Academic Dishonesty among University Students: Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors
Imelia Laura Daneil1*, Tang Howe Eng2, Jacqueline Susan Rijeng3, Siti Faridah Kamaruddin4
1,3,4 Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Mukah, Sarawak
2 Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Mukah, Sarawak
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 April 2020 | Published: 30 April 2020
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Many studies show an escalating rate of cheating as compared to yesteryears.
Therefore, this study evaluated and examined the university students’ perceptions towards the prevalence of academic dishonesty among different semesters consist of sophomores, juniors, and seniors. This study utilized a quantitative research method involved research instrument which is questionnaire. The study included a total of 96 university students from different semesters. The findings discovered that there is a significant difference among sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Significantly, seniors’ university students perceived the highest prevalence of academic dishonesty as compared to sophomores and juniors university students. Thus, it is suggested that academic institution should work collaboratively to expedite student awareness and academic integrity to promote for the culture of academic integrity.
Keywords: ethics, cheating, semesters, sophomores, seniors
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Recently, nation has been discussed about the issue of academic dishonesty among college students. In a study by Smith, Ghazali and Siti Fatimah (2007) in Malaysia suggested that factors contributing to academic dishonesty include lack of awareness, lack of understanding, lack of competence, and personal attitudes. Additionally, Stephens (2017) also added to the possible factors that lead students to engage in academic dishonesty behaviors such as pressure to maintain and get good grades, peer pressure, the tradition practices of institutions which are in conflict with our today’s generation, and the globalization of the modern world.
Previous study by Knapp, John and Azalea (2017) found that 50 percent of the students admitted committing plagiarism via Internet. Subsequent study by Satterlee (2002) suggested that academic dishonesty is rampant with the number of students who admitted to cheating is on rise. Additionally, latest study by Jones (2011) stated that 70 percent of high school students admit that they cheat at least in one exam. Another study by Brimble and Stevenson- Clarke (2005:40) described this phenomenon of academic dishonesty as “a spreading moral panic.” Interestingly, Simpson (2016) highlighted that 95 percent said that these students were never get caught of committing cheating. This indicates that students are either unaware of the academic dishonesty or are aware but refuse to accept the reality.
Driven by the huge interest in various aspects of academic dishonesty, this study aims to address the issue of academic dishonesty by analyzing the prevalence and seriousness of
cheating on quiz, exam, coursework (i.e. assignment), and plagiarism among sophomores, juniors and seniors with hope of gaining a better insight of how students perceive such academic dishonesty. Specifically, the study interests to determine the prevalence of cheating among university students of different semesters: sophomores, juniors and seniors. It is interesting to see an emerging pattern of cheating as the students reached their seniority level.
There are few local studies focused on the prevalence of cheating among students of different semesters and few studies provided holistic picture of the prevalence of academic dishonesty.
Hence, this study hoped to provide reference for future research studies with regards to the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty among university students with regards to their seniority level. The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
Is there any significant difference in the perceived prevalence of academic dishonesty behaviours among sophomores, juniors and seniors in the following assessments:
