Forgiving Those Who Have Cheated - Term Paper Example

of the English of the Concerned 9 April Forgiving those who have cheated It is a fact that every tries to perform one’s best in the academic tests. Most of the students work hard and take great pains to score well in the tests. Getting good grades in tests not only bestows immediate academic recognition upon a student, but assures professional and academic success in the future also. Besides, good performance in tests justifies the hard work put in studies throughout the year. Good grades also lead to appreciation and approval from the teachers, parents and class fellows. Therefore, there is no doubt that accruing good grades in tests means a lot to any student. The sad thing is that there also happen to be students who resort to cheating on academic tests to get good grades. Most of the times the students who cheat on the tests happen to be the one who do not work hard all the year round. Hence, as the exams approach, they try to opt for the easy way out, to be able to perform well in the tests. Such students, who cheat on tests, not only harm themselves, but, they also inflict a great harm on other students, the academic institution in which they study and the education system in general. Hence, such students, who cheat on tests, deserve no forgiveness or leniency from the teachers and the concerned academic administrators. To safeguard the students who cheat from academic and moral corruption, to protect the academic interests and integrity of the hard working and honest students, to save the reputation of the academic institutions and to protect the education system in the country, it is imperative to assure a strict disciplinary action against the students who cheat on tests. It is but commonsensical to say that a student who cheats on tests happens to be one’s own worst enemy. Those who cheat happen to have a very shallow and narrow understanding of the meaning and purpose of education (Siniver 595). They do not consider education to be a means to acquire knowledge, character and skills. For such students, it is the end result that matters (Siniver 595). They believe that if they could accrue good grades by cheating on tests, it amounts to academic success (Siniver 594). Hence, they flitter away their time and resources, when the other students are burning the midnight oil to master academic concepts and skills. However, as the exams approach, such students do happen to know that they are not prepared to perform well. Therefore, they resort to short cuts and loopholes like cheating on tests. They fail to consider the fact that by cheating on tests, they are committing a grave harm to their future academic and career prospects. They simply do not stop to consider the fact that cheating will merely provide them with an academic degree or a diploma. Yet, it will deprive them of the knowledge, skills and the character required to be a success in the real life. Hence, it is necessary for the teachers and academic administrators to punish and correct the students who cheat. It prevents such students from resorting to unfair means in the future. It also restores their understanding of education and sets them on the right track for the rest of their life. However, any forgiveness shown to students who cheat on tests, may save them from a harsh sentence in the short run, but will surely spoil their academic prospects forever. It will further reinforce their belief that it is alright to succeed by resorting to cheating and guile. Thereby, by initiating a strict action against the students who cheat, the academic authorities rescue such students from becoming victims of wrong and immoral perceptions about life. A strict and timely disciplinary action protects those who cheat from academic and moral corruption. It corrects them and sets them on the right path. The other thing is that America is the land of opportunity and it is important for the academic institutions and authorities to safeguard the interests and integrity of such students, who aspire to seek success through hard work and fair means. It is a fact that a majority of the students do not cheat on tests because they believe in hard work and honesty. Such students do tend to have a faith in truth and justice and they strongly believe that honesty and hard work is the key to success. However, in a situation where an average student accrues much better scores as compared to an honest and gifted student, by cheating on tests, this compromises the academic and career aspirations of a genuine, hard working student. This abominable thing is much more possible in standardized and objective type tests, where cheating could decisively tilt the scale in favor of dishonest students. Thereby, cheating is a big threat to the interests of all hard working and sincere students. Besides, there is one other aspect of cheating that needs to be considered. Success achieved by the students who cheat on tests may shake the trust and faith of other hard working students in the virtues like industry and labor (Firmin, Burger & Blosser 4). They may end up getting the false notion that ends justify the means and it is alright to cheat on academic tests. Short term success achieved by dishonest students through cheating may disappoint and discourage the students who study and work hard throughout the year (Firmin, Burger & Blosser 4). Therefore, bringing the students who cheat to justice by taking a strict and exemplary action against them is necessary to safeguard the academic interests and integrity of the students who are genuine and sincere. It reinforces and restores their trust in the system. It takes an academic institution, years and sometimes centuries to win a reputation for academic excellence, and widespread academic cheating and dishonesty by its students may shatter that reputation in no time. It is a matter of pride that the United States of America has one of the best education systems in the world. The nation takes pride in the academic institutions that have turned out to be synonyms for excellence and integrity over the years. It is the unblemished reputation of many of such academic institutions that motivates the students from around the world to seek admission in such institutions. Hence, the thing that needs to be understood is that going soft on those students who cheat on tests may not only set a vicious rot in such institutions of excellence, but may also jeopardize their public image and reputation (Petress 624). If an academic institution fails to penalize the students who cheat, it may convey to other students in the institution that they also can easily get away with cheating and academic dishonesty. The problem brought into existence by one unscrupulous student may take no time to assume epidemic proportions (Petress 625). Failure to initiate timely action against the cheating students may dilute the public image of an academic institution. It may make the talented and gifted students turn away from it. A reputation acquired over decades may get lost to the forgiveness extended to a few insincere students. Hence, a strict and timely action against the students who cheat is even more imperative for the academic institutions of repute. If on the