Academic Dishonesty at UNC: A Collaborative Study Part IV
Which Methods of Cheating Are Most Common at UNC? Introduction: Report by Stephanie Eissens and Jacques Stanislaus
Research performed by Melissa Cox, Stephanie Eissens, Abby Martin, and Jacques Stanislaus
Over the years, numerous individuals have investigated the incidence of cheating among college campuses (Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, 1996; Graham et al., 1994). Furthermore, researchers have performed studies to find the motivations behind cheating and have pointed out factors that influence this dishonest behavior (Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, 1996; Livosky & Maline, 1993; Graham et al., 1994). Work by all of these scholars has led to a similar conclusion: cheating is widespread on college campuses (Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, 1996; Livosky & Maline, 1993; Graham et al., 1994).
This study takes these scholars’ work a step further to discover what particular methods of cheating are most common on college campuses, specifically at UNC-Chapel Hill. The study was designed to gather information by asking students not only which cheating behaviors they had engaged in themselves, but also which cheating behaviors they had “definite knowledge” of. The term “definite knowledge” was defined to mean that the surveyed students did it themselves, saw it happen themselves, or were directly told of the dishonest behavior by the person who had cheated. In addition to determining the most common methods of cheating it was hoped that this study would discover if cheating was more common on examinations or papers.
Method:
The study was conducted by formulating a survey consisting of five questions pertaining to academic cheating. These questions were designed to analyze which types of cheating are most common at UNC as well as whether cheating is more common on examinations or papers. The survey was headed with the title “Two-Minute Survey” to increase student participation by letting responders know that the survey would only take a few minutes to complete. Then a short statement indicated the purpose of the study and stressed confidentiality and the student’s anonymity in order to reduce any apprehension about taking the survey. Other methods employed to increase participation were list and multiple choice questions. In both instances, the students merely had to check or circle their answers, thus eliminating the pressure of writing lengthy answers.
The purpose of the first two questions was to provide the data necessary to determine the most common methods of cheating practiced by students at UNC. The first question asked the student to choose which items, from a list of 14 Honor Code violations, he or she had “definite knowledge” of during his or her time at UNC. (The term “definite knowledge” was defined on the questionnaire for the respondent). The items listed were as follows:
a. getting an answer from someone else’s paper during a test b. turning in the same paper in two different classes without making sure that it was all right with the teachers c. copying someone else’s paper (for instance, lab reports or group projects) d. plagiarizing parts or all of a paper e. knowing that someone else was cheating but not reporting it f. giving or receiving unauthorized help but still signing the Honor Pledge g. looking at the answers to a test beforehand h. using unauthorized information sources during a take-home exam i. exceeding the specified time limit on a take-home exam j. turning in a paper that was written by somebody else k. allowing someone else to cheat off of one’s own exam paper l. giving one’s own paper to someone else to turn in as his or her own m. taking a cheat sheet into a test n. ordering or downloading a paper from an online term paper service o. none of these
The second question had the same list as the first, but respondents were asked to identify which of those activities they themselves had done during their time at UNC.
All 14 behaviors listed for questions one and two were violations defined specifically as cheating by the UNC Honor Code. As a result, the student’s indication of which behaviors he or she had “definite knowledge” of or had personally engaged in was used to formulate percentages for the various types of cheating at UNC. Then those percentages were used to identify the most common methods of cheating at UNC. Note that the final category included in the list reading “none of these” led to the formulation of a percentage of students who did not engage in (or know about, in question 1) any of these particular cheating behaviors.
The final three questions focused on the second part of the study, which attempted to find out whether cheating was more common on examinations or papers. Question 3 was as follows: “Do you think it’s more common for UNC students to cheat on exams or on papers (by plagiarizing, for instance)?” Question 4 asked the individual whether he or she thought it would be easier to cheat on exams or papers. The final question asked the respondent whether there was a greater risk of being caught cheating on exams or papers. All of these questions had three choices: "exams," "papers," or "neither." In the last two questions, for our purposes it was assumed that if the respondents felt it was easier to cheat on exams versus papers and if they thought they were less likely to get caught cheating on exams versus papers, then cheating on exams would be more common, or vice versa.
The study was conducted by a five-member group, and each member was responsible for distributing 50 surveys for a total of 250. These surveys were randomly distributed during lunchtime, the afternoon, and late night study hours in “the Pit” and “the Wall” (campus social areas), Lewis Dorm, and Lenoir Dining Hall. This manner of distribution was an attempt to get respondents from a variety of different ethnic and social backgrounds. Out of the 250 surveys distributed only 200 were returned. By combining each group member’s individual results, it was determined which methods of cheating were the most common at UNC. The results were tabulated as percentages. Finally, the results were displayed in two graphs, one showing the most common methods of cheating and the other showing whether cheating was more common on exams or papers. The results from questions 1 and 2 were combined to provide the answer to the first portion of the study while the results from questions 3, 4, and 5 related to the question concerning cheating on exams and papers.
