Rebekah Aldrich
Kristin
Kirkpatrick
Debora Souza
Lori Stone
Tough topic: Cheating
Cheating is a huge and multi-faceted topic addressed in hundreds of articles and books. As we began to prepare our presentation and paper we made a choice to deal with some issues which were not already addressed, or only minimally addressed, in our class discussions and in our textbook. We chose to center our focus on three topics: 1) the gray areas of cheating, 2) motivation for cheating, and 3) plagiarism.
The gray areas interested us because the
mindset we saw in research tended to view cheating as a fairly black and white
issue, yet the literature contains a lot of differing sets of activities
considered to be cheating. Typically, research articles deal with only the most
blatant types of cheating. We chose motivation because it is the motivation for
cheating that often causes the most ethical dilemmas for teachers. Finally, we
decided to address one specific type of cheating, plagiarism. We chose plagiarism because of its
prevalence, because the issues surrounding plagiarism are changing because of
the World Wide Web, and because it is so difficult for faculty members to catch
and deal with. Each of our focus areas is illustrated first with a scenario,
followed by discussion of the relevant literature and suggestions for teachers.
Marsha is a senior at a large university and only lacks 15 hours to
finish her degree. She is determined to finish this semester because she is a
single parent with two small children and needs to be able to earn a decent
living to support them. She has therefore enrolled in five classes this
semester. Unfortunately when she receives the syllabi for all her courses she
discovers that she has been assigned research papers in three different
classes. In addition, one professor has assigned a huge load of readings,
homework, projects, and tests. Marsha knows she does not have the time to do
the research for three papers in addition to all her other assignments, but she
does not want to drop a class and stay in school another semester.
In two of her classes the paper topics are fairly similar. For these
classes Marsha decides to write one paper that she will modify slightly for
each class. Because of the time pressure, Marsha hires someone to type these
two papers. The typist corrects a number of punctuation and grammar errors, and
even offers several suggestions for improving organization and flow.
For the third class, the topic is wide open. Marsha realizes she has a
paper she wrote a year ago that will work, but it is a little shorter than the
minimum paper length. She decides to increase the margins and enlarge the font
slightly so that the paper will be long enough.
(Some of the ideas for actions on the borderline between
cheating and not cheating came from Roen & McNenny, 1992; Sims, 1995;
Graham, Monday, O'Brien & Steffen, 1994)
The
first logical task in research on cheating would be to determine what actions
constitute cheating. It is therefore surprising that in the hundreds of
articles on cheating written in the last 20 years, only a handful deal
primarily with a delineation between what is cheating and what is not. As the
Marsha scenario shows, there are many gray areas in defining cheating. All of the actions that Marsha took might be
considered cheating by some faculty members and not others; they might be
considered cheating in some circumstances but not in others.
Among
those attempting an abstract definition, Steven Dowd (1992) offers a useful
general definition of the opposite of cheating, the practice of academic
integrity:
"A. Only
using authorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise
. . .
B. Only using true information and recognized citations in an academic exercise." (p. 15)
The
most ambitious attempt to identify the components of cheating appeared in the
abstract of a dissertation by Sharon Schwindt (1980). According to her,
cheating involves the "taking advantage or bending" of known
"rules or standards governing a particular situation." "Emotions
are evident before, during, and after the cheating act," along with
"justification, to self or others, of the decision to cheat" and
finally, the student must deal with the "aftermath, usually in the form of
shame or guilt" (p. 5381-A).
Livosky
and Tauber (1994) found that over 90% of students and faculty do not consider
it cheating to have an intention to cheat but not carry it out. A majority
rated as cheating an act carried out but not planned, and nearly 100% rated as
cheating actions both planned
and carried out. Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) point out that context,
such as a homework versus an examination situation, is also involved in
determining whether or not actions are considered cheating.
In
the literature there is disagreement about whether faculty generally view
cheating more seriously than students (Roberts & Toombs, 1993; Smith,
Nolan, & Dai, 1998; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994), whether
students generally view it more seriously (Livosky & Tauber, 1994) or
whether it depends on the type of cheating (Sims, 1995). What is evident is
that students do not view potential cheating actions or their seriousness in
the same way faculty do.
In
addition, research makes it clear that faculty and students also disagree among
themselves. Students, particularly freshmen, may be ignorant of or uncertain
about exactly what academic dishonesty is (Peterson, 1986). Marsha could be one
of those students who does not understand the boundaries of academic
dishonesty. Younger
students have grown up in a school system that increasingly values group work
and therefore will have received mixed messages regarding academic dishonesty.