one side, punishing those who cheat, deters the other students from resorting to such risky short cuts, on the other side such no nonsense attitude towards cheating bolsters the image of academic institutions. Hence, evincing zero tolerance for students who cheat happens to be a good and pragmatic policy. The other important thing is that academic cheating happens to be a big threat to the nation’s education system and therefore it needs to be mitigated at all costs. Education system in any country never happens to be an isolated and closed entity. Actually speaking, the health and vitality of the education system in any country depends a lot on the practices and policies pursued by multiple academic institutions that constitute that education system (Katzman 34). Forgiveness and tolerance shown to the students who cheat on tests in varied academic institutions in any nation may have serious repercussions on its overall education system. Tolerance for cheating in individual academic institutions may eventually pollute and corrupt the academic values and morals in the entire education system over time. Hence, a strict and deterrent approach towards the students who cheat on tests is a must to assure moral integrity in the general education system in a nation. Hence, it is an undeniable fact that the students who cheat on tests happen to be a grave threat to both themselves and the academic institutions in which they study. Such unscrupulous and dishonest students not only harm the academic interests of the sincere and honest students, but in the long run may vitiate the overall education system. Any forgiveness shown to those who cheat is bound to be counterproductive. In contrast, a punitive approach towards those who cheat is poised to be favorable for both the hard working students and the national education system. Works Cited Firmin, Michael W, Amanda Burger, & Matthew Blosser. “Affective Response of Students Who Witness Classroom Cheating”. Educational Research Quarterly 32.3 (2009): 3-5. Print. Katzman, John. “Putting the Schools in Charge: An Entrepreneur’s Vision for a More Responsive Education System”. Education Next 12.2 (2012): 33-36. Print. Petress, Kenneth C. “Academic Dishonesty: A Plague on Our Profession”. Education 123.3 (2003): 624-625. Print. Siniver, Erez. “Cheating on Exams: The Case of Israeli Students”. College Student Journal 47.4 (2013): 593-598. Print. Cheating on Exams: The Case of IsraeliStudents Siniver, Erez, College Student Journal The phenomenon of cheating on exams, which harms both the reputation of an academic institutionand the students who dont cheat, is becoming increasingly common. We attempt to shed light on thisphenomenon using data from a survey of graduates of the College of Management Academic Studies inIsrael. Three aspects of the problem are examined: 1) the ways in which the incidence of cheating can bereduced; 2) the profile of students in Israel who consider cheating on exams or actually do so; and 3) theattitudes of students towards cheating on exams. The results show that more severe punishment andmore stringent supervision are the two most effective ways of reducing cheating on exams. JEL Classification: A20, A29 Keywords: Academic dishonesty, cheating Introduction The phenomenon of university students cheating on exams has been investigated extensively in theliterature. However, most of the research has been done in the US and there have been no previousstudies in Israel. The current research is based on a survey carried out among graduates of the College of ManagementAcademic Studies (COMAS), which is the largest private college in Israel. The respondents graduated inthe following subjects: law, business administration, economics, behavioral science, computer scienceand communication. The results were used for the econometric estimation of a logistic model thatattempts to explain cheating on exams. Of the 1752 graduates who responded to the survey, about 43 percent had considered cheating on anexam at least once during their studies and about 44 percent had actually done so. Following are the findings of the survey: a. Students with high matriculation averages cheat less than those with low matriculation averages. b. Students from a weak socioeconomic background cheat less than students from a strongsocioeconomic background. c. Students born outside of Israel cheat less than native-born students. d. Younger students cheat more than older ones. The results of the research also show that 68 percent of respondents believe that more stringentsupervision and more severe punishment are the most effective ways of reducing the phenomenon ofcheating on exams. Other measures, such as a public campaign against cheating, signing a code ofethics or better preparation for an exam (such as additional exercises assigned in class) would not beeffective. Review of the Literature Many studies have found a positive connection between an individuals grades in his first degree and hissuccess in finding a job. However, if a particular academic institution becomes known as having a highincidence of cheating, the grades of its students will not accurately reflect their knowledge and skills andemployers will be less willing to hire them. As a result, attending that institution will become lessattractive. The phenomenon of cheating also harms the students who dont cheat. This is manifested in two ways:1) Other things being equal, they will receive lower grades than the cheaters and this will hurt theirchances of graduating with honors, their eligibility to obtain scholarships, etc.; and 2) as mentioned,they will find it harder to find a job due to statistical discrimination since employers will prefer to hirestudents from academic institutions that have less of a reputation for cheating. There are three methods used in the literature to estimate the extent of cheating: experiments,statistical methods and questionnaires. Experiments Experiments are designed to present students with the option of cheating and then observe whatproportion of the subjects actually do so. Canning (1956) and Nowell and Laufer (1997) returned anexam to students unmarked with the excuse that there had not been sufficient time to mark them andasked each student to mark his own exam. The exam papers had in fact been marked and the marksrecorded but the students had no way of knowing that. In this way, the researchers could calculate theproportion of students who cheated when marking their own exams. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) placed students in various situations and observed whether theycheated. In the first instance, they placed five students in the room who were not actually taking thecourse in order to observe which students cheated. In the second instance, the lecturer gave an oralexam in his office. In the middle, he left the room for a moment and intentionally left open a book thatrevealed the answers to the exam not far from the student. The researcher recorded whether the studenthad gotten up from his chair in order to peek at what was written in the book. Statistical Methods Using statistical methods, Houston (1975, 1976) compared the correlation in errors on an exam betweenpairs of students sitting beside each other in an exam and between each student in the pair and otherrandomly chosen students also writing the exam. Questionnaires This is the most common method used to determine the factors that affect a students decision whetheror not to cheat on an exam. Bunn et al. (1992) and Mixon (1996) found that the chance of a student cheating was higher if heobserved other students doing so and lower if he saw other students being caught while cheating or if hethought that the punishment for cheating is severe. Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999) found that the following measures can reduce cheating: 1. Students are told the university has a code of ethics that prohibits cheating and that they must adhereto it. 2. Distributing different versions of the exam. 3. Proctoring by lecturers rather than teaching assistants. McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (2001, 2003) found a lower proportion of cheating at universities witha code of ethics and that at universities where the lecturers are obligated by a code of ethics they willmore closely supervise exams and put more effort into preventing cheating. Other researchers, such as Burrus et el. (2007), examined the characteristics of students who cheat andfound that those with higher grade averages tend to cheat less. Kerkvliet (1994) found that men cheat more than women, drinkers cheat more than non-drinkers andstudents who belong to a fraternity cheat more than those who dont. On the other hand, Stannard andBowars (1970) did not find that belonging to a fraternity made any difference. Smith et al. (1972) found that students with low self-esteem have a greater tendency to cheat and that ahigh level of competition among students leads to a higher incidence of cheating. Centra (1970) studied the characteristics of students who did not care whether other students cheat anddid not do anything to prevent it. He found that these students do not have a high level of motivation tosucceed in their studies and that they are more tolerant of unethical behavior in general. Furthermore,they tend to come from weak socioeconomic backgrounds. Braid (1980) found that the most common motivation for cheating is competition for grades, followedby insufficient time to prepare for an exam. In addition, he found that young students with low gradescheat more than older students with high grades and students who receive assistance from their parentstend to cheat more than students who do not. Haines et al. (1986) found that younger, single and unemployed students cheat more than older, marriedand working students. Students that self-finance their studies cheat less than students who do not. Haines et al. (1996) found that cheating had become more normative among students over the years andthat they cheated even if they could not justify doing so. The main motivation for cheating was found tobe competition for grades. Brown and Mclnerney (2008) found that the proportion of university students who cheat has risen overthe years, particularly in the case of cheating on exams. They also found that gender and grades in afirst degree have almost no influence on the probability of cheating. Erin et al. (2004) found that students do not view cheating on exams as something right or wrong butrather estimate the risk of getting caught. Thus, they found cheating on exams to be less prevalent whenthere was greater fear of being caught and punished. Russel (2004) found that 41 percent of students admitted that they had cheated on exams though 21percent said they do it only rarely. In addition, he found that knowing that ones friends are cheatingaffects a students decision whether or not to cheat. Methodology Questionnaires were sent to 3220 graduates of COMAS, of whom 1752 responded (see appendix 1). Themain question on the questionnaire was whether the individual had ever considered cheating on anexam. Students who answered affirmatively were then asked whether they had actually cheated. Out of the 1752 responded 51.26% are men and 48.74% are women. 41.9% out of the men consideredcheating and 43.7% out of the women considered cheating. 40.1% out of the men who consideredcheating, actually did so, while 46.4% out of the women who considered cheating, actually did so. Table1 shows the Descriptive Statistics. In order to predict the probability of whether a particular student would cheat on an exam we estimatedthe following logistic regressions: Regression I: This regression was estimated for the whole sample where the dependent variable was whether thestudent had considered cheating on an exam and the explanatory variables included whether thestudent had seen others cheating, whether he knew other students who cheat and whether or not he feelsthat cheating is acceptable behavior, in addition to the students personal details (field of study,socioeconomic background, country of origin, age, gender, matriculation average and first degreeaverage). Regression II: This regression was estimated only for students who had considered cheating on an exam. Thedependent variable was whether or not the student had actually cheated on an exam while theexplanatory variables included the expected punishment, whether the student had seen others cheating,whether he knew other students who cheat and whether or not he feels that cheating is acceptablebehavior, in addition to the students personal details (field of study, socioeconomic background,country of origin, age, gender, matriculation average and first degree average). In order to determine the students attitudes towards cheating on exams, the questionnaire included thefollowing questions: * How can the phenomenon of cheating be reduced? * Is cheating at COMAS a problem that should be dealt with? * Is the extent of cheating on an exam influenced by the level of supervision? The purpose of these questions was to determine whether it is possible to reduce the phenomenon ofcheating at COMAS. Results Of the 1752 graduates who responded, about 43 percent stated that they had considered cheating on anexam during their first degree studies. Of them, about 44 percent had actually done so. Table 2, column I and Table 3 show the effect of each explanatory variable on whether a studentconsidered cheating on exams. The results are as follows: 1. The probability of considering cheating among students who had observed other students cheating(51.2 percent) was higher than among students who had not (14.2 percent) and the difference was foundto be significant. 2. The probability of considering cheating among students who thought that cheating on an exam is notacceptable behavior was lower (38.6 percent) than among students who thought it is (78.9 percent) andthe difference was found to be significant. 3. The probability of considering cheating among students who knew other students that cheat (56.6percent) was higher than among those that did not (25.5 percent) and the difference was found to besignificant. 4. The proportion that considered cheating was lowest among law students (28.2 percent), followed byeconomics students (31.8 percent) (although the difference between them was not found to besignificant). They were followed by business administration students (45.5 percent) and behavioralscience students (50.0 percent). The difference between the latter two groups and the former two wasfound to be significant. 