Experiment FindingsPDF Available

Cancer of Cheating Behaviour in students during examination

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In modern competitive world people are becoming more ambitious to achieve success and to achieve goals they do not hesitate to adopt unfair means. Cheating in examination is one such behaviour which is spreading fast in students. There have been instances where students adopt different ways to cheat in early stage of education and it becomes their habit, and they continue this process during higher education, and also other stages of life. In present time, students want to complete thing faster in "any how" way to get higher grade or marks or to get admission in good professional courses. To stop academic dishonesty student should be encourage towards positive value of life honesty, respect and self-control. The present research article suggests that cheating should be prohibited by recognising the methods and reason of cheating, and encourages the youth generation to achieve their goal by hard work and ethics.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... Again, Muralidharan and Gaur (2018) cited Jordan's three categories of cheating at the school level as (i) Neutralized (cheating behaviour that does not harm others), (ii) Semantic differential (positive or negative cheating), and (iii) Other attitude (not classifiable). At the institutional level, according to Muralidharan and Gaur "cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition employed to create an unfair advantage often at the expense of others" (p. ...
... The third section of the questionnaire had four items based on Jordan's three categories of cheating as (i) Neutralized (cheating behaviour does not harm others), (ii) Semantic differential (positive or negative cheating), and (iii) Other attitude (not classifiable) (as par the review of Muralidharan & Gaur, 2018) to solicit students' opinion on institutional sensitivity to authentication of WASSCE results. Question items such as: To what extent do you thinking cheating in examination affects your school's reputation? ...
... This affects institutional reputation and believability of examination results. Authorities have to be mindful institutional reputation, sensitivity, and consequences (Muralidharan & Gaur, 2018). Even though the correlation results proved differently, the proposition of Starratt (1994;1990) calling for ethical school building still stands, and that the evidence supported the assumption that schools need to be morally oriented against cheating behaviours. ...
Article
Full-text available
The main purpose of this study is to determine the possible causes behind the tendency of students in Turkey to exhibit cheating behavior in the exams directly from the results of research conducted on the subject. This research is a meta-synthesis study that was planned in the qualitative research design. Within this scope; three master's theses and 28 research articles which are accessed using databases such as the Google Academic search engine, TUBITAK Ulakbim DergiPark, the Turkish Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center, EBSCOhost, and ERIC and directly linked to the topic, were subjected to content analysis. The sample group of the studies used for the analysis is secondary school, high school, and university students, prospective teachers of education faculty, teachers, and instructors working in schools. According to the content analysis performed, it was seen that the topical studies conducted in Turkey mainly concentrated on two sub-dimensions. These are studies that aim at revealing the reasons of students' tendency towards cheating behaviors in exams, and attitude levels of opinions about cheating behaviors in exams and what measures could be taken. The majority of the investigated studies were conducted with prospective teachers (n=15) and the research methods of the studies were mostly based on the quantitative method (n=20). In the context of the data presented and discussed in this current study, it is anticipated that the results will be useful in guiding future research and providing in-service training for teacher training programs.
Article
Full-text available
Approximately one-half to three-quarters of university students commit some form of cheating, plagiarism, or collusion. Typical university responses are policy statements containing definitions plus punishment procedures. This paper collates a portfolio of strategies and tactics that seek to design-out, deter, and discourage academic misconduct. It finds many routine tactics exist, from silence and the use of large halls for major exams, to restrictions on electronic devices. Others are less consistently adopted, such as splitting lengthy exams in two to discourage washroom-visits where cheating takes place. The portfolio of tactics is framed in the context of crime opportunity theory and the 25 techniques of situational crime prevention. It is proposed that more consistent application of tactics focusing on environmental design, curricular design, and class management offer significant potential for reducing misconduct. Future research should seek to evaluate and enhance such interventions.
