Running head: academic dishonesty > > Academic Dishonesty

Academic Dishonesty

Michael J. Hartman

C.W. Post Campus/ Long Island University

EDD 1000

April 16, 2012

Abstract

Academic dishonesty is a long-standing academic issue and appears to be growing in college-age students. Many psychological, sociological, and cultural reasons have been identified as sources. Pressure to succeed is reduced by the normalization of cheating, creating less peer pressure in society to be honest. When students see moral rules being broken by others and being rewarded for it, they may feel compelled and even justified to engage in similar activities. Employees, academic institutions, athletic organizations, and corporate businesses are also not exempt from the temptations of cheating and dishonest attempts to get ahead. Students, parents, and faculty may have their own perspectives with regard to what constitutes cheating behavior as well as ranking various levels of severity by type. Understanding the reasons why students cheat will enable professors to work toward minimization of this issue and provide a more enriching academic environment.

A study by the Center for Academic Integrity showed that approximately 80% of college students reported cheating at least once (Plagiarism Website, 2012). It has also been reported that, across 46 research studies, an average of 70% of students have cheated in college (Simkin & McLeod, 2010) Studies reported rates between 66% to 70% in high school and college students engaging in some form of academic dishonesty (Schmelkin, Gilbert, & Silva, 2010). A Who’s Who Among American High School Students study reported a prevalence of 80% of high-achieving students admitted to cheating. Of those admitting to have had cheated, half said they did not believe cheating was necessarily wrong and 95% said they were never caught (Shipley, 2009).

There is evidence that academic dishonesty among college students is pervasive and an increasing part of worldwide university activity (Miller, 2011; Simkin & McLeod, 2010; Wideman, 2011). Reports of academic dishonesty conducted at small, medium, and large universities across the United States of America demonstrated high rates of cheating across the board (Yardley, Rodriguez, & Bates, 2009). According to a report by the Gallup Organization, the top two problems facing the United States of America are education and a decline in ethics (Plagiarism Website, 2012). These primary issues within the United States were ranked even higher than crime, drugs, racism, and poverty. It is a persistent educational issue involving similar rates for males and females (Miller, 2011; Yardley et al., 2009).

Academic dishonesty comes in a variety of formats and degrees of severity. It is important to understand the fundamental reasons of why students cheat. The following reasons for academic dishonesty have been self-reported by students and documented by multiple researchers: ignorance, poor professors and teaching environments, inadequate policies and penalties regarding cheating, peer influence, the desire to improve grades, opportunity, availability of the Internet and technology, procrastination, underdeveloped moral reasoning, the need to get a good job, and a cheating culture (Wideman, 2011).

Among college nursing students in the United States over the past decade, academic dishonesty has increased by more than 30% and has been described as having reached crisis proportions (Fontana, 2009). Although, one might expect the prevalence of cheating to occur less frequently in nursing and allied health students, a profession viewed as highly ethical and attracting individuals with strong moral compasses than among students in nonhealth-related fields, this was not the case (McCabe, 2009; McCrink 2010). The level of collaborative cheating by nursing students was significantly higher than in other disciplines, but the level was lower for individual cheating (Wideman, 2011). Not only were the violations associated with cheating increasing in the field of nursing and across all disciplines, the methods were becoming more sophisticated and difficult to monitor (Fontana, 2009). Although research has been conducted over the years providing data regarding the dramatic increase in cheating, this information has done little to illuminate aspects of the issue that will resolve cheating in schools (Wideman, 2011).

Sociological Perspective

If more people cheat, whether detected or not, society as a whole will suffer the consequences as an end result. A paramount reason for student cheating involves neutralization or rationalization. Neutralization, or deflecting blame, involves legitimizing one’s dishonest behavior and making it neutral or no longer dishonest (Wideman, 2011). Since so many students are participating in cheating, the severity has been reduced to the point where it is simply an acceptable part of the educational process. Healthcare students often rationalize their unethical behavior by pleading time constraints or increased patient responsibility, citing unfair course requirements forcing them to cheat, and thus shifting blame to the clinical instructors (McCrink, 2010).

Many students believe that cheating is actually necessary in order to keep up with fellow classmates and remain competitive (Engler & Landau, 2011). These students are, after all, eventually going to have to compete for jobs after college. The rationale is quite expansive. Students cite limitations of time, while many balance personal lives and family issues throughout their education. Research suggested that students who cheat may endanger the lives and well-being of their patients (Fontana, 2009). The higher the stakes, the more likely individuals are to cheat. The reasons involve the students themselves as well as concerns regarding parental pride and societal success. Students who have a faculty member they hold in high moral regard tend to want to do well out of respect for that teacher (Simkin, 2010). Students who are allowed to engage openly with their instructors and fellow classmates feel more at ease to contribute in the classroom setting.

