Attributes and statuses of college students associated with classroom cheating on a small-sized campus

College Student Journal, March, 2004 by Russell L. Dawkins

An exploratory study examines self-reported acts of academic dishonesty for a sample of 858 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students on a small college campus (8,350 students). The study raises awareness to the occurrences, and challenges of academic dishonesty at small-sized institutions, somewhat overlooked in empirical research. Attributes of students and characteristics of the campus are found to be associated with cheating on classroom examinations (42.4%), but less so for copying from the internet or "cyber-cheating" (19.8%). More important in the decision to cheat however, are the informal networking, and socialization among students.

**********

The Study

Research on academic dishonesty in higher education is generally reported in prevalence rates of cheaters, and in dimensions related to cheating (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; Whitley, 1998). Yet, the literature shows wide disagreement on the prevalence and dimensions of academic dishonesty based on the researcher's design, sample, and setting. Surprisingly, these distinctions have been generally ignored in the literature. This cross-sectional exploratory study investigates these differences, specifically in terms of research setting among a sample of 857 students at a small-sized state university.

Prevalence Rates

Prevalence rates of academic dishonesty are reviewed first in selected longitudinal and cross-sectional research, respectively. Accordingly, one major trend study found various types of cheating among a sample of 5,000 students on 99 different sized campuses. The percentages ranged from a low of 11% to a high of 49% (Bowers, 1964). In a follow-up study, the dimensions for academic dishonesty in the prior mentioned study were replicated. By comparisons, the lowest rate of cheating was reported at 14% and the highest rate at 54% (McCabe & Bowers, 1994). A third longitudinal study involved over 6,000 students at 31 small to modest size private schools. Non-honor code students (Diekhoff, Laeff, Clark, Williams, Francis, & Haines, 1966) reported the highest percentage of cheating at 66%.

Next, an extensive selection of cross-sectional research has revealed wider disparity in the rates of academic dishonesty than did longitudinal designs. For example, in contrast to the rates of cheating reported for non-honor code students above, research at a small prestigious university with strong honor codes (May & Loyd, 1993), found students cheating at 24%. At another small regional university (Davis, Becker, & Gregor, 1992), males reported involvement in various types of academic dishonesty ranged as high as 64%. Among a sample of undergraduates at a mid-major sized university of approximately 12,000 students e.g. (Tibbetts, 1998), cheating on tests at least once in the past year was reported at 39%. Similarly, at a large sized major state university of over 35,000 (Murphy, 2002), students admitted to cheating at least once since entering college was at 68%. Finally, a review of 107 differently designed studies established conservative estimates of cheating as low as four percent, and some rates as high as 82% (Whitley, 1998).

Dimensions of Academic Dishonesty

Another body of research linked prevalence rates of cheating, to cheaters' personal backgrounds (McCabe & Trevino, 1997), contextual dimensions (Whitley, 1998), and situational factors (Tibbetts, 1998). In general, this research has shown demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, employment), school dimensions (e.g., class standing, school residence), and extracurricular experiences (e.g., fraternities, sororities, inter-collegiate athletics) among selected factors significantly related to academic dishonesty. Moreover, students' behavior (McCabe & Trevino, 1996), and motivation (Roach, 1998) have been linked to differential types of cheating behaviors (e.g., using crib notes, coping from others, helping others to cheat, inappropriate collaborations on assignments, high-tech cheating). Likewise, peer influence has been consistently found highly related to academic dishonesty (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2000; Tibbetts, 1998; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Eskridge & Ames, 1993; Bowers, 1964).

Other evidence has introduced new concerns to the growing list of challenges to academic integrity. For example, sources have reported escalating incidents of hi-tech cheating (Campbell, Swift, Denton, & Mello, 2000), distance learning cheating (Kennedy, Nowal, Raghuraman, Thomas & Davis, 2000), and cyber-cheating (Roach, 1998). Some have noted a general increase in "cyber-plagiarism" among diverse student populations and academic settings, inclusive of prestigious private universities e.g. (Hickman, 1998).

Summary of relevant factors

Locations and rates

My review of the literature establishes academic dishonesty to occur at colleges and universities of all types, sizes, and locations (Diekhoff et al., 1996; Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Davis, 1993). Moreover different levels of test cheating are found based on the institution's type, size, and location. On average, the higher rates of cheating dishonesty are shown for longitudinal research (56.0%) in comparison with cross-sectional research (48.5%). The rates for cheating however, are less clear relative to school size particularly for small regional public colleges and universities.