Article
Full-text available
In an attempt to study the perception of university students on the causes and effects of examination malpractices in Nigerian Educational System, two research questions were raised and analysed for possible answers using a survey research design method. Four hundred university students were randomly selected from the research area. A questionnaire consisting of twenty-five (25) items was constructed, and duly validated by the researchers for the study. The results obtained from the study indicated that a test-retest reliability index ranging from 0.77 to 0.85 were feasible. It was also indicative that societal preference for paper qualification, lack of positive self concept, lack of effective study skills, inadequate preparation andlaziness are some of the causes of examination malpractice among university students. The identified effects included discouragement of candidates from studying hard, denial of admission to deserving students, underachievement in labour market and overall reduction in quality of education. Based on this, it was concluded that personal and societal factors could cause examination malpractice and the society is likely to suffer from low productivity because of this malaise, examination malpractice. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Article
Full-text available
Academic dishonesty is a serious problem in schools, colleges, and universities worldwide. Past studies show a high correlation between the frequency of cheating at university/college and the frequency of cheating at work, suggesting that dishonest behaviour is not situation specific. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the reasons students engage in academic dishonesty among business students at one of the public universities in Malaysia. A total of 610 sets of questionnaire survey were collected across 11 programs offered by the faculty. The findings revealed that most students participated in academic dishonesty because the lecturer did not mind the behaviour. This is followed by the assignment / material is irrelevant to the subject and peer-pressure environment. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
The study aimed at studying cheating behaviors in exams at the college level. Cheating behaviors included: prevalence of cheating, common cheating methods, reasons for cheating, reasons for not cheating, and types of exams that experience more cheating incidences. A total of 928 students (33% males, 67% females) from the UAEU participated in this study by responding to a self -report questionnaire. Results indicated that more than 37% of students admitted to cheating in exams while in college. When comparing the two genders, more than 65% of male students admitted to have cheated against about 24% of females. Results also indicated that as student achievement increases, incidences of cheating decrease, but age was not a significant factor in cheating behaviors. The three most frequent cheating methods used by students were looking at another's test paper, using a system of signals, and writing on hands, desks, etc. While the most compelling reasons for cheating were hard courses, hard exams, time pressure, improving one's chances, and fear of failure, the strongest reasons for not cheating were: religious beliefs, morality, personal pride, worthlessness of cheating, and shame to be caught. Finally, results showed that students cheat more on multiple-choice exams than open-ended ones, and more on quizzes than midterms and finals.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines university students' behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs related to academic dishonesty using data collected in 1984, 1994, and 2004. We are unaware of any other research program that has used the same instrument to monitor academic dishonesty at the same institution over such a long period of time. Several authors have critiqued the academic dishonesty literature, questioning the validity of comparing historical and recent studies (Brown & Emmett, 2001; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Whitley, 1998; Whitley, Nelson, & Jones, 1999) since different studies have measured academic dishonesty in many different ways (Vowell and Chen, 2004). Whitley et al. (1999) stated, "Some of this variance [in reported cheating incidence rates], perhaps a substantial degree, could be due to the wide range of measures used to assess both cheating behavior and attitudes…In the case of both attitudes and behavior the studies used too many different operational definitions to allow assessment of the relationship between operational definition and effect size" (pg. 667). Brown and Emmett (2001) have also questioned studies that report high levels of college cheating, suggesting that these studies might simply be defining cheating in broader terms. In the current study, students were defined as "cheaters" if they reported cheating at some time in their college career on quizzes, exams, or assignments, however they defined those terms. All others were defined as "noncheaters." This same rule was also followed in 1984 and 1994. In 1984, we found that 54% of students admitted to cheating and we characterized these cheaters as immature, lacking educational commitment, and likely to use neutralizing attitudes to lessen guilt associated with cheating (Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986). Cheating increased in 1994 to 61%. This increase was significant and suggested that academic