Cheating (Education)

Academic integrity essentially centers on an individual’s ethical attitudes and behaviors as well as injunctive norms, or norms that dictate what is socially accepted and lauded. One key influence may be pluralistic ignorance; here arguments for cheating posit that students cheat because they perceive that others are “doing it” to a greater extent than is actually true and thus what they are doing is minimized in relation to others. Research indicates that students perceive cheating as more widespread than it actually is (Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). A considerable gap in the research is noted when looking at definitions of what constitutes academic fraud, research has indicated that when students are asked if they have cheated and then given a definition of cheating, their self-reports of cheating increase (Burrus et al., 2007). This indicates that students’ definition of cheating and a universities’ definition of cheating may be incongruent. Participants were 507 members of the Florida Atlantic University community during the 2012-2013 academic year who completed a survey that consisted of items, which centered on self-reported cheating, perceptions of what cheating constitutes, and estimates of cheating prevalence. Results indicate that students reported peer cheating to be higher then self reported cheating, that participants distinguished between five different forms of cheating, and that faculty and students hold differing definitions of cheating. The findings suggest a disconnect between faculty perceptions and definitions of academic integrity and students. This would suggest that greater efforts should to be taken to bring a more uniform operational definition of what constitutes academic dishonesty that universities, faculty, and students can rely on. Second, as a pluralist model of cheating was supported, universities could develop campaigns like those aimed at reducing drinking, hooking up, and increasing women in STEM fields (Lambert, Kahn & Apple, 2003; Mattern & Neighbors, 2004; Muldoon, 2002; Schroder & Prentice, 1998). Research has suggested social norm campaigns targeting pluralistic ignorance can be effective on college campuses. In educating students about what actually happens and the discrepancy between reality and perception, cases of academic dishonesty could be reduced.

The purpose of this study was to explore undergraduate students' behaviors related to academic dishonesty. Additionally, this study examined students' perceptions of their own connectedness within the online classroom, and perceptions of the effectiveness of deterrents to cheating. Participants in the study were enrolled in online courses within the College of Arts and Science at a regionally accredited for-profit university. Students enrolled at the university represent a geographic cross section primarily within the U.S. but included students living outside the U.S. Participants were asked about their individual feelings of overall connectedness within the online classroom. Connectedness was determined using five subscales to create an overall connectedness score. The subscales were attachment, bonding, climate, connection, and engagement. Statistical tests were conducted to assess and describe any relationships between connectedness, academic dishonesty, and demographic factors. Additionally, participants provided feedback on various methods used in online classes to encourage academic honesty. This study discovered significant relationships between academic dishonesty and students' feelings of connectedness. Students' academic performance was related also to feelings of connectedness within the online classroom. Additionally, the frequency of engagement in academic dishonesty increased as the students neared graduation. The findings of this study contribute to the body of knowledge related to pedagogy and course design of online classes.