SURVEY REPORT ON METHODS

AND REASONS WHY STUDENTS

CHEAT (A Case Study of Faculty

of Science, Egerton University).

Nicholas Juma Odondo

Egerton University

June 2014.
Declaration
I declare that this is an original study done in the Faculty of Science, Egerton University and has
not been presented in any other institution.

………………………….. ………………………
Nicholas Juma Odondo Date
Egerton University

ii
Acknowledgement and Dedication
This work is dedicated to every young Kenyan who is struggling to come to the reality of how
much integrity has been lost in our society. It is also dedicated to my son, Nick O’Connor Jnr, and
may this work be his encouragement to be honest to himself always.

I acknowledge all members of Faculty of Science staff for their assistance. Special thanks to Ms.
Patricia Murage for the healthy opinions she lent me through this idea break. I thank all lecturers
who let me interrupt their classes when I was collecting data for this work. I also thank Prof. J.
Omolo for the logistic accorded in support of this survey and pray that the study help improve
education quality and leadership of students.

iii
Table of Content

Declaration..................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement and Dedication ............................................................................................. iii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vi
Key Words/Phrases ..................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Importance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Limitation of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Defining Academic Cheating............................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Current Situation of Cheating ......................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Cheating Occurrences.................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Cheating Methods ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Reasons for Cheating ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.6 Consequences of Cheating ................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 9
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Target Population: ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Sample Frame: .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.4 Sample Size:....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.6 Data collection instrument: ............................................................................................................ 11
3.7 Data Analysis:.................................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 12

iv
4.1 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.1.1 General Frequencies of Cheating ............................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 Methods of Cheating .................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.3 Gender Difference in the Methods ............................................................................................. 14
4.1.4 Reasons for Cheating ................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.5 Reasons for not cheating ............................................................................................................. 15
4.1.6 What do the findings say in Summary ....................................................................................... 16
4.2.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Cheating Tendencies .................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Cheating Methods ........................................................................................................................ 17
4.2.3 Reasons for Cheating ................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Reasons for Not Cheating ............................................................................................................ 19
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 20
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................. 20
5.1 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 21
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 26
The Survey Questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 26

v
Abstract
With the growing populations in higher education institutions coupled with changing society
during the past few decades, academic cheating has been always on the rise. Academic integrity
has been a perennial problem among undergraduate students in Kenyan universities and Egerton
University being one of these institutions, has also been affected in an equal measure. In this
regard, this study sought to determine the tendencies and frequencies of cheating among students
in the Faculty of Science. Questionnaires were administered to 333 students from all departments
in the Faculty of Science during ordinary lecture hours (n=333) and data analyzed using SPSS
21.0.0.0 version. The survey revealed that 88.2 % of the respondents had engaged in at least one
of the dishonest behaviors with 43.5 % of them admitting to have cheated and 44.7% cheated on
evaluation. Astonishingly, only 11.7% of the respondents have never been involved in the cheating
behavior. These cheating tendencies were dependent on gender and year of study of the respondent,
and not on age, deferment status or course pursued. Notably, the most frequent methods of cheating
were allowing copying and copying of coursework and new methods such as use of mobile phones
are on the rise. Time pressure and fear of failure (F) were the most selected arguments for cheating.
Though cheating is apparent, many students admit that they would not cheat because it is immoral
and would devalue their achievements. 79.5% of students think academic dishonesty is a problem
while only 72.1% think it needs to be changed. Only 16.0% said they do not know the
consequences of cheating and 16.9% admitted to have cheated before admission to campus. The
study revealed that academic cheating is very prevalent and university administrators have not
addressed the cause, rather have been tackling the symptoms of the problem. Strict supervision,
thorough course coverage and disciplinary action taken against the perpetrator are some of the
suggestions made to remedy the problem.

vi
Key Words/Phrases
Academic cheating, administrators, cheating tendencies, dishonesty behavior, educators, faculties,
frequency of cheating, integrity, methods of cheating.

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Diagram showing complications and grey-zones of cheating

viii
List of Tables

Table. 1. Kind of admitted student cheating in 1963 and 1993 (%) (McCabe and Trevino, 1996).

Table 1. Presentation of factors that might lead to cheating mentioned by Researchers.

Table.3. Showing distribution of participants according to year of study and gender.

Table. 4. Showing distribution of respondents according to course and gender.

Table. 5. Shows Overall Cheating Tendencies of Students

Table. 6. Shows Tendencies of Cheating in relation to year of study

Table. 7. Students' Tendency of Cheating according to Gender.

Table. 8. Frequencies of Cheating Methods.

Table.9. Gender and Exchanged favors for marks

Table. 10. Shows Female/Male responses to doing others coursework on their behalf.

Table. 11. Show frequencies of reasons for academic dishonesty.

