PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
On: 14 December 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912988913]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Accounting Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713683833
Integrity at a Distance: A Study of Academic Misconduct among
University Students on and off Campus
Linda A. Kidwell a; Jenny Kent b
a University of Wyoming, USA b Charles Sturt University, Australia
To cite this Article Kidwell, Linda A. and Kent, Jenny(2008) 'Integrity at a Distance: A Study of Academic Misconduct among University Students on and off Campus', Accounting Education, 17: 1, S3 — S16
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09639280802044568 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639280802044568
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Integrity at a Distance: A Study of
Academic Misconduct among University
Students on and off Campus
LINDA A. KIDWELL
and JENNY KENT
University of Wyoming, USA, Charles Sturt University, Australia Received: July 2006
Revised: February 2007; October 2007; February 2008 Accepted: February 2008
ABSTRACT Academic integrity and misconduct have been the subject of increased interest in universities and for the public at large. Many studies have examined cheating behaviours to determine which forms of misconduct are most prevalent, which students perceive to be most serious, which academic disciplines have higher cheating rates, and what factors influence a student’s propensity to cheat. Such research has taken place in traditional colleges and universities where students study on campus and have regular contact with other students and educators. However, the increasing popularity of distance education has raised new concerns over academic integrity among students not on campus. This paper reports on a study that explored academic misconduct amongst the student cohort at an Australian university with an extensive distance education program. Using a survey instrument previously developed in the USA, students were asked about a number of types of academic misconduct, their prevalence, and their seriousness. The study found that distance students are far less likely to engage in academic misconduct. Reasons for this finding are explored within the paper.
KEYWORDS: Distance education, academic integrity, cheating, Australian education
Introduction
Plagiarist student set to sue University: Mr Gunn, 21 claims that he was unaware that his activity—cutting and pasting material from the Internet without attribution—constituted pla-giarism and argues that the university failed to give proper guidance on acceptable research techniques. He says the University should have spotted the problem earlier through more careful marking and tuition and nipped it in the bud before it became too late to save his degree. (The Times Higher Education Supplement, 27 May 2004.)
Academic integrity can be broadly defined as conducting academic work with integrity, whether it be taking an examination without unauthorized assistance, giving credit to
Vol. 17, Supplement, S3 – S16, September 2008
Correspondence Address: Linda A. Kidwell, Accounting Department, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Avenue, Department 3275, Laramie, WY 82071, USA. Email: [email protected]
0963-9284 Print/1468-4489 Online/08/S10003 – 14#2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09639280802044568
sources, or not taking credit for co-authorship without making meaningful contri-butions. The list of potential misconduct seems to grow longer over time, and technol-ogy has changed the methods used in misconduct. The problem of academic misconduct has received increasing attention from academic researchers in the USA over the last 20 years, and the issue is a growing concern in Europe, Australia and elsewhere. Accounting educators should be particularly concerned about academic mis-conduct in this era of increased attention to accounting ethics, in that prior research has found that the lack of academic integrity in the university years is associated with failures of professional integrity in the workplace (e.g. McCabe et al., 1996; Sims, 1993).
Individuals have different perceptions of what is acceptable and what is dishonest. As students prepare for future employment, what they learn as acceptable behaviour during their course of study may well inform their expectations of acceptable behaviour in their professional lives. Jameset al.(2002) pose four strategies (underpinned by ensuring fairness) for minimizing plagiarism: policies, procedures and staff practices; student edu-cation; assessment design; and highly visible procedures for monitoring and detection. The extensive work of Donald McCabe has focused instead on student ownership of aca-demic integrity on campus using honour code systems and other student-run judicial practices.
Prior research on academic misconduct has been carried out in the context of tra-ditional campus-centred colleges and universities. However, with the explosion of dis-tance education, the time has come for the investigation of cheating in such programs. By 2004, over 20% of students enrolled in Australian universities took some or all of their classes through distance means (Commonwealth Department of Education, Science, and Training, 2005). According to the US Department of Education, by the year 2000, the last year for which official comprehensive data are available, 56% of all American colleges1 and universities offered distance education courses, and 90 per cent of public universities offered distance courses (Tabs, 2003). Further, while there were approximately 15.3 million students in American colleges, there were 3 million class enrolments in distance classes (Tabs, 2003). By 1999, over 40,000 were enrolled in radio and television universities in China (China National Tourism Administration, 2002). In addition, a recent study by Hezel Associates predicts fast growth for American universities in the distance education markets in South Korea, Japan, Germany, the UK, China, and Taiwan (Carnevale, 2005). Of particular interest to accounting educators, a 2004 survey found that online education is more pervasive in business disciplines, especially at the baccalaureate and master’s levels, than in any other disciplines (Allen and Seaman, 2005).
