Academic Dishonesty in Private, Church-Related Colleges:
The New Circumstantial Morality
Judy B. McPherson
Paine College
INTRODUCTION
Ever long for the good old days of teaching where parents supported the teachers and students paid attention to every word the teacher said, actually did their homework, respected individuals in authority, adhered to high moral standards while meticulously upholding ethical practices? You may have been watching too many re-runs of “Leave It to Beaver” or “Father Knows Best.”
It is time to open your eyes and take a good look at your current 21st century students and your peers. When it comes to cheating, society seems to have changed. Individual expectations dictate all students make only the highest grades and insinuate all students making average grades are either lazy or inept.
You are living on planet earth and here individuals are encouraged to “make hay while the sun shines,” “be all you can be,” and “graduate from college so you can get a good job.” Most educators have had enough of the clichés and are ready to come back to reality and attack the problems at hand.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Student cheating practices are considered to be a pandemic among students at all levels. Research results from studies in India, Japan, Australia, and the United States indicate cheating is rampant among today’s students. Some studies suggest 70-80 per cent of students in schools cheat at some time using a variety of strategies.
With the development of such technology as the cell phone, I pod, and Internet, students have immediate and extensive access to an incredible number of cheating methods. Within 10 minutes on the Internet, students can locate a variety of paper mills where papers on popular subjects are made available to the student free of charge. Other sites charge a nominal fee for papers used before by other students and provide papers with a choice of potential grades to students from elementary to graduate school. Still other sites offer students “ghostwriters” and detailed advice on how to cheat using the most proven, foolproof methods.
For those of us who espouse, uphold, and adamantly campaign for ethical and moral standards, the extent of available sites providing students with opportunities to cheat is disheartening. Many academics fail to acknowledge the fact that cheating is a standard practice by students, thus assisting in perpetuating the problem.
Some academics in high risk testing situations have actually fallen prey to the temptation of assisting students in being successful on standardized tests administered in their classroom. Administrators whose schools have been targeted as “low performing” succumbed to changing student responses on standardized tests to “save” their school or “save face” among their colleagues. Even the educators responsible for teaching and modeling the strictest, highest academic standards surrender personal standards in the face of being accused of not performing their job to the best of their ability.
HONOR CODES
Just what is an Honor Code? According to World Web Online, an Honor Code is a code of conduct delineated for individuals regarding their situational behavior. The Honor Code is comprised of a number of traditional or conventional principles, expectations and behaviors binding individual members of an identified group.
Most schools and institutions of higher education publish an Honor Code for students which range from a single sentence reinforcing expectations of honesty to tomes with definitions, examples, and consequences for students who engage in specific cheating behaviors at any level.
Research results from McCabe (1993) and McCabe and Trevino (1997) indicate Honor Codes assist in curbing cheating if implementation of the code includes a true faculty buy-in and if students are constantly being informed of the code in a special class or in all classes taught throughout the campus.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHEATERS
McCabe et.al. (2001), examined research for the last decade and concluded student cheating is widespread, riddled with contextual influences, partially limited by the presence of an Honor Code, and becoming increasingly high-tech therefore more difficult to detect. Several characteristics of habitual cheaters also came to light.
Cheating is more prevalent in freshmen and sophomores taking core courses than in juniors and seniors enrolled in major courses they tend to enjoy being taught by professors they know and have come to respect. However, high stakes testing situations prompt an overall increase in habitual cheating practices by college students.
In addition, college students use a variety of neutralizing techniques in an attempt to absolve them of guilt when they choose to employ dishonest behavior. These behaviors include rationalization, denial, deflecting blame to others, and condemning the accusers (McCabe, 1992).
Observing cheating behavior in other students encourages more students to cheat and friends are much more likely to copy from friends than they are perfect strangers (Minnesota State University-Mankato, 2007). Some studies showed students at smaller schools tend to cheat less, a behavior believed to be influenced by closer relationships with their individual professors because of the school size. Close relationships are more easily established on a smaller campus than on the mini-city structures of a large campus environment (McCabe and Trevino, 1997).
Perhaps, not surprisingly, there exists a real, positive link between students whose parents never attended college and the cheating practices by their children when they enter college (Minnesota State University-Mankato, 2007). Pressures of performing better in school than the parents, attaining lofty goals, achieving financial security, and obtaining a better career, often push students to achieve at any cost.
