violation. So, when students see others cheating and notice see faculty members and administrators addressing such behavior, they may view that cheating is acceptable or at least permissible. Whitley (1998) showed that supportive norms of academic dishonesty would encourage such behavior.
Gehrig and Pavela (1994) depicted higher education has missions for preservation and search knowledge and transmission of that knowledge to a new generation of citizens and scholars, and personal, social, cultural and intellectual development of the members of the college or university. Thereby, students who engage in academic dishonesty cannot acquire necessary knowledge and they cannot get involved in intellectual and moral struggles which foster personal development.
Jendurk (1992) explained that when honest students see others cheat and instructors do not seem to care, they become frustrated and angry. So, when honest students see cheaters gain rewards for cheating no attempting, they will be cynical about higher education. These negative emotions cause they leave effort as a success strategy and come to view cheating as the only way to keep up with everyone else. According to Johnston (1996), when students cheat in class faculty members often feel personally violated and mistreated by them. Keith-Spiegel, Tabachink, Whitley and Washburn (1998) explained that instructors describe cheating as one of the most stressful aspects of their jobs. Hence it is supposed that administrators do not support their efforts to control cheating and punish cheaters (Wilson, 1998). Besides theses negative emotions can result in cynical attitudes towards students, administrators, and the educational process. Baldwin, Daugherty, Rowley and Schwarz (1996) suggested that students who cheat in college frequently continue to cheat in professional schools and in workplaces. McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (1996) cited that since students acquire high grades with cheating in school and college. So, they consider it easy in professional careers as well. Cheaters hurt both academic community and society too. In contrast, students who are never engaged in academic dishonesty are less likely to commit ethical violation in their workplace.
Lords (2000) observed that when students are engaged in academic dishonesty, the name of the institution is prominently linked with the dishonest activity that is interesting to the media. Regularly, there are some unusual incidents of cheating among students and faculties. University of Minnesota, for example, in which staff members in the athletics department always wrote for varsity athletes. Occasionally, the publicity reaches the popular press. Glic and Turque (1993) ascertained that U.S. midshipman naval academy has received advanced copies of a final examination. Consequently, it makes a lot of questions about how the military train its officer.
Andersons (1992) indicated when an institution is engaged in dishonest activities, it will lose public confidence. Sykes (1988) stated that as honest students see others successfully cheat and acquire high grades, they cannot help but lose faith in academia. Such loss of faith can easily lead to loss of support for higher education.
2.6 Feedback of cheating
Smith (2003) investigated the impact of cheating on assessment and showed good assessment has four characteristics. They are reliable, for example, Frey and Petersen (2005) explained that good assessment is valid. Two issues relating to validity are prime concerns. First, is the content of assessment that should reflect what it is taught and what they should do in a representative manner. Second, the consequences of test results should be appropriate. Finally, the characteristic of good assessments is standardization of testing procedures (Kane, Crooks, &Cohen 1999). As noted by Scheuneman and Oakland (1998), cheating hinders standardization by varying testing procedures. For example, a result may unfairly have advantage or disadvantage and prefer one student over another. Athanasou and Olasehinde (2002) suggested that cheating affect each of these four components of good assessment, however it has more effects on validity. So, the purpose of assessment is to measure what students have learned in relation to a specific set of instruction, but academic dishonesty destroys the accuracy of the assessment and decreases the interpretability of grades. When a student cheats on graded work, the teacher is unable to determine whether the student really knows the material, can solve the assigned problem, or complete the given task. Here instructors cannot make a fair judgment about what the student has learned and what the student should do next in the learning process. Passow (2006) declared cheating hurts the students and prevents teachers from providing the necessary and relevant feedback to their students in the learning process. This should be true for all the teachers who may be interested in providing useful information on what the students are doing or they want to make use of the information they receive from their students to prepare for classroom intervention programs. In one study, Baird (1980) found that 57% disapproved of cheating, whereas 40% did not. Jendrek (1992) maintained that 92% disagreed that cheating is acceptable when a person needs to pass a course. Researchers also indentified that among students who had witnessed cheating 31% reported feeling disgust and 25% felt angry. Furthermore, he posited also a gender difference where women were more likely than men to report feeling angry upon having witnessed cheating, whereas men were more likely than women to report feeling indifferent, whereas rated of disapproval of cheating behavior appear to be quite high. Baird (1980) found that only about % 1 of College students would tell an instructor they had witnessed another student is engaging in academic dishonesty.
2.7. Definition of rapport
Faranda and Clarke (2004) explained that rapport in language learning refers to ability to maintain harmonious relationships based on affinity for others. Affinity seeking is defined as the active social-communicative process by which individuals attempt to get others to like and to feel positive toward them (Bell & Daly, 1984). Teachers try to build good rapport with the learners in order to produce an environment that will help learning.
2.8 Benefits of building rapport between students and teacher
Diero (1997) argued that people like those who pay attention to them, and students like teachers who think highly of them. Rapport is the interpersonal side of teaching. According to Ramsden (2003), “Rapport involves knowing your students and their learning styles and using your relationship with them to teach at a more personal level (P.258). It is what makes the teacher more than just a lecturer.”Teachers who have good rapport with their students are skilled in ways that encourage them to subject, like children. Students need to think that you care before they care what you think. This simple point effectively summarizes why an environment of positive rapport is beneficial to the classroom.
Hufton, Elliot, and Illushin (2003) believed that teachers in Kentucky and Russia thought students were more motivated when relationships were free of hostility and when the students believed the teacher liked them and they liked the teacher too, their attitudes about school can change. Sanders and Jordan (2000) explained student-teacher rapport may be related to student’s attitudes in various content areas. More clearly, students seek out teachers who care about and support them, and view them as being good students. Hence, teachers not only can develop a personal bond with students, but also they can create a desire on students to work in classroom like an accomplished mission.
Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1989) found that student’s good operation is related to perceived amount of support they receive from teachers before and after the transition from elementary school to junior high school. In the context of early elementary students, a study by Liew, Chen, and Hughes (2010) concluded that positive and supportive teachers play a compensatory role for students with self-regulatory difficulties through their creation of a learning environment that promotes academic achievement.
2.9 Rapport-building strategies
Building positive student-teacher relationships can be done through various teaching strategies. White (1999) utilized a form of reflective journaling for students to develop their own educational philosophy. White (1999) also reports that not only it immediately opens the lines of communication between teacher and student, but also it helps the instructor emphasize the value and meaning of learning. Dieros (1997) described six strategies a teacher could use to build positive and nurturing relationships. These strategies were observed in the teaching of several teachers who wanted to have positive rapport with their students, such as having a good relationship with students and their family, building a sense of community in the classroom and using rituals and traditions. Nevertheless another study by Baker (1999) revealed that students who reported high satisfaction from school intended to receive more negative feedback from a teacher when being given assistance. This is indicative again of using a form of higher expectation for the students you know are capable of reaching it. These strategies can have a positive impact on a teacher’s classroom environment, and can help them avoid the effects of students feeling negative
unfair tests or of being superhard grades. Students must be challenged, not overwhelmed. Reducing anxiety on tests also decreases cheating. Kibler and Eble(1988) suggested that the pressure of any one test can be reduced by Read more…