When colleges enter the distance market, one of the first barriers to overcome is the apprehension of faculty about the potential for cheating among distance students (Carnevale, 1999). Popular opinion on the ease of online and other distance cheating is mixed. Rowe (2004) claims that cheating is easier for distance students, because the student cannot be seen, increasing the temptation to cheat. Rowe also believes that dis-tance students have less commitment to the integrity of the learning process, because the traditions of campuses are lacking and the students are more likely to have job and family pressures. Others have disputed this notion. Carnevale (1999) believes that the potential for cheating is equivalent in distance and traditional classes, and Roach (2001) expects cheating to be far more rampant in the traditional classroom. Roach notes that online education has evolved in such a way as to minimize cheating, though his reasoning is supported by the debatable contention that online classes are much smaller, thus, instructors get to know the styles of their individual students better.
This paper seeks to shed light on the relative attitudes among distance and internal students toward cheating. A study using McCabe and Trevin˜o’s (1993) method of stu-dents’ self-reports was conducted at an Australian university with an extensive distance program so that data, rather than conjecture, could address this important emerging issue. The next section of this paper will review prior research in the area of academic integrity. The study itself will be described, and finally the results and their implications will be discussed.
Prior Research in Academic Integrity
Academic integrity has been explored in a number of ways, but perhaps the most cited lit-erature in this area stems from the collaboration of Donald McCabe, founder of the Center for Academic Integrity, and Linda Trevin˜o and Kenneth Butterfield. In their first study, McCabe and Trevin˜o (1993) provided a list of potential cheating behaviours to students at 31 universities in a mailed questionnaire. Students were asked whether they considered the behaviours to be cheating and how often they had engaged in the behaviours.2Items in the survey included cheating in tests by copying from other students, allowing others to copy, getting information from students who had taken the examination earlier, and using test notes. Various forms of plagiarism were also included, as were other behaviours, such as collaboration without permission and falsifying bibliographies or lab reports. So how serious a problem was student cheating? Approximately 72% of students in the survey admitted to cheating in one or more of the ways listed at least once. Cheating reported in other national and single institution surveys in the USA over the past 15 years have ranged from 57% to 78% (e.g. McCabe and Trevin˜o, 1995; Diekhoff et al., 1996; Kidwellet al., 2003).
Both individual and contextual factors have been found to have a bearing on student cheating. McCabe and Trevin˜o (1993) found that perceptions of peer behaviour were a very significant factor in cheating. Students at colleges with low rates of cheating gener-ally believed that peers would be very disapproving of cheating, whereas students at schools with higher rates generally had an ‘us versus them’ mentality. In another study, McCabe and Trevin˜o (1997) found that the contextual factors influencing misconduct were cheating among peers, peer disapproval of cheating, fraternity/sorority membership, and the perceived penalties for cheating. They also found that individual factors (including age, gender, and grade point average) were related to cheating.
Diekhoffet al. (1996) found that lack of maturity was the most important factor in cheating. Those who were more mature (i.e. older, married, and financially independent of their parents) were less likely to cheat. Similarly, Antion and Michael (1983) found that age was negatively correlated with cheating, whereas individual personality traits did not appear to influence cheating.
Most of the studies of academic integrity have been conducted in the USA, but increasing numbers of studies have taken place elsewhere. Cheating is a common international phenomenon, although cultural norms and students’ attitudes may be quite different. Perhaps this is illustrated most vividly by the fact that, in 2005, a museum at Cherepovets State University in Russia held an exhibit of cheating artefacts, including such items as women’s underwear with logarithms and mathematical formulae penned upside down for the wearer to read, jeans with numbered pockets containing answers to examination questions received in advance, and a display wall covered with cheat sheets (MacWilliams, 2005).
Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005b) investigated cheating in Australian universities. Their research was in keeping with that of McCabe and Trevin˜o (1993), investigating
similar questions such as the types of cheating which students considered to be serious, types they committed most, and how faculty’s perceptions differed from those of students. They found that 72% of students admitted to cheating and 95% had never reported another student for cheating. Similar to the results of Diekhoffet al.(1996), Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005a) found the most common student rationalizations for cheating blamed the faculty, such as the assessment being too difficult or time-consuming, as well as being unlikely to get caught.
McCabe and Trevin˜o (1995) found that business students were more likely to cheat than students from other disciplines were, but few studies have compared accounting students directly with others. Accounting students alone were the focus of a study by Ameenet al.
(1996). Surprisingly, a majority of the accounting students surveyed did not believe that paying someone else to write a paper, writing papers for others, or falsifying bibliogra-phies constituted serious cheating. In bad news for academics requiring increasing group work, over two thirds of students did not believe free riding on group members was cheating. In a related study, Salter et al. (2001) compared students in the UK to those from the USA in the original Ameen et al. (1996) study. Salter et al. (2001) found that, although accounting students in the UK were more tolerant of cheating and more cynical, they tended to cheat less. They also found gender to be a significant factor, with men cheating more than women do.