Table. 12. Reasons for Not Cheating and Frequencies

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Background
Over the years academic cheating has been a perpetual issue to the Faculty and other university
administrators worldwide (Whitley, 1998). And with technological advancement and use of
internet, cheating has also become more prevalent among students (King, Guyette and Piotrowski,
2009). Nearly three-quarters of college students cheat during their undergraduate careers, a
startling number attributed variously to the laziness of today’s student, their lack of moral compass,
or the demands of a hypercompetitive society (Lang, 2013). However, in the view of some
researchers, these reasons to cheat may just be red herring and that students cheat often because
their learning environments give them ample incentives to try. Growth of university student
population has seen students of different age groups enroll for various courses relating this to
working student population who might have time pressures forcing them not to uphold the
integrity. On the other hand, about 35% of university officials believe that cheating is not a problem
and about 41% of public believes any form of dishonesy is not a problem (Jaffe, 2014). One study
in Australia had reported alarming 80% of students to have admitted to academic cheating (Maslen,
2003). Surprisingly, only 1.3% of cheating cases go undetected, while only a handful are taken
before the disciplinary boards for action (Bjorklund and Wenestam, 1999).

Internet, computers and other user-friendly devices have made cheating an easier affair for students
since they can refer any time anywhere without their instructors realizing (King, Guyette and
Piotrowski, 2009). As a sign of enormity of this problem, the current technological savvy
generation view mass information on the internet as fair use and it may not abate soon (Scanlon,
2004). Proliferation of internet sources, e-books and online materials somehow make cheating
easier, undetected and students may even do it without realizing themselves (Bjorklund and
Wenestam, 1999).

Because of the ethical and moral character of the problem it is not easy to do research in this field.
Obvious problems are i.e. student integrity. Thus, academic dishonest behavior and cheating is a
familiar problem for any university, but it is often not very well known and sometimes the
university authorities do not even want to know of it. Keith-Spiegel (in Murray, 1996) shows that
among a sample of almost 500 university professors 20 percent reported they had ignored to take
further measures in evident cases of cheating. Many university teachers obviously hesitate to take

1
action against cheating behaviour because of the stress and discomfort that follows (Murray, 1996).
Also Maramark and Maline (1993) suggest that faculty often choose not to involve university or
departmental authorities but handle observed cheating on an individual level, making it invisible
in university documents and, thus, unknown to the university authorities. Also other findings
support the reluctance to bring dishonest academic behavior like cheating before the university
administration. Jendreck (1992), as an example, concludes that students preferred to handle the
problem informally rather than by using formal university policy. Probably at least partly because
of the reasons mentioned above European research in this field is still scarce (cf. Newstead,
Franklyn-Stokes & Armstead, 1995 and Ashworth et al., 1997).

Nonetheless, it is a field that need to be researched on since it will be too late to do so when
graduates from the universities believe cheating and any form of dishonesty is a normal part of
their studies and probably carry the cheating behavior to the work environment. Danger on phrases
like: Students beliefs that "everyone cheats" (Houston, 1976, p. 301) or that cheating is a normal
part of life (Baird, 1980) encourage cheating. The adage "cheaters never win" may not apply in
the case of academic dishonesty.

Kenyan universities are faced by the same problem as all other institutions in the world. In addition,
Egerton University just stepped out of examinations crisis last year as reported (Standard
Newspaper, 2013). Kenyan researchers have not given this topic enough attention it deserves.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Academic dishonesty is concern of many, but most educators prefer not to know or talk about it.
For this reason, today we have a glaring number of students admitting to have cheated during their
secondary school and university studies. Cheating students have therefore taken the behavior as
normal and a way to a profitable end. Currently in the country such survey data are not available
but world surveys report between 64% to 90% cases of cheating of any form. In the past more
males admitted cheating than females while most forms of cheating did not involve use of handsets
and computers. Now they do. This study surveys frequencies, methods, reasons for cheating and
reasons for not in an attempt to understand the behavior. There are factors that propel cheating that
it also opts to elaborate.

2
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.3.1 General Objective

To determine the tendency and frequency of cheating among students in the Faculty of Science,
Egerton University.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

i. To correlate the tendencies to gender, deferment status, age, year of study and course
pursued.
ii. To establish the methods of cheating and their preference.
iii.To determine reasons that propel students to cheat.
iv. To determine why students do not cheat.
v. To determine how many students think cheating is a problem and how many want to
change.
vi. To determine how many students know the consequences of cheating.

1.4 Importance of the Study

It is important to university staff and administrators, as well as the society as a whole gain insight
on the matter of academic dishonesty by providing information that may guide in the development
of university policies on academic. This study also aimed at bringing to the realization the extent
of academic dishonesty in the society today.

1.5 Limitation of the Study

The study assumed that every respondent was sincere when filling in the questionnaire.