1. Cheating on the quiz?
2. Cheating on the exam?
3. Cheating on coursework (i.e. assignment)?
2. Literature Review
Marsden (2008) stated that cheating has many types ranging from merely copying another student’s paper to pilfering all test paper to faking a university transcript. Among the leading pioneer in such studies, Bowers (1964) created a list of nine items to describe academic dishonesty. Here are the examples of the nine items: “Have you used crib notes to cheat on a test or exam?”, “Have you copied a few sentences without footnoting?”, and “Have you fabricated or falsified a bibliography?” (p. 80). Moreover, Lavelle (2008) related the term of cheating with the form of patch-writing which is an act of connecting the loosely paraphrased words of several authors. Howard (2000) put forward an example of serious cheating behaviours involving buying an assignment from the internet and stealing another student’s assignment via USB devices such as pen drive, external devices. These studies are important in addressing the various types of academic dishonesty. However, only a few studies examined the different types of academic dishonesty behaviors. Recently, there are various types of academic dishonesty behaviours involving the latest gadgets with advanced methods for students to cheat. The statistics regarding academic dishonesty are disheartening. 54% of students at a small state university in the Southwest admitted cheating on exams, quizzes, and assignments (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Additionally, the Center for Academic Integrity has conducted a wide academic integrity survey of almost 50, 000 undergraduate students from more than 60 United States colleges (McCabe, 2005). Findings reported that 70% of the total population admits engaging in the listed serious cheating behaviours. Approximately 40%
admitted to Internet plagiarism with 77% viewed Internet plagiarism as not a very serious issue. On the other hand, there are many conflict issues arose with regards to the issues of academic dishonesty. Coalter, Lim and Wanorie (2007) found out that students perceived academic dishonesty as not a serious problem at the institution. Interestingly, a few respondents hold contradict expressions such as the institution has “a culture of academic dishonesty,” and “students get away” with cheating (Jones, 2011, p. 50).
Students tend to characterize the hypothetical student’s behaviour to his/her nature when he/she opted not to cheat and to conditions when he/she elected to do so (Paula, 2004). To this, Miller et al. (2017), found that cheating culture in academic settings is very much associated with the prevalence of cheating. Lynette and James (2001) revealed that sophomores cheat more than a freshman. She highlighted that her findings show negative
findings when compared previous studies which revealed that younger students cheat more frequently than their older peers. However, there is still mixed findings being reported on the prevalence of academic dishonesty among students from different semesters. A study reports that upperclassmen cheat less often than do lowerclassmen; another paper determines that sophomores cheat the most and yet another study shows no significant difference in cheating behaviour based on academic classes (Lynnette and James, 2001). Gerald (2003, p. 12) found that first-year students, especially women, “take plagiarism seriously: They tend to be concerned when it occurs, to condemn it as nearly wrong, and to endorse punishment for offenders.” Students often heard about academic dishonesty and obtain statements and rules about behavioural expectations; however, contributes most fresh students their most students seldom get the opportunity to discuss the meaning of academic scholar. Consequently, it is the peer culture that contributes the most towards fresh students thus shapes their knowledge with regards to academic ethics. De Lambert et al. (2016) suggested that students cheat more as they graduate from freshmen to seniors even tough modern students cheat less than their juniors. McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (2001) reported their research outcomes that age and class rank were strongly correlated. In detail, first and second year students were less likely to commit academic dishonesty than those students in their last two years (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).
3. Methodology
The study employed a descriptive study that examines the responses of a total of 96 respondents of university students. A stratified random sampling from different semester’s students (sophomores, juniors, and seniors) is employed for the sampling technique.
Structured questionnaires are used to elicit the data from the respondents. Hence, the study also conducted the Cronbach’s Alpha test to test the reliability of the questionnaire. SPSS analysis of the items produced Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients of 0.890 (α = 0.890), indicating a reliable and acceptable level of internal consistency.
4. Result and Discussion
Table 1: Respondents (n=96) Gender Frequency (n=96) Percentage
Male 28 29.2
Female 68 70.8
Total 96 100.0
Table 1 shows 96 university students involved in this study with 28 (29.2%) are male students and another remaining 68 (70.8%) are female students.
Table 2: Respondents according to Different Semester (n=96) Seniority Frequency (n=96) Percentage
Sophomores 29 30.2
Juniors 38 39.6
Seniors 29 30.2
Total 96 100.0
Table 2 shows the number of respondents according to different semesters. This study classifies the students according to different semesters as follow: Sophomores = Semester 2 and 3 students; Juniors = Semester 4 and 5 students; and Seniors = Semester 6 and above.
Table 2 illustrates that there are 29 respondents among sophomores (30.2%), 38 juniors (39.6%) and 29 seniors (30.2).