Students consider actions which may harm another student, such as not contributing
their fair share to group work (Sims, 1995), as particularly serious, often
more serious than faculty consider them, and they are very clear about the
effect others' actions have on them (Johnston, 1996). Therefore, it may be
especially beneficial to foster an atmosphere of class accountability for
academic integrity.
Because
there is so little agreement about what constitutes cheating and what actions
are the most serious, it is urgent that faculty members think through and make
clear to students their own views on academic integrity. In addition, all
assignments and tests should include clear instructions about use of materials
and collaboration with other students. If Marsha's actions were innocent, instructor clarity
could have ensured that she made choices within the range of academic honesty.
Professor Plum is very suspicious that
Bob cheated on the last in-class exam which had three short answer questions.
Bob got an A; his writing was surprising- very few spelling mistakes, excellent
grammar, and, on top of that, his answers were not only perfectly correct but
also original. Prof. Plum is perplexed, because he doesn't understand why Bob
would start cheating now, more than halfway through the class. Bob has been a
stereotypical average working student. He has maintained a high C average so
far in the class, participates in class when necessary even though his comments
aren't the most thought provoking, dresses casually; he's usually late for
class, and when confronted about his being late, he argues that he works late
evenings and can't make himself get out of bed in the morning. Prof. Plum never
gives the same exam twice and uses different forms of the exam to prevent
cheating. After sharing this news with his TA, Prof. Plum finds out that his TA
accidentally left the original copy of the exam on the copy machine for two
hours by the computer lab Bob frequently visits. Prof. Plum confronts Bob and
Bob caves under the questioning, admits it, and explains why. First of all, Bob
admits he is unmotivated for this class and for his academic career in general.
He works at night to make a living and actually, he does not appreciate student
life. He's in college because he wants to please his father who believes he
can't go far in life if he doesn't have a college degree. He wouldn't have
deliberately planned a scheme to cheat on the exam but the opportunity was
there—he couldn't believe his eyes when he saw the exam in the copy machine. He
thought to himself, "I just want to get out of school; it would be good if
I could get a good grade. It is just going to be this one time. And it's not my
fault that someone left the exam here."
Why do some students cheat? Even though there is no
simple, straightforward answer to this question, researchers have collected
enough evidence now that points to certain directions. Our goal in this section
is to try to present the most important findings in the literature that have
helped us get closer to an answer.
One possible way to gain insight
into students’ motivation for cheating is actually asking them for the reasons
or motives they attribute to such behavior. Davis and Ludvigson (1995) and
Baird (1980) asked groups of students to fill out questionnaires, which aimed
at assessing their reasoning for cheating among other things. Both studies
found the desire to improve grades and a lack of time management, such as
taking on too much at once or not leaving enough time to study, to be the most
common reasons. Partello (1993) also found the desire to get good grades the
most common reason students cheated. In studies conducted in England
(Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; Newstead et al., 1996), these were also
the two most cited reasons for cheating. Participants in the American study,
however, identified another interesting factor: social pressure. As in Bob’s
case, a desire to please the parents or a concern for the effects of a low GPA
in their search for a job after graduation were also in the list of the most
common motives.
One question inevitably arises, however,
when you look from the students’ perspective. One could argue that every
student has to face, at some point in his or her academic life, some kind of
stress or pressure. So, why do some choose to cheat and others do not? Perhaps
we need to discriminate between justification and motivation. Behind these
alleged reasons there seems to be an underlying pattern that is prevalent among
those who cheat. Murdock et al. (2001) argue that the best motivational
predictor of cheating is a lack of “academic efficacy,” or rather, a fear of
failure in the academic environment. Moreover, there seems to be enough
evidence now that those students who are performance oriented rather than
learning oriented are much more likely to cheat (Weiss et al. 1993; Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998;
Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, 1996).
There is one aspect of this
discussion, however, that we cannot lose sight of – as Ashworth et al. (1997,
p.201) put it well, “cheating is sometimes a symptom of some more general
malaise.” A study conducted by Anderman,
Griesinger, and Westerfield (1998) found that students were more likely
to cheat in a class in which extrinsic goals such as grades were stressed and
in a class in which cheating seemed to be acceptable. In a classroom of 300
students, there may be a feeling of anonymity or even indifference from the
part of the instructor. This factor alone can have a direct influence on a
person’s lack of motivation and willingness to cheat. What research is telling
us is that we need to stop and think about the ways in which instructors and
the current academic culture contribute to this situation. It is time to stop
and think about how we can become better instructors in the sense of teaching
not only content but also teaching students how to strive for learning and not
a higher GPA. Some possible ways professors can do this are to foster intrinsic
motivation by reducing social comparison, require student participation, use
examples and activities students can relate to so they can apply the content to
what they are interested in, make the class more personal for students, and
offer a course as pass/fail.
