Acceptability of treatments for cheating in the college classroom.

This study focused on various treatments for addressing incidents of academic dishonesty (cheating) by college students. College students rated the acceptability of different responses by college faculty to a case description of a college student who engaged in cheating during an examination. The findings revealed that students found some methods of addressing this problem behavior by faculty more acceptable than other methods of treating the behavior. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to student-faculty relationships, classroom compliance gaining, and student evaluations of faculty.

**********

Academic dishonesty can take several forms in the college classroom such as copying from a nearby student's paper, using crib notes, nonverbal signals with hands or feet, trading papers, etc. (Davis, Grover, Becker & McGregor, 1992; McCabe & Bowers, 1994). Davis et al. found that 80% of cheating techniques were comprised of copying answers from a nearby student's paper or by using notes to cheat. With increasing technology it would seem that the forms of cheating would incorporate more elaborate techniques such as the use of digital organizers, cell phones, etc. Fishbein (1993) noted that cheating has become a very important concern on several college campuses. It has been found that 40% -60% of college students admit to cheating on at least one of their examinations (Davis, et al., 1992). Davis et al. (1992) also found that college students were more likely to cheat if faculty did not appear to care if cheating occurred. Davis et al. (1992) in reporting data from over 6,000 college students, stated the most popular "punishment" for cheating as reported by students, was for the college faculty to tell the students to keep their eyes on their own paper. The students may have perceived this "punishment" as an effective or appropriate method for addressing cheating in the classroom, while the college faculty may not have felt this was a sufficient method for dealing with cheating in the classroom. Research on the acceptability of treatments is somewhat new to the area of education and psychology. The term treatment acceptability, a component of social validity, was defined by Kazdin (1980) as judgments of treatments by actual or potential consumers of treatments, such as nonprofessionals, clients, laypersons, and others. Within the college classroom, the consumers of treatment are the college students taking courses.

Research examining differences between student and faculty attitudes toward cheating has shown that faculty considered variations of cheating as more severe than students (Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994). Additionally, when compared to the perceptions of college students, faculty believed that students would behave more dishonestly when faced with a moral dilemma (Smith, Nolan, & Dai, 1998). Based on these findings, faculty may also consider actions taken in response to academic dishonesty as more acceptable than college students would for the same offense of academic dishonesty. Doyle (1977) noted that students' perceptions and reactions to teachers' actions affect the level of student engagement and learning that occurs. Doyle stated that teachers and students do not always assign the same meaning to events that occur in the classroom, due to the different experiences, expectations, and needs those individuals bring into the classroom. For example, Wragg (1995) noted drastic differences between teacher and students' interpretations and meaning they perceived in classroom management events. Some students thought the teacher's behaviors were ineffective and the teacher thought some of the ways to handle classroom misbehaviors were effective. It is evident that teachers and students might not view classroom behaviors in the same way. It does not appear that there is a wealth of research to address some apparent disparities, which may exist between college faculty perceptions of what is considered an acceptable treatment for classroom misbehavior and treatments considered acceptable by college students. In light of the high prevalence of cheating in college classrooms and the tendency for faculty to consider cheating behavior as more severe than students, the need to gain a better understanding of potential reactions to consequences of cheating would seem beneficial toward addressing academic dishonesty appropriately.

The purpose of the current study was to understand college students' perceptions of treatment acceptability when college faculty responded to a hypothetical student who cheats during an examination. This study identified what students rated as acceptable and as not acceptable behavior for a college faculty to do when a student cheats. The study also examined differences between males and females as well as other variables that might affect students' ratings of treatment acceptability.

Based on the research literature, the following research questions were posed:

RQ1: What are some of the most acceptable methods that college faculty can use to treat incidents of cheating on examination as rated by college students?

RQ2: Will male and female college students differ in their acceptability ratings of treatments for cheating?

Methods

Sample

Participants in the present study were 267 students, enrolled in basic social science courses, from a large Southwestern public university. Of the 267 subjects, 126 (47.1%) were male, 141 (53.9%) were female; 53 (20%) were age eighteen, 139 (52%) were between 19 to 21,75 (28%) were 22 or over. 80 (30%) were freshman, 64 (24%) were sophomore, 70 (26%) were juniors, 53 (20%) were seniors. 254 (95%) were Caucasian, 8 (3%) were African-American, and 5 (2%) were of other ethnic origin. The scale was given in a large lecture format. Participants were told that their participation in this survey was completely voluntary and their answers would remain confidential.