Cheating on the Quiz
Table 3: Comparison of Means in the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on the Quiz
Cheating on Quiz Frequency (n=96) Mean Std. Deviation
Sophomores 29 3.20 1.55
Juniors 38 3.23 2.10
Seniors 29 5.01 2.51
Total 96 3.76 2.24
The mean values in the prevalence of cheating on the quiz for sophomores, juniors and seniors are compared. Table 3 reveals that seniors have a higher mean (mean=5.01, SD=2.51) compared to juniors (mean=3.23, SD=2.10) and sophomores (mean=3.20, SD=1.55) in terms of the prevalence of cheating on the quiz. The mean values show that seniors have a high prevalence of cheating on the quiz followed by juniors and sophomores with a lower prevalence of cheating on the quiz.
Table 4: One-Way ANOVA Analysis of the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on the Quiz
Cheating on Quiz Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig
Between Groups 67.24 2 33.62 7.66 0.001
Within Groups 408.25 93 4.39
Total 475.49 95
The ANOVA analysis reveals was conducted to see whether there is a significant difference between the mean values of the three groups. Table 4 reveals that there is a significant difference in the prevalence of cheating on the quiz among the three groups, F=7.66, df=95, p<0.05.
Table 5: One-Way ANOVA Analysis of the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on the Quiz Dependent
Variable
Semester Semester Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error Sig
Cheating of Quiz Sophomores Juniors -0.03 0.51 1.000
Seniors -1.78* 0.54 0.005
Juniors Sophomores 0.03 0.51 1.000
Seniors -1.81* 0.53 0.002
Seniors Sophomores 1.78* 0.54 0.005
Juniors 1.81* 0.53 0.002
Bonferroni comparisons in Table 5 reveals that there is a significant difference when comparing seniors with sophomores and juniors in terms of the prevalence of cheating on the quiz (p<0.05). This implies that seniors have a significant difference in the prevalence of cheating on the quiz when compared to sophomores and juniors. In other words, the act of dishonesty is highest among seniors, as compared to sophomores and juniors.
Cheating on the Exam
Table 6: Comparison of Means in the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on the Exam
Cheating on Exam Frequency (n=96) Mean Std. Deviation
Sophomores 29 1.68 1.56
Juniors 38 1.66 1.54
Seniors 29 2.83 2.34
Total 96 2.02 1.82
In Table 6, analysis on “cheating on the exam” reported that seniors have the highest mean (mean=2.83, SD=2.34) compared to juniors (mean=1.66, SD=1.54) and sophomores (mean=1.68, SD=1.56) in the prevalence of academic cheating behaviours. Analysis of cheating on the exam reveals seniors have the highest mean of cheating followed by sophomores and juniors.
Table 7: One-Way ANOVA Analysis of the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on the Exam
Cheating on Exam Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig
Between Groups 27.05 2 13.52 4.35 0.016
Within Groups 289.29 93 3.11
Total 316.33 95
To determine if there is a significant difference between the mean values between groups on cheating on the exam, a One-Way ANOVA was conducted. Table 7 indicates that there is a significant difference in the prevalence of cheating on exam between the groups. (F (95)
=4.35, p<0.05).
Table 8: Multiple Comparisons of the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on the Exam Dependent Variable Semester Semester Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig Cheating of Exam Sophomor
es
Juniors 0.02 0.43 1.000
Seniors -1.15* 0.45 0.38
Juniors Sophom
ores
-0.02 0.43 1.000
Seniors -1.16* 0.44 0.030
Seniors Sophom
ores
1.15* 0.45 0.038
Juniors 1.16* 0.44 0.030
Bonferroni comparisons in Table 8 shows that mean values are significantly different from another when comparing seniors with sophomores and juniors, p<0.05. Thus, this finding indicates that seniors have a significant difference in the prevalence of cheating on the exam when compared with sophomores and juniors. However, there is no significant difference between sophomores and juniors in the act of cheating on the exam.