5. The probability of considering cheating is negatively correlated with age. The probability amongstudents up to the age of 25 (48.6 percent) was higher than among students aged 26-34 (40.5 percent),which was in turn higher than among those above the age of 35 (30.8 percent). All the differences werefound to be significant. 6. A students matriculation average, his psychometric exam score, his gender, whether he had appliedfor a scholarship, whether he was born in Israel and the ethnic origin of his father did not have asignificant effect on the probability of considering cheating on an exam. Of the 749 graduates who had considered cheating on an exam during their first degree studies, 327 ofthem had actually done so. Table 2, column II and Table 4 show the effect of each explanatory variable on whether a student hadactually cheated on exams. The results are as follows: 1. More severe punishment is associated with a lower probability of cheating. The difference in theprobability of cheating between students who thought that the punishment would be disqualification oftheir exam and those who thought the punishment would be only a warning was not found to besignificant. In contrast, the probability of cheating was lower among students who thought that it wouldbe disqualification of their exam and suspension from their studies (25.3 percent) than among studentswho thought that the punishment would be disqualification of their exam paper or a telling-off (over 50percent). Similarly, the difference between students who thought that the punishment would bedisqualification of their exam and suspension and students who though it would be a less severepunishment was found to be significant. 2. About 81 percent of the students thought that cheating on an exam is unacceptable, even though 40percent of them had done it, while the probability of cheating among students who thought that it is notacceptable behavior was lower (40 percent) than among those who thought it is (59 percent) and thedifference was found to be significant. 3. About 92 percent of the students had observed other students cheating. The probability of cheatingamong them (45 percent) was higher than among students who had not observed other studentscheating (21 percent) and the difference was found to be significant. 4. About 73 percent of the students knew students who cheat. The probability of cheating amongstudents who knew other students that cheat (49 percent) was higher than among those who did not (27percent) and the difference was found to be significant. 5. The proportion of students that cheat was lowest among law students (26 percent), followed byeconomics students (31 percent), though the difference between them was not significant. They werefollowed by business administration students (45 percent) and behavioral science students (49 percent)and the difference between them and the first two groups was found to be significant. 6. A request for a scholarship from COMAS was used as a proxy for the students socioeconomic status.The results indicate that the probability of cheating among students who had requested a scholarship(33 percent) was lower than among those who had not (47 percent) and the difference was found to besignificant. 7. The probability of cheating among immigrants (28 percent) was lower than among native Israelis (45percent) and the difference was found to be significant. 8. The probability of cheating is negatively correlated with age. Thus, the probability among students upto the age of 25 (47 percent) was higher than among those aged 26-34 (41 percent), which in turn washigher than among students above the age of 35 (31 percent) and all the differences were found to besignificant. 9. The probability of cheating is negatively correlated with a students matriculation average and thisresult was found to be significant. The effect of the students psychometric exam score on the probabilityof cheating was not found to be significant, which was also the case for the students first degreeaverage. Tables 5 and 5.1 present the attitudes of the students to cheating on exams. Following are the highlights: 1. About 57 percent believe that the proportion of students who cheat is higher in a difficult course andthere was no difference between students who had considered cheating and those that had not. 2. About 56 percent believe that students plan to cheat prior to an exam while about 43 percent believethat cheating is the result of insufficient time during the exam and is not planned. This belief is morecommon among students who had not considered cheating (60 percent) than among those who had (50percent). 3. About 63 percent think that students with high grades also cheat on exams. This proportion is higheramong students who had considered cheating (75 percent) than among those who had not (53 percent). 4. About 90 percent think that cheating on an exam is not acceptable behavior as compared to only 10percent who think it is, which they justified by citing the imperfect system for evaluating their efforts.About 96 percent of students who had not considered cheating think this is not acceptable behavior ascompared to 81 percent of those who had considered cheating. 5. About 75 percent think that the phenomenon of cheating is a serious problem or one that needs to bedealt with. Only 25 percent think that cheating is only a marginal phenomenon or that it is not aproblem at all. Among students who had not considered cheating, the proportion who think thatcheating is a serious problem or a problem that needs to be dealt with (80 percent) is higher thanamong students who had considered cheating (69 percent). 6. About 68 percent think that more stringent supervision will reduce the frequency of cheating. Thereis almost no difference between students who had considered cheating and those who had not. 7. Most of the students (about 80 percent) think that the frequency of cheating on exams can bereduced. There is no difference between students who had considered cheating and those who had not. 8. About 62 percent think that more severe punishment can reduce the frequency of cheating on exams.There is no difference between students who had considered cheating and those who had not. 9. The students believe that there are two main ways to reduce cheating: making the punishment moresevere (31 percent) and making supervision more stringent (36 percent). Only 6 percent think thatsigning a code of ethics will reduce cheating on exams and only 2 percent think that better preparationfor exams in class will reduce cheating. Summary and Conclusions The effect of the explanatory variables on the probability of considering cheating on exams is quitesimilar to their effect on the probability of actually cheating on exams. However, the results differ fortwo of the explanatory variables: 1. The probability of considering cheating among immigrants (42.4 percent) is similar to that amongnative Israelis. However, the probability of cheating among immigrants (28 percent) is lower thanamong native Israelis (45 percent) and the difference was found to be significant. 