A current trend in higher education is to involve group process in a collaborative learning environment in order to strengthen social networks and improve overall student retention. These social networks have been directly cited as a primary factor regarding an increase in academic dishonesty (Hulsart & McCarthy, 2011). It does not appear to be the poor-performing students who primarily cheat more often and more consistently. Students with higher grade point averages tended to cheat more often (Shipley, 2009; Yardley et al., 2009). They were collectively under much pressure to keep their grades up in order to get into the best colleges and secure the best career positions in order to pay back costly school loans. They were also often the ones who were intelligent enough to understand the best methods for cheating without getting caught. The pressure mounted on students to cheat because they sometimes felt like they needed to keep up with other students who were already cheating in order to level the playing field (Engler & Landau, 2011). Furthermore, many students felt justified based upon witnessing fellow classmates being rewarded for breaking moral rules (Simkin & McLeod, 2010).

Materialism and consumerism play a critical role. Students currently have greater access to information more quickly through advances in technology (Ruiz, 2010). Cheating has transformed from the low-tech of writing answers on the inside of a sleeve or making a cheat sheet to high-tech, wireless transmission of data, both in audible and in electronic text format using programmable calculators and cellular telephones. Term papers are being bought and sold for a lucrative profit on both ends. Students who believe that others are cheating often find it easier to justify cheating as the normal thing to do (Yardley et al., 2009). This is referred to as normalization. With increases in stress from all the personal and financial aspects of life, the temptation to just conform to the masses and cheat to get ahead is too much for some students to resist. It stands to reason that students who participate in academic dishonesty during college would also extend this practice into their careers (Shipley, 2009; Simkin & McLeod, 2010). This is quite concerning, especially regarding graduates who plan to enter into medical, legal, and political careers.

Students categorized as “gifted” have largely been ignored in the research with regard to academic dishonesty because they were viewed as capable learners (Abilock, 2009). However, gifted students appear to be feeling the effects of competition over the past few years regarding acceptance to preferred colleges. A study of identified gifted students, ages 14-18, enrolled in honors science and mathematics courses at a southern high school in the United States of America, showed a small occurrence of plagiarism (29%), a greater amount of cheating by allowing others to copy answers during a test (75%), and the greatest prevalence (90%) regarding cheating by copying homework assignments (Geddes, 2011). This same study also corroborated with Abilock’s study by outlining the predominant reasons for elevated academic dishonesty in this specific population, which included the expectation to maintain a higher Grade Point Average (GPA) than non-gifted students (57%), meeting the high demands of a heavy workload (68%), and the desire to help their friends with homework (67%).

The Cable News Network (CNN) reported an alarming story on January 13, 2012, which involved widespread cheating by radiologists. It had been documented that over the course of at least 15 years, residents had been immediately and deliberately writing down verbatim questions and answers after completing the American College of Radiology (ACR) board examination (Zamost, Griffin, & Ansari, 2012). These were made available to future test takers using the Internet and shared servers. Faculty members and program directors not only knew about these recall sheets, but encouraged their use. An additional concern involved the response by those who have engaged in using these recall sheets to pass their board exam. Radiologists were quoted as stating blatantly that it is accepted practice and that everybody does it. Since this story has broken, additional health care professionals have been identified, including dermatologists, for engaging in similar cheating activities (Zamost, Griffin, & Ansari, 2012).

Academic dishonesty crosses all boundaries (Simkin & McLeod, 2010). College students often do not want to let their parents down, especially if they are providing financial and/or, ironically, “moral” support. College professors often do not have the additional time needed to continually and fully investigate potential cheating in their classes (Fontana, 2009). In addition, many cases may be difficult to absolutely prove and often involve inordinate amounts of time via appeals processes (Fontana, 2009).

Psychological Perspective

Narcissistic attitudes by college students relate to academic dishonesty. Narcissistic behavior is manifested as a self-centered, exploitive arrogance for oneself without an empathetic regard for others and involves an expectation of Machiavellian academic entitlement (Menon & Sharland, 2011). In a study using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) that involved 199 students, the exhibitionism dimension predicted an increase in cheating (Brunell, Staats, & Barden, 2011). The results of this study showed a direct correlation to narcissistic behavior and academic dishonesty. It further demonstrated a primary component related to exhibitionism, where students who scored higher on the narcissistic survey had an elevated need for both admiration and the ability to demonstrate superiority to other students (Brunell et al., 2011).