Bill is an average student. His exam essays show an adequate understanding of the material, but they rarely go beyond the most basic level of understanding. He typically communicates his ideas using informal language, but he occasionally offers an elegant turn of phrase. He has already written one paper early in the semester; the writing was poor enough to prompt you to suggest that he visit the university writing center, which he did. Now it's time for the second paper in the course, and you begin to read his paper with little enthusiasm. However, a strong thesis draws you in and you quickly realize that something dramatic has happened to Bill's writing. As you continue to read, you realize that Bill is describing a very sophisticated understanding of his material, and he is consistently using elegant language. With a sinking feeling, you quickly look through the other papers because you suspect him of plagiarism. There is no overlap with any other students, but your experience with Bill for an entire semester tells you that something is up.
One type of cheating that can be difficult to detect is plagiarism, which is broadly defined as reproducing the work of someone else without acknowledging the source. In a study examining the frequency of different types of cheating, Hale (1987) reports that 55% of students surveyed confessed to having plagiarized material, and, in another survey, 95% of students who admitted cheating said they were never caught (Bushweller, 1999). Because self-reports of plagiarism undoubtedly underestimate the prevalence of this type of cheating, and because the Internet provides students with many new and easily accessible opportunities for source material, it is important for teachers to address this topic. We focus on two primary areas of concern: students' understanding of the boundaries of plagiarism, and specific techniques for detecting plagiarism.
Students are often confused about the difference between correct paraphrasing and plagiarism. A recent study explored this issue by asking students to rate a variety of paragraphs that had been paraphrased from an original text, which the students also read (Roig, 1997). Although most of the paraphrased paragraphs were correctly identified as having been plagiarized, nearly half the students incorrectly identified some of the more subtly plagiarized paragraphs as appropriate paraphrasing, since the original source was cited. This suggests that students often incorrectly believe that merely citing the original author precludes accusations of plagiarism. This study also pointed out that the experts who originally created and rated the rewritten paragraphs disagreed about the subtly paraphrased paragraphs, which points to the often gray areas of plagiarism, and the difficulty in making decision rules.
Careful teaching about academic ethics may prevent inadvertent plagiarism. Time spent defining and discussing plagiarism thoroughly, discussing hypothetical cases, revising plagiarized passages, reviewing the conventions of quoting and documenting material, requiring multiple drafts of essays, requiring students to submit photocopies of documented material, providing proper proofreading guidelines, and offering proper collaboration guidelines will provide students with sufficient information to make informed decisions as they write. Proper note taking skills may also be taught with the intent of preventing accidental copying of phrases (Krauthamer, 2001).
Although plagiarism may occur because of a lack of knowledge, it frequently occurs deliberately. Students may copy from each other, or they may directly lift text from the Internet, books, or journals. There are also over a hundred websites on the internet which either give term papers away for free, or which sell term papers and essays to anyone with a credit card. The enormous libraries of papers for sale undoubtedly contributes to cheating students’ beliefs their plagiarism will not be caught. Several specific techniques have been developed to assist teachers in detecting plagiarism; one of the most widely used is known as the cloze technique (Glatt & Haertel, 1982; Grubaugh, Speaker, & Tanner, 1996), which is based on the assumption that individuals have distinct, personal and stable writing styles. In this procedure, the instructor selects a suspicious paragraph from the student’s paper and removes every nth word (typically every 5th word). The student is then asked to fill in the missing words. Students’ accuracy on their own writing (exact replacement of the missing words) is typically 84%, but only 60% on their peers’ writing (Grubaugh, Speaker, & Tanner, 1996). This technique can be easily and quickly applied by hand, but cloze software is also available (e.g., http://www.plagiarism.com) to more systematically check for evidence of plagiarism. There are also numerous websites available to provide automated checking against available paper mills on the Internet (see Appendix A for resources).