Nowell and Laufer (1997) compared cheating behaviour among students majoring in accounting, business administration, computer information systems, and economics. They found that courses taught by adjunct faculty had more prevalent cheating than those taught by core faculty, and computer information systems students were more likely to cheat than the others were. Accountants, however, did not differ significantly from any of the other groups. In a scenario-based study of cheating, Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005c) compared accounting students to others at four Australian universities. Accounting students did not differ from others in general, but in five of the 25 scenarios, significant differences were found. Accountants were significantly more likely to blame their cheating on perceived pressure to get good grades, whereas non-accounting students were more likely either to blame the assignment for being too time-consuming or to claim they did not know what they did was wrong.
As noted in the Introduction, there are mixed opinions about the susceptibility of dis-tance education to academic misconduct, but there have been very few published papers that go beyond opinion and speculation. A case study of distance learners in a high school foreign language lab involved regular observations of students in a remote classroom connected by television (Fyock and Sitphin, 1995). The authors found that the students believed that distance gave them more responsibility, thus they took more ownership of their studies, leading to higher standards of academic integrity. However, these students knew they were being observed, and they were not asked directly about cheating, therefore this case study cannot be considered strong evidence of improved integrity in distance education.
The only other study of distance learning and cheating that could be identified in an extensive search was one by Kennedyet al. (2000), which studied perceptions, rather than self-reports, of cheating. The majority of participants in the study, both students and faculty, believed cheating would be easier in a distance education class. However, among those students who had actually taken a distance course, opinion was evenly split as to whether distance or traditional classes made it easier to cheat. Likewise, once faculty had experience teaching by distance, their fears of the prevalence of cheating declined. Experience with online education alters other opinions as well. A small majority (54%) of American university leaders without online experience expect online study to
require more self-discipline, but the proportion rises to 70% among those having actual experience of online education (Allen and Seaman, 2005).
As the literature above illustrates, cheating in college is rampant, and many expla-nations have been offered as to why this is so. Individual and environmental factors have demonstrated explanatory value in understanding both faculty’s perceptions and stu-dents’ behaviour. Although the background literature provides mixed evidence of what we should expect when comparing distance and traditional students, a number of factors lead us to expect less cheating amongst distance students. First, distance education is designed for people who cannot attend a campus-based university because they are working, have family responsibilities, or have other demands that make relocation difficult. Thus, they are likely to be older, and older students have been found to cheat less (e.g. McCabe and Trevin˜o, 1997; Antion and Michael, 1983). Rowe’s (2004) speculation about lack of commitment notwithstanding, distance students may be more mature and financially responsible for their higher educations, another indicator of reduced cheating (Diekhoff
et al., 1996). Finally, distance students do not have the same opportunities to join campus-based groups, such as fraternities and clubs, where cheating norms may develop (Eve and Bromley, 1981). Therefore, we propose the following four hypotheses:
H1: Distance students cheat less than traditional students do.
H2: Distance students engage in more serious cheating at a lower rate than traditional students.
H3: Distance students perceive cheating to be more serious than do traditional students. H4: Distance students and traditional students do not respond in the same way to the
cheat-ing which they observe.
Research Method
This study took place at a university in New South Wales, Australia, with three suburban and rural campuses. The university has a long history of distance education programs, and currently there are approximately twice as many distance students as internal students. The study was conducted using self-report questionnaires modelled after those of McCabe and Trevin˜o (1993). A total of 1500 surveys were sent to students in the mail, with approxi-mately 1000 going to distance students and 500 to internal students, reflecting the relative proportions of enrolment at the university. The list of students was randomly generated, subject to the condition that each of the five faculties (schools) within the university was represented roughly equally. Although there were distance-students enrolled in countries around the world, including a large Indonesian contingent, only students with Australian mailing addresses were solicited so that return postage could be provided with the instrument. A second request was sent to non-respondents, resulting in an overall response of 459 usable surveys, or a 32% response rate.3There were 210 responses from internal students and 248 from distance students.
The survey asked students whether they had committed any of 17 listed cheating beha-viours listed in Table 1, as well as how serious they believed the behabeha-viours were. In reporting the frequency of their own cheating, students responded on a three-point scale of ‘never,’ ‘once,’ or ‘more than once.’ They were also asked to rate the seriousness of each on a three-point scale of ‘not cheating,’ ‘trivial cheating,’ and ‘serious cheating.’ In surveys of self-reported cheating, the possibility exists that students will be afraid to answer honestly, although prior researchers (e.g. McCabeet al., 1996) have found little difficulty in eliciting confessions from subjects. We attempted to mitigate their concerns
by providing a covering letter explaining the protections to their identities as well as contact information for the human subject ethics committee.
Students were also asked what they would do if they saw someone cheating, how they felt about environmental factors that might lead to cheating, why they might consider cheating, and what they thought the penalties would be. Students were also asked for demographic information. Finally, there were some open-ended questions as well as ques-tions about the potential development of an honour code.
Results
The most common types of cheating were collaborating on individual assignments, copying a few sentences without footnoting, fabricating a bibliography, copying material word for word and turning it in as one’s own work, and plagiarizing using the Internet. The least frequent were using unpermitted test notes and purchasing term papers from a paper mill site.4Only nine students said they had used test notes, and of these, only two said they had done so more than once. The grave concern faculty have about paper mills has led to the development of Turnitin.com and other expensive plagiarism detection software, so it is perhaps surprising that only two students admitted using them, though this is in keeping with the findings of Kidwellet al.(2003).