2. The probability of considering cheating among students who had requested a scholarship (44.9percent) is similar to the probability among those who had not (41.9 percent). However, the probabilityof cheating among students who had requested a scholarship (33 percent) is lower than among thosewho had not (47 percent). The profile of students that cheat: Immigrant students cheat less than native Israeli students, a result that is statistically significant.Following are possible explanations for this phenomenon: 1. Most immigrant students originate from the Former Soviet Union, where there may be moreawareness of cheating. 2. Immigrants are less socially integrated and therefore have less opportunity to copy from friends. 3. Most studies have shown that immigrants have higher motivation to succeed than natives andtherefore it may be that they invest more in their studies and less in figuring out how to cheat. Students from a weak socioeconomic background cheat less than students from a strong socioeconomicbackground. Following are some possible explanations of this phenomenon: 1. Students from weak socioeconomic backgrounds generally work more during their studies andtherefore are left with less time for social activity. Thus, with fewer friends from among the studentbody, they are less likely to cheat. 2. It may be that because these students do not receive support from their parents, they are less willingto take the risk of being caught cheating on an exam since if they are suspended from the course or failit, they do not have the financial means to repeat it. Students with high matriculation averages cheat less while neither the psychometric exam score nor thegrades on the students first degree were found to be significant. The difference in the probability ofcheating between the genders was not found to be significant nor was the difference between Ashkenaziand Sephardic students. Finally, students studying behavioral science or business administration cheatmore than students in economics or law. Factors that affect the probability of cheating: 1. Expected punishment There is a negative correlation between the expected severity of the punishment and the probability ofcheating. The most effective punishments are failing the course and suspension from studies. There isalmost no difference in the probability of cheating between students who expect only a warning andthose who expect to fail the course as a result of being caught. Further evidence backing up this resultwas obtained from the responses to the question: "Does the severity of punishment reduce the numberof students that cheat?" About 62 percent of the students felt that more severe punishment can reducethe phenomenon of cheating on exams. 2. Level of supervision About 68 percent of students believe that the frequency of cheating on exams is affected by the level ofsupervision. 3. Norms Students who have observed other students cheating and those who know other students that cheat willthemselves tend to cheat more. When a student observes a large amount of cheating, he himself beginsto think that it is acceptable behavior and reasons that if everyone else is doing it, then he might as well.Students who think that cheating is not acceptable behavior cheat less than those who think it is. About26 percent of students who had not considered cheating think that cheating on exams at COMAS is aserious problem. 4. Exams About 58 percent of students believe that the frequency of cheating is higher in difficult courses.Similarly, 56 percent believe that cheating is planned prior to an exam and is not the result ofinsufficient time during the exam. Possible ways of reducing the phenomenon of cheating on exams: About 37 percent of students think that the most efficient way to reduce cheating on exams is morestringent supervision. About 31 percent feel that more severe punishment is the most efficient way toreduce cheating while about 11 percent think that a public campaign to persuade students not to cheatwould be the most effective way. Students did not feel that other measures, such as signing a code ofethics, better preparation for exams in class or a different structure for exams, would be effective insolving the problem of cheating. In view of the results, the following measures should be adopted in order to reduce the phenomenon ofcheating: 1. A public campaign has the potential of persuading students that cheating is not the norm and that itis unacceptable behavior. The results indicate that students who think that cheating is not acceptablebehavior cheat less than students who think it is. It should also be conveyed to students that thephenomenon of cheating is a serious problem in universities and that the labor market punishesacademic institutions that have a reputation for cheating. In other words, students who cheat are alsoharming those who do not by tarnishing the reputation of the institution. 2. Increased supervision of exams. 3. Increased severity of punishments. Although the last two measures will result in a loss of revenue to the institution in the short run (as aresult of increased manpower costs or the loss of tuition if a student is expelled), they will in factincrease revenue in the long run since employers will be more willing to hire its graduates and as aresult it will become more attractive to talented students who are looking for an institution with areputation for fairness and equality of opportunity. The results have shown that there is a greater tendency to cheat among students studying behavioralscience and business administration than among those studying economics and law and that cheating ismore common in difficult courses. Therefore, it is possible to selectively increase the supervision ofexams where cheating is more prevalent. The proportion of students caught cheating is very low (0.2 percent or one student in every 500 thatcheat). In our opinion, this is a result of proctors having no incentive to report cheating. On thecontrary, reporting a case of cheating is a major inconvenience since it involves filling out forms,attending a disciplinary hearing and confrontation with the student, all this without any monetarycompensation. Thus, offering a monetary incentive of some sort to proctors to report cheating should bean effective measure. References Braid, J.S. 1980. Current Trends in College Cheating. Psychology in the Schools, Vol 17(4): 515-522. Brown, R.S., & McInerney, M. 2008. Changes in Academic Dishonesty Among Business Students in theUnited States, 1999-2006. International Journal of Management, Vol 25(4): 621-632. Bunn, D.N., Caudill, S.B., & Gropper, D.M. 1992. Crime in the Classroom: an Economic Analysis ofUndergraduate Student Cheating Behavior. Journal of Economic Education, Vol 23(3): 197-207. Burrus, R.T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P.W. 2007. Self-Reports of Student Cheating: Does aDefinition of Cheating Matter?. Journal of Economic Education, Vol 38: 3-17. Canning, R. 1956. Does an Honor System Reduce Classroom Cheating? An Experimental Answer.Journal of Experimental Education, Vol 24: 292-296. Choo, F., & Tan, K. 1998. The Effect of Fraud Triangle Factors on Students Cheating Behaviors.Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations, 9: 205-220. Centra, J.A. 1970. College freshmen attitudes toward cheating. Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol48(5): 366-373. Dawkins, R.L. 2004. Attributes and Statuses of College Students Associated With Classroom Cheatingon a Small-Sized Campus. College Student Journal, Vol 38(1): 116-129. Diekhoff, G.M., LaBeff, E.E., Clark, R.E., Williams, L.E., Francis, B., & Haines, V. J., 1996. CollegeCheating: Ten Years Later. Research in Higher Education, Vol 37(4): 487-502. Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E.E., & Clark, R.E. 1986. College Cheating: Immaturity, Lack ofCommitment, and the Neutralizing Attitude. Research in Higher Education, Vol 25(4): 342-354. Hetherington, E., & Feldman, S. 1964. College Cheating as a Function of Subject and SituationalVariables. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 55: 212 -218. Houston, J. P. 1975. The Assessment and Prevention of Answer Copying on Undergraduate Multiple-Choice Examinations. Research in Higher Education, Vol 5: 301-311. Houston, J. P. 1976. Amount and Loci of Classroom Answer Copying, Spaced Seating, and Alternate TestForms. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 68(6): 729-735. Kerkvliet, J. 1994. Cheating by Economics Students: A Comparison of Survey Results. Journal ofEconomic Education, Vol 25: 121-135. Kerkvliet, J., & Sigmund, L. S. 1999. Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom?. Research in EconomicEducation, pg: 331-342. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. 2006. Academic Dishonesty in Graduate BusinessPrograms: Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action. Academy of Management Learning & Education,Vol 5(3): 294-305. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K.,& Butterfield, K. D. 2001. Cheating in Academic institutions: A decade ofResearch. Ethics & Behavior, Vol 11(3): 219-233. McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L. K. 1996. What We Know About College Cheating: Longitudinal Trends andRecent Developments. Change, 28(1): 28-33. McCabe, D.L., Butterfield, K.D., & Trevino, L.K. 2003. Faculty and Academic Integrity: The Influence ofCurrent Honor Codes and Past Honor Code Experiences. Research in Higher Education, 44(3): 367-385. Mixon, F. G. 1996. Crime in the Classroom: an Extension. Journal of Economic Education, Vol 27: 195-200. Novell, C., & Laufer, D. 1997. Undergraduate Student Cheating in the Fields of Business and Economics.Journal of Economic Education, Vol 28(1): 3-13. Robinson, E., Amburgey, R., Swank, E., & Faulkner, C. 2004. Test Cheating in a Rural College: Studyingthe Importance of Individual and Situational Factors. College Student Journal, Vol 38(3): 380-395. Smith, C.R, Ryan, E.R., & Diggins, D.R. 1972. Moral Decision Making: Cheating on Examinations.Journal of Personality, Vol 40(4): 640-661. Stannard, C., & Bowers, W. 1970. The College Fraternity as an Opportunity Structure for MeetingAcademic Demands. Social Problems, Vol 17: 371-390. Vitro, F., T., & Schoer, L., A. 1972. The Effect of Probability of Test Success, Test Important, and Risk ofDefection on the Incident of Cheating. Journal of School Psychology, Vol 10(3): 269-277. Affective Responses of Students Who WitnessClassroom Cheating Firmin, Michael W., Burger, Amanda, Blosser, Matthew, Educational Research Quarterly For this study, 82 general psychology students (51 females, 31 males) witnessed a peer cheating whilecompleting a test. Following the incident, we tape recorded semi-structured interviews with eachstudent who saw the cheating event for later analysis. Using qualitative coding and methodology,themes emerged regarding students emotional reactions to witnessing the cheating incidences. Wediscuss students states of anxiety, frustration, and in some cases-empathy for the student they witnessedcheating. Overall, students showed relatively wide variability in their emotional reactions, ranging fromhostility to compassion. One of the most common reactions was that students did not want to acceptresponsibility for what they saw and wished that the situation would just go away. Cheating is a significant educational problem across multiple educational contexts, elementary,secondary, and postsecondary. Moreover, in all three contexts the trend for decades appears to beworsening rather than improving. Students seem to concur as they generally rate the cheating epidemicmore seriously than do teachers (Evans & Craig, 1990). Surprisingly, however, relatively little has beenstudied empirically regarding this problem. Bruggeman and Hart (1996) and Guttmann (2001) reportthat religious involvement negatively affects cheating tendencies, although religious and non-religiousstudents do not necessarily differ with respect to moral reasoning about cheating. Establishing honor codes affects cheating behavior (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002) showing adecrease in reported and observed cheating across multiple contexts (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield,2002). Honor codes also increase the likelihood of peer reporting. Students are more willing to reportcheating when it is expected as part of the students role responsibility and when peer reporting isrewarded or failure to report is punished (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001). Males, high schoolstudents, and those who espouse lenient views about cheating tend to have higher incidences of cheatingbehaviors (Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, & Cauffman, 2002). Houstons (2001) research shows that cheatingtends to occur more frequently in distracting learning conditions and following poor studyingconditions. Since the construct of academic cheating is so broad, we chose to focus on one particular aspect of it. Inparticular, the present study examined how students emotionally process turning-in people whom theysee cheating. Trevino and Victor (1992) reported that students tend to turn-in peers when the misdeedis seen as a threat to the rest of the group and when they view turning-in other students as part of theirresponsibility. Few students may actually be likely to turn in peers, however, perhaps as low as 13%(Rennie & Crosby, 2002). Most of the research to date involving cheating and those who turn-in cheaters has utilized aquantitative research approach. Jendrek (1992) reports that students in her sample struggled internallywith being whistle-blowers, but we know little about how students process these struggles. McCabe,Trevino, and Butterfield (2001) also discuss the fact that students are reluctant to turn-in peers for fearof being thought of as a squealer. Again, however, we know little specifics regarding how student affectoperates in this context. The present research advances toward Ashworths (1999) call for morequalitative research analyses of how students come to understand cheating, and in the present context,the affect students undergo when turning-in one another for cheating. Method The present study follows research by Firmin, Vaughn, Hwang (2004). The focus of the former projectwas to assess the degree to which subjects exercised compliance when implored or not implored to doso. The present research study reports results generated from qualitative data as subjects in the Firmin,et al. study