Interestingly, there is a negative relationship between cheating and the student’s Grade Point Average (GPA). The difference may be due to the fact that students capable of achieving a high GPA find less need to engage in habitual cheating ((Minnesota State University-Mankato, 2007).
In a study conducted by Minnesota State University-Mankato (2007) researchers found males more likely to cheat than females. Males may feel more pressure to succeed since society expects them to assume the role of father-provider for his family. Some studies also suggest the cheating male is often the athlete who visualizes a high-finance, long-lived career in professional sports as a major goal. These individuals may be tempted to or even encouraged to use strength-developing drugs to enhance their performance.
Membership in social fraternities or sororities has a tendency to impact student grades. Some students neglect assignments or take time away from their studies just to be with their friends in various social settings. The inevitable “party image” of the fraternities and sororities often involve the drinking of alcoholic beverages. Results of a study on cheating conducted by the administration at the Minnesota State University-Mankato (2007) found individuals who consume large quantities of alcoholic beverages are more likely to cheat when the opportunity becomes available.
METHODOLOGY
Two private, church-related schools of equal size located near the southeast coast were selected for use in the study. The schools were both located in the central city area. A total of 289 students responded to the 14-question confidential survey with accompanying demographic data requested.
Both schools had developed extensively detailed Honor Codes whose content was explained initially during freshman orientation, addressed in all classes throughout the campus, reinforced by advisors, emphasized in professional organizations, and highlighted in all social organizations. Each school utilized an honor court system comprised of administrators, faculty, and student representatives who meet with students accused of breaking the honor code. The academic honesty meeting uses procedures likened to a courtroom and provides representatives for both the accuser and the accused. Consequences for the specific infractions are clearly delineated and strictly adhered to in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of habitual cheating.
Students from across campuses were surveyed regarding what they considered cheating, if they had ever cheated, and if they would ever think of cheating. All 289 students responded to each of the questions on the survey. The results were eye-opening and absolutely unanticipated. In spite of the religious values and morals espoused by every student in the school, all 289 students completing the survey admitted to having cheated at some level at some time in their college academic careers. It would seem despite the presence of honor codes, training in making decisions about what is or is not cheating, and espousing deep religious beliefs, students will, at some poing fall prey to the temptation to cheat.
RESULTS
We live in a dynamic, rapidly changing technological world and all students have access to the latest technology for home and school use. Ironically, it is just that technology and its growing portability that provide fertile ground for easily cheating both in and out of the classroom. All 289 student respondents admitted to using some form of technology in the cheating process. Therefore, the results of this study differ considerably from other studies conducted.
The presence of an Honor Code with strictly regulated penalties for academic dishonesty did not act as a deterrent to the cheating process. Although students received instruction in classes regarding exactly what comprises cheating, knowing did not act to prevent students from habitual cheating. Acknowledging there were strict consequences for cheating, students felt they would not be caught and would, therefore, not have to face any penalties for their cheating.
Church relatedness, attending regular services on campus, and conventional presence at Sunday church services had no effect on the students’ decision to ignore ethical and moral teachings or beliefs and cheat their way out of a course and/or program. In fact, some 95 of the 286 study participants confessed they believed cheating to be acceptable despite being aware of the ethical and moral guidelines espoused by their religion.
Maintaining or achieving a desirable grade point average is one of the primary reasons indicated by students for engaging in cheating behavior. Since all students indicated some level of cheating neither student gender, the respondent’s academic level, or class size seems to act to prevent academic dishonesty.
STUDENT ADMISSIONS ABOUT CHEATING
Students freely admitted to cheating when stakes were high enough to offset the potential of being caught and sent through the college justice system for appropriate sentencing. All students believed purchasing a paper from the internet, using another student’s paper, paying a “ghostwriter” or using a paper written by them for another class was perfectly legitimate and should not be considered cheating. Finally, students believe they should allow other students who are struggling to see their answers on a test to help them pass the class, provided the individual looking at their answers is a friend or close acquaintance. They do not believe the behavior should even be considered cheating.