To get a measure of the overall cheating rate, a dichotomous version of each of the cheating frequency variables was created (i.e. 0 if they had never done it, 1 if they had done it ‘once’ or ‘more than once.’) The 17 cheating frequency variables were summed to create a continuous variable from 0 if they had never cheated to 17 if they had cheated at least once in each of the ways listed in the survey. Of the internal students, 78% had non-zero scores, meaning they had cheated at least once. By contrast, only 35% of the distance students reported they had ever cheated. The mean for the internal group was 2.86, meaning they had cheated in more than two different ways at least once. The mean overall score for the distance students was significantly lower5at 0.64,
Table 1.Cheating behaviours
† Copying from another student during a test (or examination) without his or her knowledge. † Copying from another student during a test or examination with his or her knowledge. † Using unpermitted notes during a test or examination.
† Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test or examination. † Helping someone else cheat in a test or examination.
† Cheating in a test or examination in any other way.
† Copying material, almost word for word, from any source and turning it in as your own work. † Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography.
† Turning in work done by someone else.
† Receiving substantial, unpermitted help on an assignment.
† Working on an assignment with others when the lecturer asked for individual work. † Copying a few sentences of material without footnoting them in an assignment. † Writing or providing an assignment for another student.
† Turning in an assignment purchased from an assignment ‘mill’ or website. † Plagiarizing an assignment in any way using the Internet as a source.
† In a subject requiring computer work, copying another student’s program rather than doing your own.
† Falsifying lab. or research data.
or between never cheating and cheating in only one way. Clearly, cheating was a much bigger problem among internal students than among distance students, supporting Hypothesis 1.
Cheating on individual behaviours was also compared between groups using Pearson’s Chi-Square.6Of the 17 behaviours listed, only two didnotshow differences between the groups. These were the very infrequent behaviours noted above. The remaining 15 beha-viours showed significant (P,0.01) differences between groups, with chi-square tests of group differences givingP-values of less than 0.001 for 14 of the 15 behaviours. More internal than distance students admitted to each of the individual types of cheating included in the survey.
As noted earlier in the paper, prior research has indicated that age (e.g. Diekhoffet al., 1996) and gender (e.g. McCabe and Trevin˜o, 1997) are related to cheating rates, although results on gender differences have been mixed. The demographics of the two study mode groups were significantly different on both of these variables. The average age of distance students was 35.8 years, whilst the average age of internal students was 22.4 years. In addition, the percentage of distance students who were female was 78.2%, whereas the percentage amongst internal students was 68.4%. Therefore, a hierarchical regression model was run on the aggregated cheating measure, controlling for age and gender by forcing them into the model first. Adding study mode to the regression model led to a sig-nificant improvement in R2(F¼31.700,P,0.001). The regression model is presented in
Table 2. We conclude that study mode itself explains differential rates of cheating beyond the influence of age or gender.
Of course, some of the behaviours with significant differences are just more difficult for a distance student from a logistical standpoint. For example, collaboration is easy for internal students, but for distance students who only know others in the class through official class Internet discussion pages, collaborating on assignments requires contacting a likely stranger and taking a risk of exposure. Even though students are unlikely to report each other, the lack of personal relationships probably makes the perceived risk higher. This would also be true for getting early information on an examination, receiving substantial help on an assignment, or helping someone else cheat. However, there are also significant differences between groups where the lack of personal contact would not be a factor, including various degrees of plagiarism and data or bibliography falsification.
Table 2.Results of regression model for all cheating behaviours
Variable b b S.E.
Agea 20.264 20.058 0.012
Genderb 0.092 0.468 0.209
Constanta 3.993 0.297
Step 1DR2a 0.237
Study modea 20.308 20.690 0.123
Step 2DR2a 0.052
Model Fa 58.848
Adjusted R2a 0.284
n 437
a
P,0.001 b
P¼0.026
In a further refinement of their analysis, McCabe et al. (2001) developed scales for serious test cheating and serious cheating on written work. Serious test cheating comprised copying other students in examinations, either with or without their knowledge, using test notes, and helping someone else cheat in an examination. When considering only students at non-honour code schools, they found 47% had engaged in serious test cheating. Using this same definition, 20% of the internal students in this study were serious test cheaters, whereas only 2% of distance students were, a significant difference.7Both sets of students in this study take examinations under closely invigilated circumstances, although the lower numbers for distance students may reflect the fact that several of the distance courses use only written assignments and no examinations. Therefore, the opportunities to cheat in tests are reduced.
