Analysis of Cheating on Academic Assignments

Gardner, William M.; Roper, James T.; González, Claudia Cristina Ortega; Simpson, Royce G.

doi:10.1007/bf03395046

Cited by 50 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nelson and Schaeffer (1986) found that surveys tend to overestimate the incidence of cheating, but it is quite possible that using the randomized response technique resulted in these findings. Gardner et al (1988) found exactly the opposite, because the bias in reporting stems primarily from cheaters claiming not to cheat and not from non-cheaters claiming that they do cheat. Since the survey process is anonymous there is no reason to believe that bias is a major concern.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Undergraduate Student Perceptions Regarding Cheating: Tier 1 Versus Tier 2 AACSB Accredited Business Schools

Premeaux

2005

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cheating is fairly commonplace at both Tiers 1 and 2 AACSB accredited business schools. Distinct differences exist between Tiers 1 and 2 students with regard to cheating. Tier 1 students are more likely to cheat on written assignments, they believe sanctions impact cheating, and that a stigma is attached to cheating. Tier 2 students are more likely to cheat on exams, and nearly as likely to cheat on written assignments. Tier 2 students accept the notion that moral and ethical people cheat. Tier 2 students who are Business Administration majors, those who are employed 40 hours or more per week, married students, and married students with children are more likely to cheat. At both Tiers 1 and 2 schools Asian students are less likely to cheat, but resident members of fraternities and sororities and those who drink frequently are more likely to cheat.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Undergraduate Student Perceptions Regarding Cheating: Tier 1 Versus Tier 2 AACSB Accredited Business Schools

Premeaux

2005

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They conjecture that possibly the results are unusual because the focus was on a single instance of cheating and measured only one possible type of cheating. Gardner et al (1988) used specially written study guides to determine whether students would, contrary to explicit instructions, rely on the study guide answers to complete their assigned homework, which accounted for 20% of the course grade in an introductory psychology course. They found that over a term approximately 50% of the students cheated at least once, though they found that students did not cheat consistently, i.e.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Classroom: A Natural Experiment

West

Ravenscroft

Shrader

2004

Journal of Business Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a natural experiment involving academic cheating by university students. We explore the relationship of moral judgment (as measured using the defining issues test) to actual behavior, as well as the relationship between the honesty of students self-reports and the extent of cheating. We were able to determine the extent to which students actually cheated on the take-home portion of an accounting exam. The take-home problem was not assigned with the intent of inducing cheating among students. However, the high rate of observed cheating prompted the instructor to return to class and ask the students to provide information on their motivation. The students' responses are the data analyzed in this natural experiment. We found that in a simple regression the relationship between moral judgment scores and cheating behavior was insignificant. However, when we tested whether including Utilizer scores (i.e. the extent to which people select actions based on notions of justice) affected the relationship of cheating and moral judgment we found that Utilizer affected the relationship significantly. Finally, we found that moral judgment and honesty were not related, but higher levels of cheating behavior related to less honesty. KeywordsAccounting, accounting students, cheating, defining issues test, ethics, honesty, moral judgement is a manuscript of an article from Journal of Business Ethics 54 (2004): 173, doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-9463-x. Posted with permission. The final publication is available at Springer Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Classroom:A Natural Experiment AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to present the results of a natural experiment involving academic cheating by university students. We explore the relationship of moral judgment (as measured using the Defining Issues Test) to actual behavior, as well as the relationship between the honesty of students self-reports and the extent of cheating. We were able to determine the extent to which students actually cheated on the take-home portion of an accounting exam. The take-home problem was not assigned with the intent of inducing cheating among students. However, the high rate of observed cheating prompted the instructor to return to class and ask the students to provide information on their motivation.The students' responses are the data analyzed in this natural experiment.We found that in a simple regression the relationship between moral judgment scores and cheating behavior was insignificant. However, when we tested whether includingUtilizer scores (i.e. the extent to which people select actions based on notions of justice)affected the relationship of cheating and moral judgment we found that Utilizer affected the relationship significantly. Finally, we found that moral judgment and honesty were not related, but higher levels of cheating behavior related to less honesty.

show abstract

“…Parr reports that 42% of students awarded themselves higher scores than their original exams warranted. Similarly constructed studies have been performed on college students by Canning (1956), Zastrow (1970), Fakouri (1972), Tittle and Rowe (1973), Erickson and Smith (1974), Kelly and Worrell (1978), Gardner, Roper, Gonzalez and Simpson (1988), and Nowell and Laufer (1997). All of these studies find frequent cheating among sample students, ranging from a low of 15.6% of students cheating in Fakouri's experiment to a high of 50.8% in Gardner et al Shelton and Hill (1969) performed this type of experiment with high school sophomores and juniors and found that 53% of students cheated.…”

Section: Observed Cheating Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 89%

Observing and Deterring Social Cheating on College Exams

Fendler

Yates

Godbey

2018

ij-sotl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research introduces a unique multiple choice exam design to observe and measure the degree to which students copy answers from their peers. Using data collected from the exam, an empirical experiment is conducted to determine whether random seat assignment deters cheating relative to a control group of students allowed to choose their seats. Empirical results demonstrate a significant decline in measured cheating within the assigned seating sample. This study contributes to the literature by providing a measurement of actual cheating frequency among students, as opposed to relying on reported cheating in anonymous surveys, and by demonstrating that an easily implemented deterrent can significantly reduce instances of cheating. This research introduces a unique multiple choice exam design to observe and measure the degree to which students copy answers from their peers. Using data collected from the exam, an empirical experiment is conducted to determine whether random seat assignment deters cheating relative to a control group of students allowed to choose their seats. Empirical results demonstrate a significant decline in measured cheating within the assigned seating sample. This study contributes to the literature by providing a measurement of actual cheating frequency among students, as opposed to relying on reported cheating in anonymous surveys, and by demonstrating that an easily implemented deterrent can significantly reduce instances of cheating. Observing and Deterring Social Cheating on College Exams

show abstract

Analysis of Cheating on Academic Assignments

Cited by 50 publications

References 10 publications

Undergraduate Student Perceptions Regarding Cheating: Tier 1 Versus Tier 2 AACSB Accredited Business Schools

Undergraduate Student Perceptions Regarding Cheating: Tier 1 Versus Tier 2 AACSB Accredited Business Schools

Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Classroom: A Natural Experiment

Observing and Deterring Social Cheating on College Exams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About