Instruments

Participants first read a description of a college student who was caught cheating during an examination. The participants then read a series of seven treatment vignettes which described a method used by a college instructor to treat the incident of cheating. The participants then rated the acceptability of each of these treatments. The seven treatments were as follows: 1) the student who cheated received a failing grade on the examination, 2) the student received a failing grade for the course, 3) the student was required to go before a university review board, 4) the student was required to retake the examination, 5) the college instructor tears up the student's exam in front of the class, 6) the instructor talked with the student after the class, and 7) the instructor does nothing. The Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile (AARP; Tarnowski & Simonian, 1992), was used to measure treatment acceptability within the current study. The AARP consists of an 8-item questionnaire and is designed to rate the acceptability of the recommended interventions. All items are rated using a six point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Total scores for the AARP are calculated by summing the ratings from all eight items. For each case vignette, the total scores can range from 8 to 48.

Data Analysis

Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the treatment vignettes and ranged from .89 (Fail Test) to .96 (Fail Course, Review Board, Do Nothing). Descriptive statistics for each case vignette are presented in Table 1. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the data from the rating scales to determine statistically significant differences among the treatments.

Results

A repeated measures ANOVA revealed there was a significant multivariate effect for the five treatments (Wilks' [lambda] = .28, F (5,266) = 82.16, MSE = 5915.59, p < .001) (see Table 2). Partial eta squared effect size estimate computed by SPSS indicated that the effect size could be described as "large" ([[eta].sup.2] = .717).

Comparing the Tukey HSD of 2.32 to the mean score difference among the treatments resulted in significant differences (refer to Table 3). Specifically, the tests revealed that there was a significant difference among all treatments except for the differences between failing the course and tearing up the exam. In addition, there was not a significant difference between retaking the exam and the college faculty doing nothing.

Discussion

The results of this study indicated several factors that could be important toward determining college classroom management techniques for addressing incidents of academic dishonesty. The findings revealed that students found some methods of addressing this problem behavior by faculty more acceptable than other methods of treating cheating. College students rated the most acceptable faculty treatment for dealing with a student cheating on an exam as the faculty talking to the student after class, followed by giving the student a failing grade on that test, allowing the student to retake a different exam, and doing nothing. These methods were all rated as more acceptable than tearing up the student's exam and failing the student for the course. While it could be assumed that college students would find more severe types of treatment for cheating as least acceptable, these findings do not necessarily support that assumption. The treatments associated with the most severe academic penalties were failing the course and being sent before a review board. While these treatments were considered among the least acceptable, the impact of public humiliation associated with tearing up the student's exam may have caused this treatment option to be among the least acceptable. Additionally, while going before a review board could result in expulsion from a college or university, this treatment option was considered more acceptable than failing the course. It is also interesting that no significant differences were found between the college faculty doing nothing and sending the student before a review board. It could be that college students consider being sent before a review committee as faculty not dealing with an incident of cheating but rather as allowing others to deal with the incident. These findings are important when considering the impact that students' perceptions and reactions to teachers' actions have on the level of student engagement and learning that occurs (Allen, 1986; Doyle, 1977). If college faculty treat incidents of cheating in a manner that most students find unacceptable, the learning environment of the classroom may be impeded.

The overall findings imply that college students are accepting of certain types of consequences for incidents of academic dishonesty. It appeared that college students seem to prefer a treatment for academic dishonesty that involved a negotiation option (e.g., talking after class). It was also interesting that in both situations the college students considered college faculty who treated academic dishonesty by doing nothing as less acceptable than other options and similarly to being sent before a review board. This implies that college faculty who ignore incidents of cheating (Tabachnik, Keith-Speigel, & Pope, 1991) may not be considered by students as addressing academic dishonesty in the most acceptable manner. The findings of this study may be beneficial for assisting college faculty in determining how various responses to academic dishonesty may be viewed by college students. This may allow faculty to avoid incorporating actions that might be viewed negatively and as unacceptable by the majority of college students. Gorham and Christophel (1992) noted that students more quickly recognized negative teacher actions than positive actions. In addition, these negative teacher actions were more likely to decrease student motivation. Fraser (1987) also noted that the classroom-instructor relationship is important and needs to be addressed in order to have an effective classroom environment. He suggests that students' feedback and comments can direct instructors to behaviors that would produce the most positive and beneficial improvement in the classroom. Hence, the findings from this study can help instructors in deciding what treatment to use for dealing with academic dishonesty in the college classroom.