Serious cheating on written assignments was defined by McCabeet al.(2001) as sub-stantial plagiarism, fabricating a bibliography, turning in work done by others, and copying a few sentences without footnoting. Their study found that 58% of students at non-honour code schools had committed serious cheating on written assignments. Far more students in both categories of this study were serious cheaters on written assignments than in examinations, though distance students cheated significantly less.8Internal stu-dents cheated at a rate of 62%, and even distance stustu-dents cheated at the rate of 25%. This increase for distance students may reflect both the increased opportunity relative to tests, as well as the perceived seriousness of the infractions (particularly copying a few sentences, as will be discussed shortly). Since a higher proportion of internal students than distance students engage in serious cheating, Hypothesis 2 is supported in both the test and written assignment domains.9
Students were also asked how serious the 17 cheating behaviours were. One would hope that the most serious forms were committed least frequently, and this was indeed the general rule. For example, the three behaviours considered most serious by the students were turning in a paper purchased from a paper mill, using unpermitted test notes, and turning in work done by someone else. Very few internal and no distance students com-mitted these offences. Alternatively, the behaviours considered least serious by both groups were collaborating on work that was supposed to be done individually, copying a few sentences without footnoting them, and fabricating a bibliography, and these were more common, especially for internal students. Copying a few sentences without footnoting is perhaps the least understood problem among students. Most faculties would consider this plagiarism, but the majority of students consider this only trivial cheating. Over half of the internal students reported cheating this way, and 20% of dis-tance students did so as well.
Both groups’ views were more similar as to the seriousness of different forms of cheat-ing. On balance, the distance students tended to view the potential cheating behaviours more seriously, supporting Hypothesis 3, but results were mixed, with no differences between them for seven of the 17 behaviours. None the less, there were some interesting divergences. Although the majority of both groups considered collaboration on individual work to be trivial cheating, 39% of distance students thought it was serious, whereas 27% of internal students thought it was not cheating at all. When it came to plagiarism, 91% of internal students thought buying a paper from a mill was serious cheating, yet when it came to copying substantial material word for word and turning it as their own, only 66% thought it was serious (30% considered this only trivial cheating). By contrast, dis-tance students were more consistent in their understanding of plagiarism, with 94% rating using paper mills as serious versus 82% for substantial copying.
Despite general consensus on the major cheating behaviours, there were notable excep-tions, including these comments from one student:
Writing an assignment for someone else is not cheating. The other guy is cheating!
Actually I’m not so sure about exams—they aren’t really a test of knowledge or ability to learn, but ability to memorize.
In fact, the ability to cheat effectively can be a good indicator of creative intelligence—a somewhat desirable trait—but not a good indicator of honesty or “rule following.”10
In addition to specific behaviours in which they might have engaged, students were asked what they would do if they saw someone cheating in an examination or were aware of someone cheating on a major written assignment. They were also asked how their responses would differ if the cheater were a close friend. These results are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
As Table 3 demonstrates, a majority of students in each group would neither report cheating nor ask the cheater to turn in himself or herself. However, few students would ignore the incident altogether. Internal students are less likely to report cheating than dis-tance students, which makes sense, given that internal students have a more lax attitude toward cheating in general. Not surprisingly, both groups are significantly less likely to turn in a friend than just another student. It is also interesting to note the power of gossip: mentioning the incident to other students but not reporting it to anyone in authority was the most common response by internal students in general, yet this was the second-least frequent response if the cheater were a friend.
Responses to knowing that someone had cheated on a major written assignment were also investigated. These results are in Table 4. It is clear that students have stronger nega-tive reactions to test cheating than cheating on assignments. A much smaller percentage of each group would report it to the lecturer. As in test cheating, distance students are actually more likely to ask a friend than a stranger to turn in himself or herself. Students in both groups are also more likely to ignore the incident than in the case of test cheating.
In both the test and written assignment cheating scenarios, there were significant differ-ences between what distance and internal students thought they would do, seeming to support Hypothesis 4. However, hypothetical responses (What would you do if ...?)
must also be considered in the light of actual experience.
Students were asked if they had ever witnessed cheating in tests, examinations or assignments. Of the responses received, 11.4% reported having witnessed cheating beha-viours but only 0.6% of respondents had ever reported another student for cheating in a test or examination. This means that, of those who had witnessed cheating, only 5% had reported it. A higher proportion of students (30%) were aware of a student cheating in
Table 3.Student responses to observed cheating in examinations
Internala (n¼210)
Distance (n¼248)
Internal: A friendb
Distance: A friend
Report to the lecturer 21.4% 35.2% 4.9% 8.7%
Ask student to self-report 16.7% 11.8% 23.8% 28.2% Express disapproval but not report 20.0% 18.6% 51.0% 50.2%
Mention to other students 28.6% 14.6% 6.8% 1.7%
Ignore the incident 11.0% 12.6% 11.7% 9.5%
Other 2.4% 1.6% 1.9% 1.7%
aInternal and distance are significantly different (x2
¼18.790,P¼0.002). bInternal and distance marginally different (x2
¼11.025,P¼0.051).
an assignment, and of those, 6% had reported it. These reporting rates are noticeably lower than Tables 3 and 4 suggest. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between study mode groups when it came to actual reporting experience. The contradiction between ‘What would you do?’ and actual behaviour makes it impossible to conclude that Hypothesis 4 is supported.
