methods of cheating among those students. An important point to bear in mind is that cheating directly relates to the demands of the academic task. Therefore, if the task requires technology, then the cheating method will more likely involve technology. McCabe (1999) conducted focus groups with high school students, and found that most students believed that their teachers were not technologically proficient and, therefore, would not be able to detect plagiarism if the Internet sources were utilized. Because plagiarism makes use of words from textbooks or books in the library, it is more likely to be detected and students choose a technology facilitated method of cheating to reduce the risk of being caught.
Keith-Spiegel (1998) described that another teacher characteristic that affects how students cheat is the extent to which the teacher is known to handle incidents of cheating. Genereux and Mcleod (1995) indicated that teachers who fail to punish cheating may contribute to the development of cheating as a normative behavior. Instructor vigilance is another factor that affects how students cheat.
2.3. Causes of cheating
Importantly, what motivates students to cheat because having alternative solutions to the pressures that lead good students to be dishonest may be helpful as teachers work to encourage their students towards moral behavior. Students from all segments of education are cheating from grade school through graduate school, from the inner city to the country, from the poor to the rich schools, and in both public and private schools. They are cheating because they are scared of failing. They are cheating because they are scared of having a less than perfect grade point average. David Callahan (2004) cited that today people cheat in the world because our society has not only failed to punish cheating, but also in some ways has rewarded dishonesty, “The yawning gap between winners and losers is also having a lethal effect on personal integrity. In a society where winners win, bigger than ever before, then losers are punished more harshly, more people will do anything to be a winner. Cheating is more tempting if the penalties for failure are higher, and the rewards for success are greater. When people perceive this kind of choice, they will often kiss their integrity goodbye.”(p.69).
Based on Whitly and Keith-Spiegel (2002), students have many reasons to justify their cheating. Studies have shown all students give the same excuses for their dishonesty: grade pressure, poor teaching, lack of time, and lack of interest. Anderman and Murdock (2007) argued that students may cheat for developmental reasons, because they do not want to learn, use, or expand their cognitive learning strategies necessary for successful learning. Because development of these learning strategies takes time and lack of time is an excuse students make to justify their cheating. Maramark and maline (1993) observed that situational and institutional variables, such as large classes, classroom environment, and objective examinations, poor monitoring of exams and the use of old tests also foster cheating. As noted by Brown and Emmett (2001), students at larger institutions tend to cheat more than students at small private colleges.
McCabe (1999) had identified other factors that could influence cheating, such as need to get high grades, parental pressures, a desire to excel, laziness, a lack of responsibility, a lack of character, poor self-image, and a lack of personal integrity. Drake (1941) reported that stresses and pressures for good grades were important factors of cheating. Drake examined over 1500 high school students and found that fear of failure was the main reason the students gave for cheating. Other researchers, such as Ludeman (1938) remarked that other factors such as meaningless, overly difficult, or overly easy exams engage students in cheating. It is of almost importance students in grade school, high school, and college, mention these pressures. Having high grade is a criterion students endeavor to acquire it for a good position in the future. Moreover, employers choose employees that have high grades. Low or even average grades may doom a student to not being hired or not offered a position in a graduate program. In addition, the emphasis that our society places on winning, whether it is in sports or business, is a factor that has increased the perceived importance of getting good grades.
Schab (1969) revealed that we all like to be winners in all fields, such as sports, business, or academics. Davis and Grover (1992) explained that grades can be directly linked to a student’s future. Some students responded that although they study hard, cheating increases their scores. They stated we cheated so our GPA looked better to prospective employers. Cheating is a way to stay competitive. Having good GPA I’ll have a good job in the future. Diekhoff, and Clark (1990) concluded many of the reasons that students gave for cheating fell into a category which the researchers called neutralization. Neutralization refers to the fact that students make an attempt to justify their own cheating behaviors, because the other students do it. Drinan (1999) ascertained students cheat because they cannot make friendship and loyalty with integrity. Cole and Kiss (2000) founded in a study that students cheat when they think their homeworks are pointless. As noted by Teixeira and Rocha (2008), although factors, such as age, gender, GPA have less effect than contextual factors, they still have some effects on academic dishonesty .Corocoran and Rotter (1987) explained that students whose behaviors are determined by external forces are more likely to cheat. Hence, external forces have an influence on the amount of cheating. When externally motivated students perceive the situation as having lowered risk, academic dishonesty increases. Cizek (1999) conveyed that although males admit to academic dishonesty at a higher rate than women, both are about equal.
Cizek (1999) suggested that females have admitted to academic dishonesty as often as males under certain circumstances. In addition to gender, McCabe and Trevino (1997) have reported that age may have an impact on the engagement of academic dishonesty. In both cases, the researchers have found that engagement in cheating decreases as age increases and nontraditional learners rather cheat less than traditional aged learners. Johanson and Gormly (1971) believed that both high school and college students who have higher intelligence cheat less often than students with lower intelligence. Eisenberger and Shank (1985) pointed out that students with a high personal work ethic are less likely to cheat than students with a low personal work ethic. In fact, researchers found students with a high work ethic work on a task much and they don’t like to cheat than did students with a low work ethic.
Newstead and colleagues (1996) also found that cheating was more common among science and technology students than other academic majors, such as health, social sciences, and humanities. Dawkins (2004) proposed that students who live together in dormitories and participate in group activates rather than individuals ones are more likely to engage in cheating. Huss (1993) noted that motivation can be another factor which links to cheating. Students whose motivation is just for good grades are much more likely to cheat, and his colleagues reported a research showing college students who like to acquire good grades were more likely to cheat than thosewho like to learn. Millham (1974) found that the need for approval force students to engage in academic dishonesty.
2.4 Application of cheating
In 1941, Drak reported that academic dishonesty includes behaviors such as cheating on exams and copying other students’ homework. According to Baird (1980), cheating is an unplanned opportunity. Students cheat to get a particular grade and to help a friend. As noted by Broussard and Golson (2000), dishonest students tend to share information from test and forge a signature. Anderman and Murdock (2007) indicated that students cheat to accomplish academic goals. McCabe and Trevino (1996) also added that students cheat because of self reported dishonest behaviors, personal characteristics of dishonest students, and correlations between organizational elements and self reported cheating rates. Bouville (2010) noted that students perform such action to obtain underserved high grades. So, they have unfair advantage over other students and this allures cheater to practice this vice in academics all the more.
2.5 Side effects of cheating
Members and administrators are concerned about students cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty. Bushweller (1999) investigated that cheating harm equity. For example, when students cheat, they can get higher grades than they deserve. In a survey of high school teachers it was found that 58%believed that cheating is partly responsible for grade inflation. Cheaters acquire higher grades than those who don’t cheat. Both instructors and students view college teachers ignoring evidence of academic dishonesty as a severe ethical violation. In this case, Keith-Spiegel, Wittig, Perkins, Balogh, and Whitley (1993) observed that teachers must prevent from academic dishonesty. Paterson and Pavela (1988) explained that education systems have an important mission for moral and ethical development of students. According to Kibler (1988), all education systems are not the same. For example, some faculty members do not consider academic dishonesty as legal
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…