Cheating on Coursework (i.e. assignment)
Table 9: Comparison of Means in the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on Coursework (i.e.
assignment)
Cheating on Exam Frequency (n=96) Mean Std. Deviation
Sophomores 29 1.93 0.83
Juniors 38 2.00 1.65
Seniors 29 3.10 1.85
Total 96 2.31 1.76
Table 9 shows that cheating on the quiz by seniors has higher means of 3.10 (SD=1.85) compared to juniors (mean=2.00, SD=1.65) and sophomores (mean=1.93, SD=0.83). This implies that seniors have the highest prevalence of cheating on coursework (i.e. assignment) as compared to juniors and sophomores. To find a significant difference between the three groups, a One-Way ANOVA analysis on cheating on coursework (i.e. assignment) was conducted.
Table 10: One-Way ANOVA Analysis of the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on Coursework (i.e.
assignment)
Cheating on Exam Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig
Between Groups 25.818 2 12.91 4.45 0.014
Within Groups 266.71 92 2.89
Total 292.54 94
The ANOVA analysis was conducted to see whether there is a significant difference between groups. The analysis revealed that there is a significant difference in the prevalence of cheating on coursework (i.e. assignment) among the three groups, F=4.45, df=94, p<0.05.
Table 11: Multiple Comparisons of the Perceived Prevalence of Cheating on Coursework (i.e.
assignment) Dependent
Variable
Semester Semester Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error Sig
Cheating of Exam Sophomores Juniors -0.08 0.42 1.000
Seniors -.17* 0.44 0.026
Juniors Sophomores 0.08 0.42 1.000
Seniors -1.09* 0.43 0.038
Seniors Sophomores 1.17* 0.44 0.026
Juniors 1.09* 0.43 0.038
The ANOVA analysis was conducted to see whether there is a significant difference between groups. The analysis revealed that there is a significant difference in the prevalence of cheating on coursework (i.e. assignment) among the three groups, F=4.45, df=94, p<0.05.
The findings indicated that seniors have the highest mean values in the prevalence of cheating in the following behaviours: cheating on the quiz, cheating on the exam, and cheating on coursework (i.e. assignment). One-Way ANOVA analysis revealed that there is a significant difference, p<0.05, when comparing seniors with juniors and seniors with sophomores in the prevalence of cheating on the quiz, cheating on the exam, and cheating on coursework (i.e.
assignment). Thus, this indicates that seniors have the tendency to cheat more than sophomores and juniors. This finding is corroborated with the study by Lynnette and James (2001) whereby they revealed that sophomores cheat more as compared to freshman, though previous studies suggested that younger students cheat more than their older peers. Moreover, Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005) stated that the changing of a learning environment contributes to the tendency of engaging in academic dishonesty behaviour among students.
Similarly, Coalter, Lim and Wanorie (2007) also supported this argument by suggested that cheating culture has affected the level of academic dishonesty among students.
5. Conclusion
De Lambert et al. (2016) speculated that senior students who had high grades could decide to cheat more because of pressure to maintain grades. It is relevant that students nowadays must face pressure not only to maintain their grades but also to get good grades. Malaysian education has placed the system of CGPA in order to measure one’s academic ability (Smith, Ghazali & Siti Fatimah, 2007). Students viewed CGPA as everything which decides their future careers, placement for future studies and competes for the best position in jobs. Even smart students confess to cheating to gain a greater competitive edge. Therefore, some feel it doesn’t matter how they get high GPAs if they get it. The end justifies the means and that includes cheating. Hence, there is a need to conduct depth research that specifically investigates the relationship between semesters and the prevalence of cheatings, thus discover
relevant reasons on why final semester students tend to cheat more as compared to their juniors. It is worth to note that faculty or institution at large should take initiative and necessary steps in order to curb the prevalence of academic dishonesty among students.
Significantly, the study serves as the information to feed relevant parties with regards to the issues of academic dishonesty to the institutions and public at large, educators, and students.