For both cheating response questions, many students wrote additional comments in the margins, especially those who would not report the cheater. These comments included, ‘wait for them to be caught by authorities,’ ‘depends on reasons for cheating too. Maybe student deserved a pass but he got a rough deal from lecturer,’ and, ‘one little ques-tion—not interested. Constant cheating—I would report him/her to the lecturer or appro-priate authority.’ Several noted that realfriends would not put them in the position of knowing about their cheating. In a separate question, students identified the primary reasons why they might have difficulty in reporting an incident of cheating they had observed. A number of students felt the behaviour of others was none of their business:
I have no desire to cause problems for others—as much as I would resent someone getting unfair grades, I always tell my children you can’t always worry about what others do/ don’t do, worry about your own behaviour.
I don’t believe it is my business to do so. Exam supervisors and lecturers should check this.
Among the concerns expressed was a fear of being wrong and losing friends, not wanting to jump to conclusions, and the possible negative consequences of peers finding out you had ‘dobbed’:
I can’t tolerate cheating, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable “dobbing”
on another student. They would have to carry the guilt of their cheating which could be a pun-ishment in itself.
It runs against much in Australian (Anglo) culture. “Don’t dob in a mate”.
Others were reticent to report because of the perceived indifference of academic staff:
Lecturer doesn’t really care (has happened before). Everybody else ignoring the incident, accepting it and not reporting.
The fact that so many courses are fee-driven means that lecturers are reticent to fail anyone. Rather a mockery don’t you think?
Finally, students could also rationalize cheating in some situations: Table 4.Student responses to cheating in written assignments
Internala (n¼210)
Distance (n¼248)
Internal: A friendb
Distance: A friend
Report to the lecturer 11.1% 16.7% 2.9% 6.7%
Ask student to self-report 13.9% 16.3% 11.2% 19.6% Express disapproval but not report 30.3% 37.0% 54.6% 55.0%
Mention to other students 26.9% 11.0% 9.8% 2.5%
Ignore the incident 15.9% 15.9% 20.5% 14.2%
Other 1.9% 3.3% 1.0% 2.1%
aInternal and distance are significantly different (x2
¼20.838,P¼0.001). b
Internal and distance are significantly different (x2¼21.460,P¼0.001).
Repercussions—harsh uni solutions may not take into account full life situations, learning by experience and second chance for student. Some of them are just stupid and scared, others are not.
The person may have valid reasons behind the incident, e.g., family issues. They have not felt comfortable talking to...staff for consideration.
Students were asked what factors might influence their decisions whether or not to do honest academic work. Both groups had similar rankings among the factors given. The three most important factors were penalties for cheating, the chance of getting caught, and faculty policies on academic integrity. The moderately important factors were the pressure to get good grades, getting behind in their work, and the university workload. Of least importance were family pressures and the fact that ‘others do it.’ It is interesting that 73% said it was not important if others cheated, which contradicts the common notion that students cheat because others do, thus they have to cheat to keep up. It is also incon-sistent with McCabe and Trevin˜o’s (1993) finding that students at honour code schools cheat less, in part because the culture at those schools does not support it. The truth may be that students do not perceive peer pressures as influencing their own decisions whether or not to cheat, when in fact they do.
Finally, students were asked about the potential of an honour code. McCabe and Trevin˜o (1993) have found convincing evidence that the presence of an honour code has a significant impact in reducing cheating at American universities and, as a result, there has been an increase in the number of schools with such a code. There are currently approximately 270 American universities with codes (Dodd, 2007), and over 390 are members of the Center for Academic Integrity, an organization that has a heavy focus on helping others develop honour codes and other mechanisms to deal with cheating (Center for Academic Integrity, 2006).
Since honour codes are not common in Australia, the survey provided a brief description of honour codes.11Over 74% of the students, participating in the study reported they had not heard of honour codes before. Given the description, students were asked how import-ant potential outcomes of an honour code would be. The most importimport-ant outcome was honest behaviour, followed by mutual trust between lecturers and students. Less important were the prospect of uninvigilated examinations or a student-run judicial board. Internal and distance students had similar responses to honour codes with the exception that increased personal responsibility was more important to distance students. There were no significant differences between groups as to the drawbacks of honour codes, such as the responsibility to turn others in.
Conclusions
Culturally, the USA and Australia are very similar (Hofstede, 2006), thus one could expect academic misconduct patterns to be quite similar between countries. This was indeed the case, as the percentage of students cheating in this study was within the range of results of American studies. As in prior research, more students admitted to engaging in behaviours they considered less serious, unpermitted collaboration was one of the most frequent types of cheating, and very few students said they had used online term paper mills.
What makes this paper unique in its contribution to the literature is the study of distance students. Writers have offered conjecture as to the cheating proclivities of distance stu-dents, and educators have expressed concern over academic misconduct when students are not seen face to face, but this is the first study we know of that actually uses well-established research techniques to address this issue.
