----

##  Academic Dishonesty and the Community College. ERIC Digest.                  

Cheating on exams, plagiarizing, falsifying bibliographies, turning             in work done by someone else, receiving improper assistance on                  assignments, and intentionally facilitating cheating on the part of             others are commonplace in American higher education. All of these               behaviors comprise academic dishonesty, a widespread problem at                 colleges and universities (Burke, 1997; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).                Dishonest academic behavior occurs at all types of institutions and             involves a wide array of students (Desruisseaux, 1999). A primary               issue facing community colleges is how to effectively reduce                    dishonest student conduct. This digest cites studies on academic                dishonesty from both two- and four-year institutions. Though studies            focusing specifically on community colleges are relatively rare,                many findings from four-year institutions are relevant for community            colleges. FREQUENCY OF DISHONEST BEHAVIORBy most measures,                cheating is prevalent on college campuses around the nation. McCabe             and Trevino (1996) found that two out of three students admitted to             dishonest academic behavior in a study of 6,000 students at                     thirty-one highly selective colleges and universities. In a sample              of 1,800 students at nine state universities, seventy percent of                students admitted to cheating on exams, eighty-four percent to                  cheating on written assignments, and almost half to inappropriately             collaborating with others on assignments (McCabe & Trevino, 1996).              Genereux and McLeod (1995) reported that eighty-five percent of                 males and seventy-nine percent of females at an urban community                 college admitted engaging in at least one dishonest behavior. Over              twenty-five percent of students had engaged in one of the following:            sharing of exam questions, listing false references in papers,                  allowing others to copy during an exam, or plagiarizing parts of                papers. A survey of faculty at a multi-campus community college                 found that eighty percent of respondents had suspected academic                 dishonesty in their classes and sixty-five percent had been certain             of dishonesty (Burke, 1997). 
A number of authors and commentators             have suggested that cheating is on the rise among college students,             although relatively few longitudinal studies exist to confirm this              assertion. Methodological inconsistencies between studies conducted             over the last fifty years greatly complicate meaningful                         comparisons (Crown & Spiller, 1998). McCabe and Trevino (1996)                  reported that the overall percentage of students admitting to at                least one incidence in test cheating rose slightly from 63 to 70                percent between 1963 and 1993. Substantial increases in the number              of students copying from others on exams (from 26 to 52 percent),               using crib notes during tests (from 16 to 27 percent), and                      improperly collaborating on written assignments (from 11 to 49                  percent) were observed. Other dishonest behaviors such as                       plagiarizing, falsifying bibliographies, and turning in unoriginal              work remained essentially unchanged or had decreased. Overall, these            data indicate moderate increases in academic dishonesty over the                last few decades. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DISHONESTYResearch              has revealed numerous individual and environmental factors                      associated with dishonest student behavior. The following four                  categories represent common factors cited in the literature:                    individual characteristics, peer group influences, instructor                   influences, and institutional policies. 
(1) Individual                        Characteristics 
Five student characteristic variables are                     frequently related to the incidence of dishonest behavior: academic             achievement, age, social activities, major, and gender. In a study              of students at a suburban community college, Antion and                         Michael (1983) found that students with lower GPA's were more likely            to cheat on an examination. Crown and Spiller (1998, p. 689) noted              that "a significant negative relationship between cheating and GPA,"            as well as other measures of achievement, is a recurring theme in               the literature. Younger students, traditional college students, and             underclassmen are more likely to engage in cheating and other forms             of academic dishonesty (Crown & Spiller, 1998; McCabe & Trevino,                1997; Whitley, 1998). Social activities such as membership in a                 fraternity/sorority, frequent partying, and increased                           extracurricular involvement have also been related to higher levels             of dishonesty (Crown & Spiller, 1998; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).                  Several studies have indicated that business majors are more likely             to cheat than non-business students and that business majors have               more tolerant attitudes toward dishonesty (Crown & Spiller, 1998;               Roig and Ballew, 1994). The relationship between gender and                     dishonesty is less clear. Studies indicating that males are more                likely to cheat are common, as are studies indicating no significant            differences in gender (Crown & Spiller, 1998; Whitley, 1998). 
(2)             Peer Group Influences 
The behaviors and attitudes of peers                    influence student decisions regarding academic misconduct. McCabe               and Trevino (1997) found that students' perception of peer                      disapproval was the strongest predictor of reduced cheating                     behavior. Genereux and McLeod (1995) reported that estimates of the             prevalence of cheating among peers significantly predicted cheating             behavior. According to Crown & Spiller (1998), studies have                     consistently indicated that students are more likely to cheat if                they observe other students cheating or if they perceive that                   cheating is commonplace or acceptable among peers (Crown & Spiller,             1998). 
(3) Instructor Influences 
Students who perceive                      instructors to be concerned for students and actively involved in               the learning process are less likely to engage in dishonesty. If the            professor seems indifferent or if the subject matter seems                      unimportant or uninteresting, students feel less moral obligation to            avoid cheating (Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne, 1997; Kerkvliet &                Sigmund, 1999; McCabe & Trevino, 1996). A number of studies have                indicated that the environment within the classroom or examination              setting, as established by the instructor, can have significant                 impacts on cheating (Crown & Spiller, 1998; Roig & Ballew, 1994;                Whitely, 1998). Genereux and McLeod (1995) reported that permissive             instructor attitudes and low instructor vigilance tend to increase              cheating, while higher vigilance, use of essay exams and spacing of             students further apart tend to reduce cheating. A study of classroom            settings by Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999) found that higher number of            test proctors, use of non-multiple choice exams, and use of multipe             versions of an exam reduce cheating. Exam content and structure is              also important, as students are more likely to cheat on tests                   perceived to be unfair or confusing (Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne,             1997; Genereux &McLeod, 1995). 