Narcissistic behavior is typically challenged in the educational setting because it compares students’ achievement against each other. These individuals tend to have a highly positive self-concept which leads them to believe that they are better than they may really be with regard to ego. They have little regard for intimacy as they exhibit an increased willingness to exploit others for personal gains, and they tend to bolster their positive self-view by self-regulating behavior in order to gain attention and to appear more entertaining to others (Menon & Sharland, 2011). The drive for performance by narcissistic personalities, demonstrating as self-centered and lacking in concern for how their decisions may affect others, may push ethical norms aside in order to maintain inflated self-views (Brunell et al., 2011). A primary factor involves a dysfunctional lack of guilt for immoral behavior with regard to a student’s perceived right to personal academic achievement (Menon & Sharland, 2011). Narcissistic behavior creates a challenging situation for faculty as well as an opportunity to create a greater awareness of academic dishonesty.

Parenting style has shown a correlation between academic dishonesty and attitudes regarding infidelity, with students demonstrating a higher affinity for cheating exhibiting a more favorable attitude towards infidelity (Estep & Olson, 2011). This study involving 109 psychology students, further reported a correlation between parental strictness and their children reporting a less favorable attitude towards infidelity.

It has been reported that students do not always admit to cheating on surveys. One hundred and eighty-six undergraduate students were included in a study using a modified version of the Survey on Academic Dishonesty (SAD) which had originally been developed by McCabe (1997) to determine accuracy between this tool and a self-reporting survey. The conclusion demonstrated that 20.3% of the students reported not cheating, but 79.7% self-reported that they had cheated at least once during college (Witherspoon, Maldonado, & Lacey, 2012). It further reported that, although most students succumbed to the temptation for academic dishonest acts occasionally, flagrant repetitive cheaters were in a distinct minority.

Student perspectives on academic dishonesty are often blurred or lacking in concrete understanding of the definition of what constitutes cheating. One such example involved a student who was accused of plagiarism because he was careless in omitting the citation of a particular philosophical term he assumed to be mainstream (Teitel, 2011). He was technically guilty, but ignorant of the fact that this citation was necessary by failing to fully research this particular term. Claiming unintentional motives of this isolated plagiaristic act, the case resulted in a failing assignment grade and a mandate for him to attend a 90-minute session on intellectual property.

In an academic honesty study of 143 students in their second week of college, students and faculty perspectives varied not only with regard to what constitutes academic dishonesty and to what degree the infraction, but also the associated penalty (Higbee, Schultz, & Sanford, 2011). Disagreement was further demonstrated in this study not only between faculty and students, but among them. A strong recommendation was suggested for clear directives regarding clarification of assignments and collaboration, explanation of expectations, ongoing and open dialogue between faculty and students, providing resources and educational examples of what is considered cheating, and detailed definitions included in the course syllabus.

In one study, female professors perceived themselves to exhibit a higher level of academic dishonesty enforcement than their male counterparts (Burrus, Graham, & Walker, 2011). This same study reported that many faculty members perceived themselves as more entrenched in the enforcement of academic dishonesty enforcement than their colleagues, as well as tenured faculty believing that they were better able to catch and confront classroom cheating than their untenured colleagues.

Financial Perspective

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune on February 18, 2012, multiple colleges and universities were identified as having erroneously manipulated or hyperinflated test score results in an attempt to maintain or increase national rankings to attract additional students. It specifically listed Iona College as having provided falsified information to Kiplinger’s Magazine and Baylor University having paid already accepted students to retake the Scholastic Assessment Tests (SAT) toward bolstering their overall ranking. In addition, this article referenced Claremont McKenna College, as well as the law schools of the University of Illinois and Villanova as having rigged performance numbers and manipulated data to enhance their reputations. National, regional, and local ranking can be critically important to academic recruitment, and subsequently, the financial stability of academic institutions.

Collegiate athletics are obligated to adhere to multiple layers of conduct codes in order to receive financial rewards. These include behavioral conduct codes and established rules enforced by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the state which the school resides, the federal government, and the academic institution itself (McGurn, 2011). Some college sports teams have been caught in integrity scenarios with financial reward as the basis for such unethical dealings. Texas A&M’s football program administration, which made a commitment to remain with the Big 12 Conference while lying about not engaging in relations with the Southeastern Conference (SEC), was recently discovered as having hypocritical motives regarding the potential for financial gain (Burwell, 2011). The University of Miami football team also came under scrutiny for violations including cheating, plagiarism, fraud, and academic dishonesty involving coaches and university officials looking the other way (McGurn, 2011).

The Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal illuminated the problem with fixation upon one single performance measure or testing result as opposed to using a broader set of indicators. The Atlanta school system was critically focused on one examination score outcome. Their annual conference seating was based solely upon the outcomes of the various schools’ test scores (Buchanan, Threlfall, & Twersky, 2011). Those schools with higher scores got to sit in the front rows, while schools scoring lower were forced to sit or stand in the back. Beyond the humiliation factor for those school officials sitting in the back rows, it was later discovered that the Beverly Hall School, who received national accolades for achievement and hundreds of thousands of dollars in performance bonuses, had participated in rampant cheating by employed teachers and principals.

References

Brunell, A. B., Staats, S., & Barden, J. (2011). Narcissism and academic dishonesty: The exhibitionism dimension and the lack of guilt. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 323-328.

Buchanan, P., Threlfall, V., & Twersky, F. (2011, Aug 10). GUEST COLUMN: Atlanta cheating case shows fallacy of relying on one test. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution, pp. A.13-A.13. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/881937699?accountid=12142

Burrus, R. T., Graham, J. E., & Walker, M. (2011). Are my colleagues soft on (academic) crime? Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 12(3), 55-64.

Burwell, B. (2011, Aug 16). Texas A&M made pledge to the Big 12; but school has been flirting with SEC,leaving its words to ring hollow; FOOTBALL. St.Louis Post - Dispatch,

Engler, J. N., & Landau, J. D. (2011). Source is important when developing a social norms campaign to combat academic dishonesty. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 46-48.

Estep, H. M., & Olson, J. N. (2011). Parenting style, academic dishonesty, and infidelity in college students. College Student Journal, 45(4), 830-838.

Fontana, J. S. (2009). Nursing faculty experiences of students’ academic dishonesty. Journal of Nursing Education, 48(4), 181-185.

Fraud on campus. (2012, Feb 18). Chicago Tribune, pp. 12-1.12. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/922011475?accountid=12142

Geddes, K. A. (2011). Academic dishonesty among gifted and high-achieving students. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 50-56.

Higbee, J. L., Schultz, J. L., & Sanford, T. (2011). Student perspectives on behaviors that constitute cheating. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(10), 1-8.

Hulsart, R., & McCarthy, V. (2011). Utilizing a culture of trust to promote academic integrity. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 92-96.

McCabe, D. L. (2009). Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An empirical investigation. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 97-110.

McCrink, A. (2010). Academic misconduct in nursing students: Behaviors, attitudes, rationalizations, and cultural identity. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(11), 653-659.

McGurn, W. (2011, Aug 23). Main street: Duty, honor, football. Wall Street Journal, pp. A.11-A.11. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/884677505?accountid=12142

Menon, M. K., & Sharland, A. (2011). Narcissism, exploitive attitudes, and academic dishonesty: An exploratory investigation of reality versus myth. Journal of Education for Business, 86(1), 50-55.

Miller, A. (2011). Reasons not to cheat, academic-integrity responsibility, and frequency of cheating. Journal of Experimental Education, 79(1), 169-184.

Plagiarism Website (2012). Facts about plagiarism. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from

www.plagiarism.org

Ruiz, E. (2010). Academic dishonesty: A universal issue of right and wrong? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(1), 363-369.

Schmelkin, L. P., Gilbert, K. A., & Silva, R. (2010). Multidimensional scaling of high school students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty. The High School Journal, 93(4), 156-165.

Shipley, L. J. (2009). Academic and professional dishonesty: Student views of cheating in the classroom and on the job. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 64(1), 39-53.

Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441-453.

Teitel, E. (2011, Nov 07). Accused. Maclean’s, 124(43), N_A-N_A. Retrieved from

Wideman, M. (2011). Caring or collusion? Academic dishonesty in a school of nursing. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 41(2), 28-43.

Witherspoon, M., Maldonado, N., & Lacey, C. (2012). Undergraduates and academic dishonesty. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(1), 76-86.

Yardley, J., Rodriguez, M. D., & Bates, S. (2009). True confessions?: Alumni's retrospective reports on undergraduate cheating behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 19(1), 1-14.