were interviewed subsequent to their compliance (or noncompliance). For this study, we utilized 82 general psychology students (51 females, 31 males) at a private,conservative, Midwestern university by providing an extra credit test. The general psychology professorexplained to the students that he was testing a theory that students score higher on an exam whenplaced in a small group setting compared to a large group setting. The experiment would consist of ashort ten minute extra credit test. Each student was randomly placed in a room by a Teaching Assistant(T.A.) with a confederate. Both the student and the confederate were given the test to complete, andthey were reminded of the ten minute time limit. The confederates, males selected for similar physicalcharacteristics and with intent dressed similarly, were instructed to blatantly cheat on the exam. Theylooked off the students paper on question 5, unzipped their backpack, and used their textbook toanswer questions 1 1 and 12. Two confederates were assigned to one of three conditions. The firstcondition involved the confederate saying: "Dont tell the T.A. I cheated, I need your help." The secondcondition involved the confederate saying "Please, please dont tell the T.A. I cheated, I need your help."During the third condition, the confederate remained silent. The statements were made to the studentduring the last two minutes of the test. After precisely ten minutes, the T.A. then came into the roomgiving both students opportunities to report any atypical or cheating incidents. The confederateimmediately indicated there was none and left the room. The subject was then asked again if there wereany problems. The subjects in all conditions were interviewed immediately following the testingsituation. At the start of the interview, subsequent the incident, students were assured that whatever they sharedwould not be attributable to them by name (confidentiality was assured). With their permission, theinterviews were tape recorded. The interview predominantly consisted of open-ended questions(Seidman, 2006) beginning with a variation of the following: "Tell me what you were feeling or whatkinds of emotions you were experiencing." Subsequent to the interview, students were debriefed as tothe plenary nature of the study. The course professor also was available to all students for potentialfollowup questions or concerns. When probed as to whether they suspected the true nature of the "test," all but a handful of studentsindicated no true suspicion of the projects purpose. This is partly due to the fact that a third of the class(randomly selected) completed the extra-credit test in a group setting the evening prior to thequalitative research study. This was known to the subjects in the present study. The focus of thepresumed "research study" was large/small group differences. That is, students in the present researchproject knew that they were being involved in a study of some type - which seemed to throw-off theirguarded suspiciousness in most cases. All students were given 100% on their extra-credit test.Obviously, the names used in the present article for reading clarity purposes are pseudonyms. Potential ethical concerns for the studys design were handled in a variety of ways. One was that thecourse professor was in the building and available to the studys subjects - should that have beenneeded. Second, subjects were debriefed immediately following the staged cheating incident. Third, agroup debriefing session was held during the next class period where all were provided opportunities toshare lingering concerns or to ask questions. Following Creswell (2005), we took utmost care indesigning the study to assure minimal discomfort to the subjects in the study. As noted by Graziano andRaulin (2007) and Sarafiino (2005), researchers sometimes need to balance potential discomfort ofsubjects with the potential benefits of the research and alternative means of obtaining the data. In thepresent case, we had no plausible substitute designs and, during and following the data collection, nosubjects showed implicit or explicit indicators of short-term or long-term harm. Johnson and Christensen (2004) would consider the design of our study a prime example of mixedmethods in educational research. Using traditional grounded theory methods, we analyzed the resultswith standard qualitative research process (ten Have, 2004). Constant comparison was used among thedata, with thematic analysis applied to the coding process. Although we acknowledge that somequalitative researchers espouse applying theoretical constructs to qualitative analysis (e.g. Strauss &Corbin, 1998), our philosophical commitments are in traditional methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).That is, the researchers role in this paradigm is to use disciplined restraint in keeping ones ownassumptions, theories, and ideology at bay or distance - or at least as much as is humanly realistic. Assuch, our approach was to use inductive methods, allowing the themes to emerge from the data viarepetition of words, phrases, and similar constructs. As such, we established a theory that we believed tobe grounded in the data collected, rather than risk the danger of superimposing theory on to theparticipants views (Raffanti, 2006). Consistent with traditional qualitative methods, we believe thattheoretical interpretations are for the reader to apply - rather than for the qualitative researcher(Glaser, 2005). This is why the present article does not possess a discussion section as typically iscontained in a quantitative article. Lundberg and Young (2005), noting the controversy amongcontemporary qualitative researchers, suggest that traditional methods are safer and preferable to somemore recent modifications - and we concur. The tape recorded transcripts were reviewed by the multiple researchers on the project. Regularmeetings allowed for researcher checks regarding reliability of coding. Additionally, a combination ofmember checks (Mason, 2002) by the participants - showing an overall consensus with the reportedfindings - -and peer review (Daytner, 2006) added to the studys internal validity in qualitative researchtradition. Specifically, themes were shared with the participants, following the studys conclusions,although specific quotations were not and two independent researchers, not formally involved with thestudy, reviewed our overall protocol - offering suggestions at points, providing methodological-qualitychecks (Merriam, 2002). The final themes reported in the article were included only if they representedthe majority of the participants proving data. Saturation (Flick, 2002) occurred on each of the mainpoints we report in the article as overall findings. In sum, students emotional reactions tended to fallinto one of three categories: hostility, anxiety, and empathy. Results The first emotional category is hostility. This group of students reported feelings of anger andfrustration directed towards the cheating student. It seemed unfair that they had to deal with thesituation. One reason students were angry concerned the cheaters receiving a good grade. For example,Allison responded: "I hate cheating, I hate cheating so much. Just because different experiences in highschool I would see people cheating, and I would have worked hard on a test, and Id get a lower grade,but I would have earned that grade. They dont earn the grade that they get and that makes me angry."According to this student, it is better to receive a lower grade on a test if that is what the student reallyearned. When another student cheats and receives a higher grade unfairly, it demeans the effort putforth by the honest students. Luke voiced a similar thought: "When I first saw him start to cheat I was alittle angry, and I was thinking this is just an extra credit quiz, and he should have been studying for it ifhe wanted a better grade." Katie supports this feeling by responding: "I was just angry pretty muchbecause I had put effort in studying, and I wanted to do well, and here was this person obviouslycheating and that made me upset." Some other students reported feelings of anger because of a lack of willingness or know-how to respondto the cheating situation. Sarah replied: "Then as I was sitting there thinking about it, inside of me Iwas a little angry about it that I was put in that position because I didnt know what to do, and I wasupset." Jim illustrates this feeling by responding: "It wasnt like I was going to jump up and bust him inthe jaw or anything, but it was really frustrating to me, that he was putting me in a position that I knewthe right thing to do but it was kind of like, I dont want to get him in trouble, but you know if you dontdo it you become part of the crime. It kind of angered me that I was put in the position." This studentwas also frustrated because he did not want to become incriminated in the cheating act by doingnothing as he would like to do. Christy voiced a similar concern by stating: "The other thing that wouldmake me angry about it is that I have a responsibility now, and if I choose not to take it, you know, youjust put a weight on me. It made me angry that someone would be that selfish to do that to anotherperson. Some students appeared to just be plain mad as voiced by Jessica when asked about her feelings: "Kindof annoyed because it was like I thought it was rude." Gretchen simply replied: "I was just annoyed by it,and I kind of looked over and glared at him." Lindsey similarly reported feeling: "a little bit offrustration maybe just because he has the audacity to cheat, and it is a simple thing." The studentshostility seems to involve anger about the cheaters grades and lack of studying, the responsibility of howto respond to the cheating, and a general annoyance from the cheating incident. The reactions of a second group of students can be classified as anxiety. This group of students reportednervous, fearful, and upset feelings related to their responsibility in the cheating situation. They knewthey needed to do something but were not sure how to act. For example, Brian replied: "I felt kind ofsick. Its really upsetting. Its like you feel like youre responsible for it- like you have to do somethingabout it." John echoes this thought: "I felt pretty nervous. Im not the kind of person who likesconfrontation. It wasnt anything like anger or frustration to him. It was more like anxiousness towardwhat I had to do." Rachel responded: "I was nervous because I knew it was my responsibility too, and Ididnt want it." This students anxiety surfaced when she realized the cheater should be punished, butshe did not want the responsibility of making that happen. Daniel supported this assessment by stating:"I was still feeling uncomfortable, because I knew what I needed to do, but I didnt necessarily want todo it." Some of the students were afraid of the cheaters reaction if they reported the cheating incident to theinstructor. This is a relatively small, private university and odds are that the students would encounterthe cheater someplace else at the institution. Lindsey illustrated this point by conveying: "Just fear likeif he found out it was me, what would he say if he saw me around campus." Similarly, Emily responded:"I felt nervous because I didnt know if he was going to do anything or if he was going to be mad.Because he obviously knows who it was that told, but I dont like confrontations and I dont like peoplegetting upset with me." This student would rather not report the cheating incident to avoid theconfrontation that might occur later. When asked how he felt when he noticed the student cheatingMike replied: "Nervous because I wasnt sure whether or not he was actually cheating or if it was a test.But I was always going to say something about it, but I was worried more about what the outcome wasgoing to be of that... I was just nervous." In sum, the students anxiety seemed to stem either fromaccepting the responsibility of confrontation or from the cheaters knowing who turned them in. The final emotional category is empathy. Some of the students appeared to relate with the cheatingstudent. They could picture themselves in the same situation. For example, Dustin reported: "One of thequestions that was asked was can you sympathize with the person. I havent gone so far as to cheat, butlike I understand what its like to just wake up in the morning and you realize that I have a test in tenminutes. I kind of understand that." A similar thought was voiced by Alex: "I felt sorry for him. I thinkfeeling like that sort of comes with the territory I guess. I mean your experiences in life, I mean if youhad friends that are struggling in school you try to help them, or if youre possibly struggling and yousaw someone cheating you would somehow connect with him. I think it goes with how much experienceyou have with struggling and struggles in academics." Some of the students who have struggledacademically experienced a sort of bond with the cheating students. Even if the students themselveshadnt struggled with cheating, they knew of friends who did. Also, a group of the students simply felt sorry for the cheater. Anna illustrated this feeling by reporting:"When he said he was cheating, I felt bad for him because the way he said it he looked really scared, andespecially when he ran out of the room." Mary replied: "I felt sorry for the person. He looked desperatelike he needed a good grade, and I felt sorry like maybe I should help him." James echoes this sentiment:"I felt bad for him because he felt like he had to resort to that to do well on the test." Liz was thinkingabout the cheaters future when she responded: "I feel bad for those people, and how they wont make itfar in life if they cheat, but I dont try to let it consume me. There also were students who felt bad for the cheaters because they would be punished for cheating. Forexample, Amanda responded: "I felt kind of sick about it because you feel bad that you are gettingsomeone else in trouble, but you have to do what is right." Crystal similarly replied: "I kind of felt badfor him because I dont like getting people in trouble because if it were me I wouldnt want that, but Iguess he kind of put himself in that situation." Some students even felt guilty for doing what theythought was right. Ryan illustrates this feeling: "I felt kind of guilty cause I was like what if this guy getskicked out of Gen. Psych class. I dont like ruining peoples lives." Stud Read More