While the statistics tell us plainly that cheating
is a common activity among undergraduate students, very few of us as faculty members will
want to spend our time catching cheaters and punishing them. When necessary,
the techniques available for detecting plagiarism will be useful. But, as all
three of these scenarios point out, there are several simple things teachers
can do to prevent cheating. Before we ever enter a classroom again, we can
think through our own attitudes and opinions about cheating and formulate
unambiguous definitions of what we will and will not accept from our students.
We can create syllabi that set out a clear and concise academic integrity
policy. And we can follow that up by being clear and open, both in writing and
verbally, about our expectations and boundaries for each assignment and
examination.
In addition,
creating a classroom environment of mutual accountability for academic
integrity will support our students' best selves. As we have seen in the
scenarios presented in this paper, there are many motivations for cheating;
some of them will pull at our heartstrings as teachers. Using the prevention
techniques outlined in this paper, and the many others available to us, will assist
students in making honorable choices that will serve them during their academic
careers as well as in their futures outside the classroom.
References
Anderman, E., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G.
(1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 84-93.
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997).
Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and
plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22,
187-203.
Baird, J. S., Jr., (1980). Current trends in college
cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-522.
Bushweller, K. (1999). Digital deception. The
American School Board Journal, 186, A18-A19.
Davis, S., Grover, C., Becker, A., & McGregor, L. (1992).
Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching
of Psychology, 19, 16-20.
Davis, S. & Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional data
on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of
Psychology, 22, 119-121.
Dowd, S. (1992). Academic integrity--A
review and case study. (Report No. JC-920-448). Birmingham, AL: University
of Alabama - Birmingham. School of Health Related Professions. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 349 060).
Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. (1995).
Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education,
20, 159-172.
Glatt Plagiarism Services, Inc. (2001). Help
deter plagiarism and encourage academic honesty. [online]. Available:
http://www.plagiarism.com/. (July 2, 2001)
Glatt, B. S., & Haertel, E. H. (1982).
The use of the cloze testing procedure for detecting plagiarism. Journal of
Experimental Education, 50, 127-136.
Graham, M., Monday, J., O'Brien, K., &
Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and
faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35,
255-260.
Grubaugh, S. J., Speaker, R. B., &
Tanner, M. L. (1996). Writer’s cloze performance: detecting plagiarism at four
grade levels. Reading Improvement, 33, 66-75.
Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in the
classroom. Communication Research Reports, 4, 66-70.
Johnston, K. (1996). Cheating: Limits of
individual integrity. Journal of Moral Education, 25, 159-170.
Krauthamer, H. (2001). Electronic notes. Teaching
English in the Two-Year College, 28, 302-306.
Livosky, M., & Tauber, R. (1994). Views
of cheating among college students and faculty. Psychology in the Schools,
31, 72-82.
Murdock, T., Hale, N., & Weber, M. J. (2001).
Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and social
motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 96-115.
Newstead, S., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P.
(1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 229-241.
Partello, P. (1993). First-year students and cheating: A
study at Keene State College. Research Strategies, 11, 174-179.
Peterson, L. (1986). "But we did it
together;" or, Academic integrity and misrepresentation among college
students. (Report No. HE-019-799). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 275 281).
Roberts, D., & Toombs, R. (1993). A
scale to assess perceptions of cheating in examination-related situations. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53, 755-762.
Roen, D. & McNenny, G. (1992, March). Collaboration
as plagiarism: Cheating is in the eye of the beholder. (Report No.
CS-213-446). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College
Composition and Communication. Cincinnati, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 347 548).
Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students
determine whether text has been plagiarized? The Psychological Record, 47,
113-122.
Schwindt, S. (1980). Cheating: An
examination of the essence of the phenomenon and a system of classification.
(Doctoral dissertation abstract, The University of Michigan, 1979). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 40(10-A). 5381A.
Sims, R. (1995). The severity of academic
dishonesty: A comparison of faculty and student views. Psychology in the
Schools, 32, 233-238.
Smith, J., Nolan, R., & Dai, Y. (1998).
Faculty perception of student academic honesty. College Student Journal, 32,
305-310.
Weiss, J., Gilbert, K., Giordano, P., & Davis, S.
(1993). Academic dishonesty, Type A behavior, and classroom orientation. Bulletin
of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 101-102.
University
of Texas:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/services/instruction/faculty/plagiarism/
Detecting
plagiarism:
· lab3e@rabi.phys.Virginia.EDU [email U of VA physicist Lou Bloomfield to receive a free copy of his software]
Internet
paper mills: