Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Face-to-Face Classes
Arden Miller and Adena D. Young-Jones
Trends toward an increase in online courses suggest the need for more research on
differing levels of cheating and other acts of academic disintegrity as compared to
face-to-face classes. We surveyed 639 students in both types of classes. Students felt
it was easier to cheat in online classes than face-to-face classes. For students taking
both online and face-to-face classes, we found that cheating occurred more frequently
in online classes. However, students who took only online classes were less likely
to cheat than students who took only face-to face classes. The relationship of age
to taking online classes and cheating offered an explanation for the contradictory
finding. Sex differences in cheating behavior were absent.
Table 1
Individual Cheating Item (I = never) Differences Within Students Having Both Types of
Classes and Between Groups for Students with Only One Type of Class
Both
Types
One Type
OV
FF
OL'
FF
1.06
1.07
i.or
1.09
2. UNauthorized use of the text or other book in answering items on a test, quiz, or other assessment.
1.45'
1.14
1.42
1.20
3. UNauthorized use of a web search or other digital media in answering items on a test, quiz, or other assessment.
1.50*
1.22
1.38
1.26
1.17
1.12
1.06'
1.25
1.39
1.32
1.11'
1.53
1.34
1.41
1.06'
1.50
1.35
1.39
1.10'
1.54
1.20*
1.12
1.07'
1.23
1.23
1.16
1.11
1.24
1.47'
1.36
1.36'
1.60
1.20
1.20
1.14'
1.31
1.06
1.07
1.00'
1.06
1.20'
1.11
1.10
1.13
1.07
1.05
1.00'
1.07
15. Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper.
1.10
1.08
1.02
1.07
1.19
1.14
1.06'
1.24
1.08
1.05
1.02
1.09
1.14
1.16
1.04'
1.20
Academic Integrity
..1141
Table 2
Differences in Online Only, Face-to-face Only, and Student with Both Types of Classes
Class Type
Online
(N = 104)
Face-to-Face
(N = 246)
Both
(N = 289)
M(SD)
M(SD)
M(SD)
Self-reported Cheating *
2.52 (4.45)=
4.66 (6.18)"
4.81 (6.44)"
Age**
28.8(7.90) =
21.2(5.36)"
23.65(5.65)'
16.6(4.84)=
15.1(4.44) "
15.44(4.40) = "
3.08(1.31)
3.88(1.13)"
3.72(1.20)"
1.74(1.06) =
2.29(1.11)"
* Difference significant at the p <; .01 level
** Difference significant at thep < .001 level
"'^ Means with the same letter do not differ on Scheffe test
1.99(1.03)"
Variable
Witnessed cheating**
Table 3
Correlations Between Selected Variables
AIR
6
-.083
l.AIR
-.275*
.369*
-.339*
-.116*
-.276*
.376*
.150*
-.137*
0.058
2. Cheating
0.018
3. Consequence
-0.062
4. Witnessed
.198*
-0.077
5. OL cheating easier
6. GPA
*p<m
citation, assisting others cheat, and unauthorized use of text or web in answering items.
An overlap occurs for only FF students in
helping someone else cheat and paraphrasing
without appropriate citations. Additionally,
only FF students are more likely to turn in
work done by someone else, complete work
for someone else, give/receive inappropriate
help, use a false excuse, or submit previous
work in subsequent classes.
The pattern of correlations suggests
that there is a culture or social component
to cheating. Students who cheat more also
witness more cheating and do not perceive
they have any role in reducing cheating. This
could suggest acceptance of cheating in many
academic subcultures. Findings of higher
rates of cheating in fraternities and sororities
supports the notion of disintegrity-accepting
subcultures (Iyer & Eastman, 2006).
While some studies report males cheat
more than females, and a sex differences is
often presumed,many studies,including this
one, failed tofindsex differences in cheating.
Miller, et al. (2008) argue that the differences
in these findings occur primarily due to sex
differences in volunteerism and as these differences are very small and unreliable; sex
should not be considered a significant factor in
cheating behavior. The fact that three different
sources for participants resulted in minimal
but diverse sex differences underscores the
weakness of any expectations about cheating
behavior as a function of sex.
While we found significant results in the
present study, limitations exist regarding the
nature of sampling. Participants volunteered
for extra credit points ; indi viduals who desire
extra credit may have different characteristics
than those who do not wish to participate.
While using non-volunteers is ethically
problematic, varieties in incentive strength
may infiuence the responding population (cf.,
Miller etal,2008). Additional research should
also extend the understanding of disintegrity
subcultures and explore methods to prevent
such disintegrity. As there is an increasing
trend toward online courses, extended research within this domain is necessary.
An additional weakness resides in the
selection of disintegity survey items. The
more comprehensive the survey, the higher
the rates of cheating that are typically reported
(Miller et al., 2008). If the survey were more
comprehensive in covering forms of cheating
common in one type of class than in another,
this could generate significant differences in
cheating rates. Particularly when we consider
differences in how students might cheat in an
online class, attention must be paid to comprehensive coverage in surveying disintegrity.
It is common in the literature to report
cheating as percentages of students who have
cheated and we included that statistic in our
results. Although that is useful for comparing the results of different studies, it can be
misleading. If a treatment reduced students
cheating from 12 times per semester to one
or two times per semester, it would not impact the percentage who have cheated. Yet
treatments to prevent frequent cheating are
probably more important than a treatment
that affects a person who would cheat once.
Unfortunately, a common metric, while desirable for discussions, is not very practical for
testing hypotheses.
Regardless of teaching modality, educators should be aware that cheating occurs at
rather high levels. Overall, despite perpetual
reminders that disintegrity is not acceptable, it
is actually quite common within the academic
setting. Deterrence of cheating in online
classes requires attention to new strategies
that may be different from conventional
classes. It appears that professors must be
as, or more, vigilant in addressing cheating
in online classes.
References
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the
Distance: Online Education in the USA 2011
Wellesley MA: Babson Survey Research Group
Bailey, W.C.,&Bailey,S.(2011).Do online
and lecture students view cheating differently?
Review of Business Research, 11(5), 33-45.