attitudes toward certain cheating behaviors. Murdock, Hale, and Weber (2001) proved that when middle school students believe their school environment fosters a performance goal orientation, they are more likely to report engaging in cheating behavior in course work. Maehr (1991) stayed that perhaps appearing competent during relation to others is stronger than engaging in the cheating behavior. Anderman, Griessinger and Westerfield (1998) claimed that if school environment is calm and stress free, students will have less incentive to cheat. Kohlberg (1985) recommended that theory of moral development investigate the moral aspects of cheating. Malinowski and Smith (1985) believed that “there is an inverse relationship between moral development level and cheating behavior in male undergraduates” (p.1016). When students are under the pressure by situation they cheat more.
Eisenberg (2004) proposes a relationship between cheating behavior and the extent to which students believe cheating is a moral issue. Researcher controlled both individual differences in moral perspective and the effects of situational variables on attitudes toward cheating during exams. In conclusion there were two kinds of cheatings: active (coping off another person’s exam) and passive (allowing someone to copy off your exam).Cheating is more moral rather than a convention based issue. Although Eisenberg (2004) examined attitudes, his findings have important implications for discussion of individual and situational factors related to both active and passive cheating attitudes.
McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2001) asserted that contextual factors may affect student’s choice of cheating technique. They reviewed the cheating literature and reported that disapproval of cheating behavior, and perceived penalties for cheating influenced cheating behaviors in college students significantly more than individual factors such as age and gender. McCabe et al. (2001) declared the amount of serious cheating behaviors in different contexts and showed that a serious test cheater is defined as someone who admits to a student to copy from another student on exam or to use unauthorized crib or cheat notes on a test or exam. On the whole, serious cheating on written work includes plagiarism, fabricating or falsifying a bibliography, using others work, and copying a few sentences of materials without footnoting them. McCabe and colleagues explained serious cheating can be prevalent on college without penalty. Houston (1986) emphasized that other factors as the physical characteristics of the classroom, and the seating arrangement, may also influence the student’s method of cheating. He confirmed students cannot copy off another’s paper when they are in the back of the room .However, they are more likely to cheat when are seated next to a partner.
Brandes (1986) reported that cheating in elementary school is more prevalence, but how do students cheat in elementary school level? According to statistics in California, some students cheat in elementary schools, middle schools and high schools. But it seems that high school students are engaged in cheating more than elementary school ones. Anderman and Midgley (2004) remarked academic cheating between high school and middle school which showed an increase in cheating in high school. Brandes (1986) also found the methods used by high school students differed from that of younger students. Although both younger and older students copied from others on test, only older students reported using crib notes during tests. Younger students reported plagiarizing, more as the method of cheating. It is important to consider that cheating behaviors are directly related to the demands of the academic task. To put it differently, the behavior is enacted to help the student meet important outcomes of the assignment. Syer and shore (2001) suggested that having a science fair project can reduce cheating behavior because students will find cheating methods are more complex and sophisticated over the grade levels in direct relation to increasing complexity of learning and assignments among high school students.
According to Anderman (2006), it is important to know that differential understanding of what constitutes cheating can be problematic. Evans and Craig (1990) commented differences in middle and high school students versus teachers understanding of cheating behaviors, Therefore, students were less passive in cheating (they tend to copy from others’ papers and perfer to share less information with them). Results indicated that individual cheating was 27 percent in planned independent, 16 percent in social active, and 14 percent in social passive. Ahlers-Schmidt and Burdsal (2004) explained that last method of cheating depended on contextual factors. But recently, passive cheating is defined as allowing information from others to influence responses made on certain tasks. To investigate the occurrence of passive cheating, 49 undergraduate psychology students were assigned to an experimental group and a control group. After completing a 40-item multiple-choice test with difficult trivia questions, the control group was asked to leave the room commenting on the high frequency of B responses so that the experimental group waiting to take the exam. Results indicated a significant difference in the number of B responses between the experimental and control group, with the experimental having more B responses. The researchers concluded that the experimental group was influenced by those who took the exam before them and, thus had engaged in passive cheating.
Gilroy (2004) ascertained that methods of cheating are frequently described in the popular press as well as in the academic literature. Popular press articles have recently focused on the occurrence of technology-facilitated cheating in both K-12 and postsecondary schools. One reporter predicts that the percentage of students who admit to cheating will likely increase every year as technology becomes more sophisticated and affordable. Tweedle (2004) pointed out Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) are popular, fairly affordable devices and can easily be used to make databases with answers that students may access during exam time. Tweedle and Total telecom (2004) also explained by rising cellular phone sales in the United States and Canada, it is easier for students to engage in cheating behaviors on exams. Tweedle (2004) reported that Students have commonly used text messaging through cell phones to text questions and answers to other test-takers. Further, students turn off the phone sound, type the answer and press send. And another person in the room receives the answer. Users can send messages to people in other classrooms and record, store, and retrieve test answers. Also camera cell phones make possible a new version of the cheat sheet possible. Total Telecom (2004) demonstrated students utilize camera phones to take pictures during exams instead of using the classic method of looking over someone’s shoulder. They also take pictures of notes and study guides prior to exams to look up answers during the test, and send photos of answers to someone else in the room. So, Short Messaging Service offers technology in which messages can be sent quickly and quietly from device to device. AS noted by Read(2004),students are using their Web-connected cellular phones to find answers during the examination and are using instant messaging for communication which caused some professors to permanently ban electronic devices from their classrooms, other students have taken pictures of their study guide, saved it in their phone, only to access it later during the test. Taking pictures of a test is a new form of cheating that is relatively easy.
Karpf (2004) explained that taking papers from the Internet is epidemic. Unfortunately, certain websites make it easy for students to plagiarize. Instance, a simple search on Google allows access to sites that provide completed papers on selected topics. Moake (2004) commented that in addition to plagiarizing materials from the Internet, there are other forms of cheating at universities. Some classes are taught completely online such as discussion boards, and messaging systems (i.e., blackboard), so students can store class materials very easily. The researcher also explained that Blackboard has actually made it easier for students to cheat on quizzes, and homework. By online quizzes students can have access to outside sources or class materials when completing the quiz. Unfortunately, the problem is that the offsite nature of web based work reduces or eliminates an instructor’s ability to monitor the use of unauthorized resources and the independent completion of work.
According to McCabe and Norton (2001), there are different forms of cheating such as sharing answers with nearby fellow, text messaging of answers using cell phones, copying encyclopedia material that is found on the Internet, bringing cheating, sheets on gum wrappers into exams and preparation of essay answers on laptop computers. Although there are still traditional methods of cheating, technologically facilitated methods are described more frequently in popular press and academic literature. Researchers also explained that the use of technology-facilitated methods of cheating may be related to individual differences, such as college majors, financial affluence, and technological expertise. Some college majors require greater use of technology than do other majors, and we might expect to find the most sophisticated
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…