace incompetent or apathetic teaching assistants. - Foster a love of learning. - Challenge academic dishonesty when it occurs. III. Conclusion: For some students, a gap between the culturally prescribed symbols of success (i.e. a college degree) and the absence of legitimate opportunities for their attainment translates into adopting innovative methods of adaptation (Merton, 1938). Thus, why students cheat has been the topic of extensive research, but how they cheat has been largely neglected. As a result, implemented solutions has little effective for the reason of not knowing thoroughly the way students do their tricks. First of all, this paper supplements the established findings on academic dishonesty by marking out the innovative techniques that students use to respond to perceived strains and frustrations encountered within the context of pursuing a college degree. Futhermore, the research also points out the bonds among contextual factors, individual influences and academic dishonesty. Lastly, it offers practical suggestions to deter academic dishonesty and enforce academic integrity during in-class exams. With three parts analysed step by step, my report suggests a more routine activities approach to “crime” prevention strategies. IV.References: Aiken, L. R. (1991). Detecting, understanding, and controlling for cheating on tests. Research in Higher Education,32, 725-736. Anderson, W. F. Jr. (1957). Attitudes of university students toward cheating. The Journal of Educational Research,50, 581-588. Baird, J. S. Jr. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-582. Barnett, D. C. and J. C. Dalton. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 545-551. Bunn, D. N., S. B. Caudill. and D. M. Gropper. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. Journal of Economic Education, 23, 97-207. Bushway, A. and W. R. Nash. (1977). School cheating behavior. Review of Educational Research, 47, 623- 632. Cizek, G. (1999). Cheating on Tests: How to Do It, Detect It, and Prevent It. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Cohen, L. and M. Felson. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. Drake, C. A. 1941. Why students cheat. The Journal of Higher Education, 12, 418-420. Ferrell, C. M. and L. G. Daniel. (1995). A frame of reference for understanding behaviors related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students. Research in Higher Education, 36, 345- 375. Genereux, R. L. and B. A. Mcleod. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36, 687-704. Haines, V. J., G. M. Diekhoff, E. E. Labeff and R. E. Clark. (1986). College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25, 342-354. Houston, J. P. (1983). College classroom cheating, threat, sex and prior performance. College Student Journal, 17, 229-235. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of Crime. New York: Basic Books. Kelly, J. A. and L. Worrell. (1978). Personality characteristics, parent’s behaviors, and sex of subject in relation to cheating. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 179-188. LaBeff, E. E., R. E. Clark, V. J. Haines, and G. M. Diekhoff. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 190-198. McCabe, D. L. and L. K. Trevino. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522-538. McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Research in Higher Education, 34, 647–658. McCabe, D. L., Treviđo, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70,211–234. Newstead, S. E., A. Franklyn-Stokes and P. Armstead. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 229-241. Ward, D. A. and W. L. Beck. (1990). Gender and dishonesty. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 333- 339. Wright, J. C. and R. Kelly. (1974). Cheating: Student/faculty views and responsibility. Improving College and University Teaching, 22, 31-34. Aiken, L. R. (1991). Detecting, understanding, and controlling for cheating on tests. Research in Higher Education, 32, 725–736. Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University. Canning, R. (1956). Does an honor system reduce classroom cheating? An experimental answer. Journal of Experimental Education, 24, 292–296. Ward, D. A., & Beck, W. L. (1990). Gender and dishonesty. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 333–339. ._.