One student got caught handing in worksheets from a prior semester. When questioned, she said with a straight face that she borrowed it from a sorority sister, erased the answers, and then completed it. Zero! Three students handed in identical worksheets, right down to the font, punctuation, and verbatim responses. When confronted they did not see this as cheating, "they were working together on their assignments and thought the department encouraged teamwork!" Zeroes!
I am not sure which makes me more crazy, catching kids cheating or their response to me when confronted with it. Most refuse to believe that what they did was cheating and will continue to lobby for some kind of credit for the assignment or a chance to do it over (which tells me other professors have buckled and rewarded cheating).
I recently read an article on academic dishonesty that shed some light on why students cheat, written by Michael DePietro, entitled "Theoretical Frameworks for Academic Dishonesty" and published in POD's 2010 issue of To Improve the Academy, which is an annual peer reviewed compilation of essays on teaching for learning. Here are some that may shed some light on academic dishonesty that I found quite interesting:
1. Deterence theory posits that cheating is a function of the severity of the consequences. To stop cheating the punishment has to include not only failing the assignment but perhaps the course as well, along with academic probation or even expulsion from the program. The bottom line is that if students think they can engage in cheating without dire consequences they are likely to do so.
2. Rational Choice theory posits that dishonest actions are the result of "rational decision making" involving a cost-benefit analysis on the part of the cheater. So cheating may be the result of reducing the amount of effort required to do the assignment on their own, prepare for the exam, and so forth. This is the response I usually get when confronting students with cheating as they try to convince me that their excuse for cheating is warranted regardless of the act of cheating itself. Indeed, at the end of last semester I had a student take another run at me and suggest that if I had not given her zeroes for the assignments she got caught cheating she would get a B in the class which is an audacious rationalization that her cheating did not cost her a higher grade -- it was that I caught her doing it!
3. Neutralization Theory posits that students are able to engage in morally wrong acts without damage to their self-concept if they can rationalize those acts and think of them as morally neutral rather than wrong. Four neutralization techniques used by students includes: a) the Curly excuse of "I was a victim of circumstances," b) cheating is no big deal and a victimless crime, c) it is the professors fault due to unfair exams, etc., and d) "I was helping a friend pass the course."
In the attempt to keep this blog post short, there were two other theories including Planned Behavior Theory (cheating happens because students see a chance to do it and take it) and Situtational Ethics (had no other choice than to cheat). It also turns out that one of the most effective ways to deter cheating is by establishing honor codes aimed at eliminating the culture of cheating by having students sign a pledge that they will not cheat, involve students heavily in academic review boards to handle cheating cases, give unproctored exams, and require students to report cheating. In short, cheating begins and ends with the responsibility being placed on the student to not do it in the first place!
If you have a paragraph or two on things your students have done to cheat and/or methods by which you have eliminated cheating in your classes send them to me and I will be happy to post on the blog for our learning community.
No comments:
Post a Comment