SUMMARY
The hypothesis that students enrolled in church-related colleges cheat less than students enrolled in non-church-related colleges was totally unfounded. Despite a more thorough preparation in identifying cheating practices and adhering to strict moral and ethical actions, students engaged in cheating when the opportunities presented themselves. Christian parents, administrators, teachers and ministers have not been able to convince the younger generation of students that cheating, no matter what form it takes is wrong. Perhaps as students become older, wiser, or firmer in their ethical and moral beliefs, they will change their minds about endorsing the cheating processes.
However, with habitual cheating being practiced around students by fellow human beings in positions of authority and responsibility, the solid foundation in faith and appropriate modeling behavior may well be too weak to affect changes in their cheating behavior throughout life. The cheating cycle is certainly being well-modeled and, thus, perpetuated.
High stakes demands placed on students to always make the ultimate grade of an “A” on every assignment in every class and pass standardized tests at the highest level may serve to enable academic dishonesty and essentially act to reinforce the use of specific types of cheating. The cheating cycle perpetuates itself fueled by constant pressures to succeed and fear of failure. It may be the frightening fear of ultimate failure or self-disappointment or it might be the failure to meet the standards of parents and significant others who refuse to believe being at the top is the only acceptable place to be.
Students choose not to hear the ethical and moral admonitions of society when society is so frequently found guilty of what they are expected to deem ethically and morally wrong. Presidents who promise they will bring democracy to a warring country, invade countries because of the presence of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and continue to place our country in an international lose/lose proposition are but one example. Mayors are often accused of misappropriating funds. State school superintendents are sent to jail for misappropriating funds meant to be used to enhance the education of the students in state schools. Leaders who swear they do not use drugs but are caught on tape buying drugs from a drug dealer must have their integrity questioned. Do we really believe one former political leader only smoked marijuana but did not inhale the smoke to get high while at Oxford University? Athletes seem to be given a multitude of chances when it becomes known by the public they use performance-enhancing drugs. It is painfully obvious to students today there are double standards for those who have money and power and those who do not. Few really appropriate role models are acknowledged by the media so students have few appropriate role models to encourage them to aspire to greatness using ethical and moral means. These young women and men need role models who show them the way despite the consequences of holding steadfast to ethical and moral standards.
Frequently struggling students see cheating as a means to an end, a way to get where they want to go with as little effort as possible. Yes, students have cheated in the past. Absolutely students cheat now. Definitively, students will continue to cheat in the future despite having what they espouse as intense religious convictions.
Students should be encouraged to learn failure on a test is not the end of their world, career, or life. It is merely a learning experience. Find out what more could have been done to make a passing grade and plan to incorporate those strategies into the next study plan. Should students fail to learn the connection between honor, ethics, and morality academic dishonesty and cheating will be continue if only so they are able feel more satisfied or happy with life and living. Thus, the cheating cycle will be perpetuated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adenekan, Shola. (2003). Students using the net to cheat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education
Essay Mill. (2007). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essay_mill
Godfrey, John., & Waugh, Russell. (2007). Students’ perceptions of cheating in Australian independent schools. Education
Australia. http://edoz.com.au
History of academic dishonesty. (2007). http://en.wilipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty
Cheating and Honor Codes. (2007). WordWeb Dictionary on Line: http://www.wordweb.
Cheating in schools: Societal Implications. (2007). http://gibbsmagazine.com
Griffin, R. Morgan. (2007). What Makes People Cheat? http://www.medicinent.com/script/main/
McCabe, Donald L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry
. 62. 365-374.
McCabe, Donald L., & Trevino, L.K. (1993). Academic Dishonesty. Research in Higher Education. 38. 379-396.
McCabe, Donald L., & Trevino, L.K. (1999). Academic Dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences.
Research in Higher Education. 38. 379-396.
McCabe, Donald L., & Trevino, L.K., Butterfield, K.D. (1999). Academic Integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments:
A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education. 70. 211-234.
McCabe, Donald L., et. al. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research.
Ethics and Behavior. 11(3), 219-232. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Newark, NJ.
Minnesota State University Mankato. Academic Dishonesty Article. (2007). http://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teaching
resources/articles/academic dishonesty.html
Read, Brock. (2004). Wired for cheating. Chronicle of Higher Education. v50. pp.45-49.
http://chronicle.com
The cheating culture. (2007). http://www.cheatingculture.com/education.htm |