dishonesty was on the rise. Cheaters continued to neutralize more than noncheaters; however, both cheaters and noncheaters evidenced less neutralizing than the 1984 cohort. Even as cheating increased, neutralizing decreased, indicating to us that academic dishonesty had become so normative that it was no longer viewed by students as a deviant behavior that needed to be justified (Diekhoff et al., 1996). The recent literature has reported similarly high rates of overall academic dishonesty, with reports ranging from 52-90% (Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Graham et al., 1994; Lester & Diekhoff, 2002; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Vowell and Chen, 2004). Academic dishonesty percentages are lower if one looks at behavior within a specific semester. For example, Jordan (2001) found that only 31% of students cheated on an exam or paper during one semester. In addition, 9% of the students in the Jordan study committed 75% of the cheating acts. These studies suggested that most students engage in cheating at some point during their academic career; however, a much smaller percent cheats in any given semester. External factors (e.g., fear of detection and punishment) appear to be more effective in deterring cheating than internal factors (e.g., guilt) (Diekhoff et al., 1996; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Graham et al., 1994). In 1994, we found that external factors ranked as the top 4 out of 6 deterrents to cheating. First and foremost was the embarrassment of being caught by a faculty member. Being dropped by the instructor ranked second, followed by fear of the university's response, and receiving an 'F.' Guilt ranked fifth, and fear of disapproval by one's friends showed the least deterrent effect (Diekhoff et al., 1996). Genereux & McLeod, (1995) and Burns, Davis, Hoshino, and Miller (1998) also reported that the threat of punishment, such as fear of expulsion, was a top deterrent to cheating. Additional external deterrents included instructor vigilance and spacing in the exam room (Genereux & McLeod, 1995). Thus, the reduction of academic dishonesty depends primarily on faculty and institutional actions. Unfortunately, the literature is quite clear on how disengaged faculty and university administrators are from student cheating. Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara, and Yasukawa (1999) reported that only 3% of cheaters reported having ever been caught, and Jendrek (1989) and McCabe (1993) found that most faculty members are reluctant to follow official university policies and procedures in handling student cheating. Seventy-one percent of the faculty surveyed in a national sample stated that confronting a student about cheating is one of the most negative...
Article
Cheaters and noncheaters were assessed on 2 types of motivation (mastery and extrinsic), on perceived social norms regarding cheating, on attitudes about cheating, and on knowledge of institutional policy regarding cheating behavior. All 5 factors were significant predictors of cheating rates. In addition, cheaters were found lower in mastery motivation and higher in extrinsic motivation in courses in which they cheated than in courses in which they did not cheat. Cheaters, in courses in which they cheated, were also lower in mastery motivation and higher in extrinsic motivation than were noncheaters. Finally, cheaters differed from noncheaters on perceived social norms regarding cheating, on their knowledge of institutional policy regarding cheating, and on their attitudes toward cheating. Implications of these findings for institutional interventions are discussed.
Article
We analyze students' cheating behavior during a national evaluation test. We model the mechanisms that trigger cheating interactions between students and show that, when monitoring is not sufficiently accurate, a social multiplier may magnify the effects on students' achievements. We exploit a randomized experiment, which envisaged the presence of an external inspector in the administration and marking of the tests, to estimate a structural (endogenous) social multiplier in students' cheating. The empirical strategy exploits the Excess-Variance approach (Graham, 2008). We find a strong amplifying role played by social interactions within classrooms: students' cheating behaviors more than double the class average test scores results. The effects are found to be larger when students are more homogeneous in terms of parental background characteristics and social ties.
Article
The incidence and causes of cheating were investigated using a questionnaire, consisting of 21 cheating behaviors, which was distributed to students at an English university. Respondents were asked to indicate, confidentially, which of the behaviors they had engaged in. Reported cheating was widespread and some types of cheating (e.g., on coursework) were more common than others. Reported cheating was more common in men than women; more common with less able students than more able ones; more common in younger students than mature ones; and more common in science and technology students than those in other disciplines. It is suggested that students' motivation, in particular whether they are studying to learn rather than simply to obtain good grades, is a major factor in explaining these differences. The results also indicate that cheating consists of a number of different types of behavior rather than being a unitary concept. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)