It is hoped that the study would bring significant insights and contribute to the improvement to the current issues of academic dishonesty among university students. The findings unveiled that the prevalence of academic dishonesty is increasing among college students, perhaps there is a need to encourage students to explore new lines of moral reasoning, broadening and deepening their understanding of why it is wrong to plagiarize.
References
Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research. 77-90.
Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the Prevalence and Seriousness of Academic Dishonesty in Australian Universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19-44.
Coalter, T., Lim, C. L., & Wanorie, T. (2007). Factors that Influence Faculty Actions: A Study on Faculty Responses to Academic Dishonesty. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 1, No. 1, January 2007, ISSN 1931-4744.
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl.
De Lambert, Kelly, Nicky Ellen, and Louise Taylor. "Academic Dishonesty Among Students in Tertiary Institutions: A Literature Review." Waikato Journal of Education 11.2 (2016).
Gerald, N. (2003). How First-Year College Students view Plagiarism. Communication Across the Curriculum. 11-16. Retrieved Oct 21st from http://www.cac.siuc.edu/handouts/Plagiarism/Student%20Attitudes/How%20Freshman
%20View%20Plagiarism.pdf
Howard, R.M. (2000). Sexuality, Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism. College English 62 (4), 473–491.
Jones, L. R. (2011). Academic Integrity & Academic Dishonesty: A Handbook about Cheating and Plagiarism. 45-69.
Manjet, K., & Ganapathy, M. (2018). Understanding Plagiarism from the Lens of First Year Tertiary Level Students.
Knapp, John C., and Azalea M. Hulbert. "Academic Dishonesty." Ghostwriting and the Ethics of Authenticity. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017. 85-105.
Lavelle, L. (2008). GMAT Cheating Controversy Grows. Retrieved Oct 1st, 2011 from http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/jun2008/bs20080627_391632
Lynnette, S. & James, R. (2001). An Examination of Student Cheating in the Two-year College. Retrieved Oct 1st from http://www.essay-911.com/essay- encyclopedia/examination.htm
Marsden, H. (2008). Degrees of Cheating: An Exploration of Student Academic Dishonesty in Australian Universities. Published thesis submitted for Bachelor of Applied Psychology (Hons), University of Canberra ACT 2601. Retrieved Oct 1st, 2011 from http://www.02part1.pdf.com.
McCabe, D. (2005). Levels of Cheating and Plagiarism Remain High. Retrieved Oct 1st, 2011 from The Center for Academic Integrity Website:
http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
McCabe, D. L. & Trevino, L. K. (1997). “Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multi-campus Investigation.” Research in Higher Education, Vol. 38, No.
3, 379-396.
Miller, Angela D., Tamera B. Murdock, and Morgan M. Grotewiel. "Addressing Academic Dishonesty Among the Highest Achievers." Theory Into Practice (2017): 1-8.
Moffatt, M. (1990). Undergraduate Cheating. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Paula, W. (2004). Academic Original Sin: Plagiarism, the Internet, and Librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (3), 237-242.
Satterlee, A. G. (2002). Academic Dishonesty among Students: Consequences and Interventions. (Report Paper).
Smith, M., Ghazali, N., & Siti Fatimah, N. (2007). Attitudes towards Plagiarism among Undergraduate Accounting Students: Malaysian Evidence. Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia. Retrieved 1st Oct 2011 from www.emeraldinsight.com/1321-7348.htm.
Simpson, Denise. "Academic dishonesty: An international student perspective." Academic Perspectives in Higher Education 2.1 (2016): 5.
Singh, M. K. M., & Ganapathy, M. (2018). Understanding Plagiarism from the Lens of First Year ertiary Level Students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities.
Stephens, Jason M. "How to Cheat and Not Feel Guilty: Cognitive Dissonance and its Amelioration in the Domain of Academic Dishonesty." Theory Into Practice (2017): 1- 10.