Results:
Following the collection of data, it was found that 80% of the 200 students surveyed at UNC-Chapel Hill had personally engaged in one or more of the dishonest activities listed above while another very high number, 90%, had “direct knowledge” of cheating incidents. Further analysis of these categories yielded interesting results as to which activities were most commonly practiced at UNC.As can be seen in the table, all of the methods of cheating tested by the questionnaire were found to be present at UNC. Based on the answers of the 200 respondents, item c, copying someone else’s paper, was the activity that the most students had “definite knowledge” of, with 66% of the students surveyed indicating their knowledge of this activity. A close second was knowing that someone else was cheating but not reporting it, as confirmed by 56% of those surveyed, and the same number of students, 56%, also indicated that they had “definite knowledge” of an individual getting an answer from someone else’s paper during a test.
item "definite knowledge" self-report a. 56% 28% b. 22% 6% c. 66% 32% d. 46% 26% e. 56% 48% f. 50% 34% g. 18% 8% h. 52% 10% i. 8% 6% j. 22% 8% k. 30% 16% l. 14% 6% m. 28% 8% n. 7% 0% o. 8% 8%
When the students were asked which of the activities they personally had engaged in, it was found that the highest number of students, 48%, had known someone was cheating yet failed to report it. Also, 34% of the students admitted to having dishonestly signed the Honor Pledge. A large number of the respondents, 32%, confessed to item c, copying someone else’s paper.
Answers to the final three questions, which surveyed the differences between cheating on exams and papers to determine which was most commonly practiced, which was easier to perform, and which posed the greatest risk, yielded interesting results as well:While students were somewhat divided in their perception of whether cheating on exams or papers is actually more common, the results show widespread agreement that cheating on papers is both easier and safer than cheating on exams.
question on exams on papers neither cheating more common: 38% 58% 4% cheating easier: 19% 76% 5% cheating riskier: 76% 16% 8%
Discussion:
The most commonly reported items from both the "definite knowledge" and self-report sections of the questionnaire were items c, e, a, h, f, and d. Items e (knowing about cheating but not reporting it) and f (signing the Honor Pledge despite having given or received unauthorized aid) are very general, so it is not surprising that they received many responses. For the same reason, they can tell us little about which specific kinds of cheating are most common at UNC. The responses for the remaining popular items (c, a, h, and d) indicate that the most common forms of academic dishonesty at UNC are copying someone else's paper, plagiarizing parts or all of a paper, using unauthorized information sources on a take-home exam, and getting an answer from someone else’s paper during a test. These conclusions were reached by combining the responses from questions 1 and 2.
It is interesting to note that the lowest percentage of students surveyed, 7%, had any knowledge of someone else ordering or downloading a paper from the internet, and none of the students surveyed admitted to having done this themselves. This result suggests that students tend to practice familiar methods of cheating and consider the process of finding papers online too difficult or possibly too risky.
It is also noteworthy from the responses for these questions that 48% of the students surveyed admitted to having known directly of someone who had cheated yet failed to report it. With about half of the respondents admitting to this offense, and since it is a central part of UNC's Honor Code, there is a strong indication that this is an area of academic dishonesty that should addressed by the university. Out of all the dishonest practices listed, this item would be the hardest to detect, so its effectiveness depends even more than the rest on the individual student's desire to uphold the Honor Code.
The results also indicated that cheating on papers was more common than cheating on exams. By combining the responses to the last three questions it can be inferred that students practice the activity which they believe poses the least risk and takes the least effort. The results from this part of the questionnaire suggests that students at UNC feel that the chance of discovering someone who cheated on a paper is very slim since only 16% of the individuals surveyed found this to be a greater risk. These results indicate that plagiarism is a method of cheating that should be looked into by the university in order to prevent future offenders. A possible error in the results obtained for this question is due to the format of the survey. Some individuals checked both exams and papers as a response to the same question on the last part of the questionnaire. For our purposes it was assumed that these responses were the same as neither; however, there was no indication that this was the student’s reasoning behind his answer. An added guideline requiring the respondent to choose only one answer for these questions could alleviate this problem in a future survey.
Finally, it should be noted that out of the four most commonly identified specific methods of cheating (copying someone else's paper to turn in, plagiarism, use of unauthorized resources on a take-home exam, and getting answers from someone else's test paper), three of these are acts that take place outside the classroom. Students' reported belief that papers are easier and safer to cheat on than exams further supports the conclusion that Honor Code violation is something that occurs mainly outside, not inside the classroom. This information can be used in the future to help shape the Honor Code and its enforcement more directly toward the high-risk areas of academic dishonesty.
References:
Graham, M. A., et al. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255-260. Livosky, M., & Maline, M. B. (1993). Views of cheating among college students and faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 72-82. Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 229-241.
Copyright 1999 Melissa Cox, Stephanie Eissens, Abby Martin, and Jacques Stanislaus.
Forward to the next section of Academic Dishonesty at UNC: A Collaborative Study
Back to the front page of Academic Dishonesty at UNC: A Collaborative Study