The distance students reported considerably less cheating than did traditional students in every behaviour category. They also had harsher views of various cheating behaviours and were more likely to claim they would turn in known offenders. These findings have many potential explanations. First, prior research (e.g. Diekhoff et al., 1996) has shown that more mature students (older, paying their own way, married, etc.) cheat less. Although the internal students placed more importance on workload and family pressures as excuses for cheating than did distance students, it is likely that distance students face more of these pressures in actuality. Therefore, it may be true that distance students, because they are older and more mature, are swayed less by external factors than by their own moral codes.
Internal students are also more susceptible to the temporary social groups of univer-sities, where culture control may result in students’ rejection of general society’s norms in favour of the norms of subcultures, such as student organizations and sports clubs (Eve and Bromley, 1981). Since distance students have very little, if any, interaction with other students, longer-term general socialisation may prevail, leading to lower cheat-ing rates.
Whatever the root causes of the differences between internal and distance students, be they maturity, lack of campus socialisation, or lack of opportunity, the distance students in this survey were far less engaged in academic dishonesty. This finding should put educa-tors at ease as they contemplate moving into distance education delivery. Of course this research only surveyed students at one university in Australia, thus it may not be gener-alisable to a broader set of universities. However, the similarity between the results for internal students and the findings of past research, as well as the cultural similarities between Australia and the USA, lead us to believe these results can guide academics in both countries. It is less clear whether these findings can be generalised to countries that are less similar culturally, as cheating norms in countries including Croatia, Russia, Israel, Turkey, and the Netherlands have demonstrated different attitudes toward cheating (e.g. Hrabek et al., 2004; Magnus et al., 2002; Arzova and Kidwell, 2004). Therefore, instructors in Australia or the USA involved in distance education should inform them-selves as to cultural norms elsewhere, so that adequate safeguards can be utilised.
Of course the possibility of dishonest self-reports of cheating must be considered. It is possible that the distance students, because they were less likely to have developed per-sonal relationships with their university instructors, were less trusting of the survey process and thus afraid to answer honestly. However, even the internal students were very unlikely to have had any contact with the researchers. Both were on the staff in the business faculty at one of the three campuses, thus the maximum number of the 1500 survey recipients that would have had any familiarity with the researchers would have been 100 if every internal business student randomly selected was located at that campus and enrolled in the same course of study. All subjects received the survey in the mail with the covering letter, thus, there was no difference in either the instrument received or the way in which it was administered between groups.
Another potential limitation of this study is the possibility of non-response bias. This bias would normally be tested by comparing those who responded to the first request to those who responded to the second request. The comparison was not possible in this study, because the university’s human subjects committee required a change in the hand-ling of returned surveys mid-stream, making it impossible for the researchers to determine which surveys should be classified as first or second requests. Since the results of this study were similar to those in the USA in other measures, and those studies reported no non-response bias (e.g. McCabe and Trevin˜o, 1997), we do not expect a test for bias would cast doubt on our findings.
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded by a grant from the Scholarship in Teaching Fund of Charles Sturt University, Australia, and presented at the 10th IAAER World Congress of Accounting Educators, Istanbul, Turkey in November 2006.
Notes
A copy of the instrument used in the study on which this paper reports can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.
1In Australia, colleges are private schools at the primary or secondary level. In the USA, colleges, like
universities, are 2- or 4-year post-secondary institutions. The American usage is employed in this paper.
2In early versions of the questionnaire, social desirability bias was tested, but results indicated that under
conditions of anonymity, students were not reluctant to answer truthfully about their behaviour (McCabe, personal communication with first author, September 1999).
3
Our best approximation of the response rates are 25% for distance students and 41% for internal students. However, this is based on how the students categorized themselves, which does not correspond exactly with how the university categorized them. More precise response rates are not known due to a change from con-fidentiality to anonymity procedures demanded by the human subject ethics committee mid-stream.
4
Paper mills are web sites where students can purchase term papers on a wide variety of topics. Virtually any topic is available through one or another of these sites.
5
Levene’s test for equality of variances showed unequal variances. Thetstatistic for independent samples with unequal variances was 11.4000, with aP-value,0.0001.
6Initial tests were performed using the three ordinal responses. In cases where cell frequencies were low
enough to violate chi-square data requirements, the variables were converted to dichotomous variables (never cheated or cheated at least once).
7Pearson’sx2
¼37.331,P,0.0001. 8Pearson’sx2
¼62.923,P,0.0001.
9These findings were also verified through regression analysis controlling for age and gender.
10Incidentally, this same student did not think honour codes were necessary because, ‘I don’t need an honour
code personally. I have my own set of checks and balances.’
11
The description was as follows: ‘Briefly, an honour code is student-driven code of ethics for students, in which they agree not to cheat or commit other acts of academic misconduct. Honour codes usually involve a student-run judiciary for violations. Rather than lecturers handling individual cases alone, all cases are turned over to the student honour board for investigation and, if appropriate, penalties. Such cases are always handled with confidentiality. An honour code may require all students to sign a pledge to be honest, and it may or may not require students to report cases of academic misconduct they have observed. Examinations may or may not be invigilated [proctored].’