(4) Institutional                              Policies 
Aaron (1992) found that over ninety percent of community             colleges in a national sample have academic integrity policies and              almost ninety-eight percent have procedures for dealing with student            misconduct. Community colleges were significantly less likely than              four-year institutions to have separate guidelines for academic                 dishonesty distinct from other types of student misconduct. The                 community colleges were more likely to rely on student handbooks and            orientation to communicate policies rather than specific programs               and faculty presentations. Effective communication of policies and              increased student awareness of penalties and enforcement tend to                reduce dishonest behavior (Aaron, 1992; Crown & Spiller, 1998;                  McCabe & Trevino, 1996). Students do not seem to be opposed to                  strict penalties, as long as they are clearly articulated and evenly            enforced (Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne, 1997; McCabe & Trevino,                1996). RESPONSES OF FACULTYCollege faculty members tend to be             highly disapproving of academic dishonesty but may not necessarily              be vigilant about dishonest behavior. In Burke's (1997) sample of               community college faculty, respondents did not believe dishonesty to            be a serious problem at their institution. When student dishonesty              was suspected or occurred, faculty tended to employ informal                    measures with students rather than pursue official procedures. Time             constraints, due process protocol, fear of backlash, lack of                    administrative support, and misunderstanding of policies may all                contribute to faculty reluctance to act on suspicions of                        cheating (Burke, 1997; Roig & Ballew, 1994). Aaron (1992) reported              that twenty-five percent of community colleges sampled did not                  employ any specific method for disseminating information on academic            integrity to faculty and that less than three percent of the                    colleges relied on faculty to disseminate information to                        students. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TWO-YEAR COLLEGESCollege leaders            should establish an environment where dishonesty is viewed as                   unacceptable and where any possible benefits are outweighed by risks            of being caught and peer disapproval. Specific recommendations are              as follows: 
(1) Communicate policies on academic misconduct to                students and faculty. Regular communication through a variety of                media (e.g. handbooks, orientations, programs, course materials)                conveys the message that academic integrity is an important                     institutional priority. 
(2) Encourage faculty to discuss                      dishonesty with students. Faculty comments reinforce and remind                 students of unacceptable behavior. 
(3) Establish non-permissive               examination environments. Watchful instructors, spaced seating, and             varying exam formats are effective deterrents. 
(4) Apply                      consequences in a consistent, fair, and timely manner. Inconsistent             and unpredictable responses to dishonesty erode student support for             existing policies. 
(5) Maintain an environment of trust and honor.            An emphasis on mature behavior, self-responsibility, and proper                 conduct enhances academic integrity.  (Burke, 1997; Kerkvliet &                 Sigmund, 1999; McCabe & Trevino, 1996, 1997; Roig & Ballew, 1994;               Whitley, 1998). REFERENCESAaron, R. M. (1992). Student                    academic dishonesty: Are collegiate institutions addressing the                 issue? NASPA Journal, 29(2), 107-113. (EJ 442 669) 
Antion, D.                 L., & Michael, W. B. (1983). Short-term predictive validity of                  demographic, affective, personal, and cognitive variables in                    relation to two criterion measures of cheating behaviors.                       Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 467-482. (EJ 287                 627) 
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in              whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and                    plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher                   Education, 22(2), 187-203. (EJ 549 250) 
Burke, J. L. (1997).                  Faculty perceptions of and attitudes toward academic dishonesty at a            two-year college. Unpublished dissertation. (ED 431 486) 
Crown, D.            F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on                    collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of                 Business Ethics, 17, 683-700. 
Desruisseaux, P. (1999, April 30).              Cheating is reaching epidemic proportions worldwide, researchers                say. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, p. A45. Genereux, R.                L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A               questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher                     Education, 36(6), 687-704. (EJ 518 273) 
Kerkvliet, J., & Sigmund,             C. L. (1999). Can we control cheating in the classroom? Journal of              Economic Education, 30(4), 331-351. 
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L.              K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal                 trends and recent developments. Change, 28(1), 28-33. (EJ 520                   088) 
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and                   contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus                    investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396. (EJ 547            655) 
Roig, M., & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of              self and others by college students and professors. Psychological               Record, 44(1), 3-12. 
Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated            with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher              Education, 39(3), 235-274. (EJ 567 552) 
----- 
The ERIC                      Clearinghouse is administered by the National Library of                        Education (NLE) and operates under OERI Contract No. ED-99-CO-0010.             The opinions expressed in this digest do not necessarily reflect the            position or policy of NLE/OERI and no official endorsement by                   NLE/OERI should be inferred. 
ERIC Digests are in the public domain            and may be freely reproduced.                                                **Title:** Academic Dishonesty and the Community College. ERIC Digest.                  **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, University of California             at Los Angeles, 3051 Moore Hall, Las Angeles, CA 90095-1521. Tel:               310-825-3931.                                                                **Descriptors:**  Cheating, Codes of Ethics,  Community Colleges,                                Diversity (Student),  Honesty,  Plagiarism,  Student Attitudes,                 Student College Relationship, Two Year Colleges                              **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]