References

Allen, J. D. (1986). Classroom management: Students' perspectives, goals, and strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 437-59.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16-20.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wottrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Harper & Row.

Fishbein, L. (1993, December 1). Curbing cheating and restoring academic integrity. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A52.

Fraser, B. J. (1987). Use of classroom environment assessments in school psychology. School Psychology International, 8, 205-19.

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students' perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40, 239-52.

Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O'Brien, K., & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255-60.

Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 132, 259-73.

McCabe, D. L. and Bowers, W.J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in college: A thirty year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 1,5-10.

Smith, J. N., Nolan, R. F., & Dai, Y. (1998). Faculty perception of student academic honesty. College Student Journal, 32, 305-10.

Tabachnik, B. G., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Pope, K. S. (1991). Ethics of teaching: Beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as educators. American Psychologist, 46, 506-15.

Tarnowski, K. J., & Simonian, S. J. (1992).

Stacy L. Carter, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership, College of Ecuation, Texas Tech University. Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Studies, College or Arts and Sciences, Texas Tech University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stacy Carter at [e-mail].

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Each Condition

Condition           Mean     SD     Range   Minimum   Maximum

Failing Grade       35.08   6.99    39.00    9.00      48.00
Fail Course         23.73   10.34   38.00    10.00     48.00
Review Board        26.21   10.03   38.00    8.00      46.00
Retake Exam         30.76   10.97   40.00    8.00      48.00
Tear Up Exam        21.97   11.36   40.00    8.00      46.00
Talks After Class   36.87   6.95    32.00    16.00     48.00
Do Nothing          29.87   10.56   38.00    8.00      48.00

Table 2
Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance

         Sum of           mean
         Squares   df    square      F     Sig.   [[eta].sup.2]

Linear   5915.58     1   5915.59   82.16   .000           .555
Error    4752.27   266     72.00

Table 3
TUKEY HSD Post Hoc Test for Cheating

Treatments                           Means         Mean       Outcome
                                                Differences

Fail Grade--Fail Course           35.08-23.73      11.35      p < .05
Fail Grade--Review Board          35.08-26.21      8.87       p < .05
Fail Grade--Retake Exam           35.08-30.76      4.32       p < .05
Fail Grade--Tear Up Exam          35.08-21.97      13.11      p < .05
Fail Grade--Talks After Class     35.08-36.87      3.65       p < .05
Fail Grade--Do Nothing            35.08-29.87      5.21       p < .05
Fail Course--Review Board         23.73-26.21      2.48       p < .05
Fail Course--Retake Exam          23.73-30.76      7.03       p < .05
Fail Course--Tear Up Exam         23.73-21.97      1.76         ns
Fail Course--Talks After Class    23.73-36.87      13.14      p < .05
Fail Course--Do Nothing           23.73-29.87      6.14       p < .05
Review Board--Retake Exam         26.21-30.76      4.55       p < .05
Review Board--Tear Up Exam        26.21-21.97      4.24       p < .05
Review Board--Talks After Class   26.21-36.87      10.66      p < .05
Review Board--Do Nothing          26.21-29.87      3.66       p < .05
Retake Exam--Tear Up Exam         30.76-21.97      8.79       p < .05
Retake Exam--Talks After Class    30.76-36.87      6.11       p < .05
Retake Exam--Do Nothing           30.76-29.87      0.89         ns
Tear Up Exam--Talks After Class   21.97-36.87      14.90      p < .05
Tear Up Exam--Do Nothing          21.97-29.87      7.90       p < .05
Talks After Class--Do Nothing     36.87-29.87      7.00       p < .05

Note. Tukey HSD = 2.32