References
Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J. (2005)Growing by Degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005(Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium). Available at http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_de grees.pdf (accessed 17 July 2006).
Ameen, E. C.et al.(1996) Accounting students’ perceptions of questionable academic practices and factors affecting their propensity to cheat,Accounting Education: an international journal, 5(3), pp. 191 – 205. Antion, D. L. and Michael, W. B. (1983) Short term predictive validity of demographic, affective, personal, and
cognitive variables in relation to two criterion measures of cheating behaviours,Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 43(2), pp. 467 – 482.
Arzova, S. B. and Kidwell, L. A. (2004) The ethical behaviours of final year Turkish accountancy students com-pared with their Australian and Irish counterparts,International Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Per-formance Evaluation, 1(3), pp. 385 – 400.
Brimble, M. and Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005a) Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishon-esty in Australian universities,The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), pp. 19 – 44.
Brimble, M. and Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005b) Management and reporting of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. Presentation at theConference on Innovation in Accounting Teaching and Learning, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Brimble, M. and Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005c) Prevalence of and penalties for academic dishonesty: Perceptions of Australian accounting students. Presentation at theAnnual Conference of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Carnevale, D. (1999) How to proctor from a distance,Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(12), pp. A47 – A48. Carnevale, D. (2005) Study ranks top foreign markets for distance learning,Chronicle of Higher Education,
51(33), p. A44.
Center for Academic Integrity (2006)About Us. Available at http://www.academicintegrity.org/about_us.asp (accessed 20 April 2006).
China National Tourism Administration (2002) China Education—Information. Available at http://www. asia-planet.net/china/education.htm (accessed 5 April 2006).
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science, and Training (2005) Students 2004: Selected Higher Education Statistics. (Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service). Available at http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/4EBE6EC0-8F6E-4C4D-9093-2BE458FF12BC/4219/
summ_tables_1.xls (accessed 31 March 2006).
Diekhoff, G. M.et al.(1996) College cheating: Ten years later,Research in Higher Education, 37(4), pp. 487 – 502. Dodd, T. M. (2007)Honor code 101: An introduction to the elements of traditional honor codes, modified honor codes, and academic integrity policies.(Clemson, South Carolina: Center for Academic Integrity, Clemson University). Available at http://www.academicintegrity.org/educational_resources/honor_code_101.php (accessed 21 February 2008).
Eve, R. A. and Bromley, D. G. (1981) Scholastic dishonesty among college undergraduates: Parallel tests of two sociological explanations,Youth & Society, 13(1), pp. 3 – 22.
Fyock, J. J. and Sutphin, D. (1995) Adult supervision in the distance learning classroom: Is it necessary?T H E Journal, 23(4), pp. 89 – 91.
Hofstede, G. (2006)Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Explained.Available at http://www.geert-hofstede. com/hofstede_united_states.shtml and http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_australia.shtml (accessed 13 April 2006).
Hrabek, M.et al.(2004) Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country,Medical Education, 38(3), pp. 276 – 285.
James, R.et al.(2002)Assessing Learning in Australian Universities(Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education and Canberra: Australian Universities Teaching Committee).
Kennedy, K.et al.(2000) Academic dishonesty and distance learning: Student and faculty views,College Student Journal, 34(2), pp. 309 – 315.
Kidwell, L. A.et al.(2003) Student reports and faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty,Teaching Business Ethics, 7(3): pp. 205 – 214.
MacWilliams, B. (2005) The art of cheating: A Russian museum’s exhibit of creative crib notes showcases student ingenuity,Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(4), p. A46.
Magnus, J. R.et al.(2002) Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries,Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), pp. 125 – 135.
McCabe, D. L. and Trevin˜o, L. K. (1993) Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual factors,
Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), pp. 522 – 538.
McCabe, D. L. and Trevin˜o, L. K. (1995) Cheating among business students: A challenge for business leaders and educators,Journal of Management Education, 19(2), pp. 205 – 218.
McCabe, D. L. and Trevin˜o, L. K. (1997) Individual and contextual influences on academic honesty: A multicam-pus investigation,Research in Higher Education, 38(3), pp. 379 – 396.
McCabe, D. L.et al.(1996) The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related beha-viour in the workplace,Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4), pp. 461 – 476.
McCabe, D. L.et al.(2001) Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research,Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), pp. 219 – 232.
Nowell, C. and Laufer, D. (1997) Undergraduate student cheating in the fields of business and economics,Journal of Economic Education, 28(1), pp. 3 – 12.
Roach, R. (2001) Safeguarding against online cheating,Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(8), p. 92. Rowe, N. C. (2004) Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism,Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 7(2). Available at http://www.westga.edu/distance/ojdla/summer72/
rowe72.html (accessed 4 April 2006).
Salter, S. B.et al.(2001) Truth, consequences and culture: A comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. students,Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), pp. 37 – 50.
Sims, R. (1993) The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices,Journal of Education for Business, 68(2), pp. 207 – 211.
Tabs, E. D. (2003)Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000 – 2001, NCES 2003 – 017(Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics).