3
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Defining Academic Cheating

Academic cheating is simply representing someone else’s work as your own (Jaffe, 2014). It can
take many forms, including sharing someone’s work, purchasing term paper, having test questions
in advance or even exchanging favors for marks. It is human behavior to find a less demanding
method to solving a problem through creativity. Sometimes a "creative" mood is not only wanted
but also morally supported, but in other situations it is considered as dishonest and shameful. In
higher education this kind of creativity may be in conflict with study performance and productivity
and may turn out to be viewed upon with disapproval or contempt (Bjorklund and Wenestam,
1999).

Plagiarism gets most of the attention in relation to exam situations. Plagiarism has been subject to
many recent researches (Bjorklund and Wenestam, 1999). Defining academic cheating is
complicated and Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999) defines it demonstrating moral and achievement
dimensions this diagram:

Figure 1: Diagram showing complications and grey-zones of cheating

4
2.3 Current Situation of Cheating
2.3.1 Cheating Occurrences
Some levels of cheating have been mentioned before. Most of these studies were only carried
outside Africa, so they may or may not imply directly to situation in the continent. Nevertheless,
today cultures are similar due to the technological advancements available. For example, use of
internet is popular in every part of the world today. The following studies are cited from Bjorklund
and Wenestam (1999):

Drake (1941) reported a cheating rate of 23%, whereas Goldsen, Rosenberg, William, and
Suchman (1960) reported rates of 38% and 49% for 1952 and 1960, respectively. Hetherington
and Feldman (1964) and Baird (1980) reported cheating rates of 64% and 76%, respectively.
Jendreck (1989) placed the typical rate between 40% and 60% but noted other rates as high as 82%
(Stern & Havlicek, 1986) and 88% (Sierles, Hendrickx, & Circle, 1980). (Davis et al., 1992, s.16).
Graham et al (1994) found that among 480 college students 89 percent admitted cheating and in a
study by Lord and Chiodo (1995) 83 percent of the undergraduates investigated (n=300) admitted
to cheating on significant tests and major projects.

Bjorklund and Wenestam also argued that cheating is epidermic such that the current generation
cheated more than the previous generation. This was supported by earlier studies by Davies et al
(1992). It is reported that cheating cases have always risen rapidly through years. It is suspected
that with the swift technology changes in this decade would have had a big shift on behavior
change and perception. This is very interesting because this survey assesses tendencies of cheating
in relation to year of study of the respondents.

2.4 Cheating Methods

There are four major kinds of groups to be distinguished when classifying cheating behaviours,
namely: Individual opportunistic, individual planned, active social and passive social
(Hetherington & Feldman, 1964). And this categorization is important when it comes to the
methods they use. According to Bjoklund and Wenestam, Baird had classified methods in two
distinct groups: between individual and co-operative behaviours.

5
Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead found out that cheating methods like copying each other’s work,
inventing data and copying without referencing were commonest while others like impersonation,
corruption and bribery were scarce (1995).
Studies have also shown that students admit to have cheated depending on methods used. For
instance, many admit to have allowed others copy their coursework while only few admit to have
copied in exams. They do this thinking some methods are more acceptable than the other. McCabe
and Trevino summarized their findings in a table showing what kind of cheating and the frequency
students admit they are engaged in. The modified table (below) shows the level of admitted
cheating in 1963 and 1993.

MODES OF CHEATING 1963 1993 DIFFERENCE TENDENCY

% % %
1. Tests/examinations
Copied from another student 26 52 +26 Increase
2. Helped another student 23 37 +14 Increase
3. Used crib notes 16 27 +11 Increase
Written work
4. Copied material without footnoting 49 54 +5 Increase
5. Plagiarised 30 26 -4 Decrease
6. Falsify a bibliography 28 29 +1 Similar
7. Turned in work done by another 19 14 -5 Decrease
8. Collaborated on assignments requiring 11 49 +38 Increase
individual work

Table. 1. Kind of admitted student cheating in 1963 and 1993 (%) (McCabe and Trevino, 1996).

Table 1 shows that some kinds of cheating are more frequent than other kinds. It is also interesting
to find that in most of the cases the tendency is an increase of the cheating between 1963 and 1993.
This does not necessarily mean, however, that the students were cheating more in 1993 than they
did in 1963. Another reasonable explanation is that the students were more prone to admit cheating
in 1993 than the students were in 1963.

New methods have also come up. For example, downloading essays from the World Wide Web,
corruption to buy test questions.

6
2.5 Reasons for Cheating

According to Bjorklund and Wenestam, these motives or reasons are unknown but are assumed to
be far much complicated to understand (1999). Studies by Andermen et al claimed that the schools’
obsession with performance measures spurs cheating. It is suggested that classrooms that
emphasise high grades and test scores may drive the students to cheat (1998). There has been a
shift of focus since many look for grades rather than education.

Generational laziness, supercompetitive society, lack of moral compass, reluctance to aversion and
easy safe creative ways are some of the reasons cited by recent researches. To many students, some
forms of cheating are not forbidden as others (Bjorklund and Wenestam, 1999).

On a general level the causes or explanations identified can be organised in two classes of factors,
external, and individual/personal. In Table 1 below the two super-ordinate factors and some
elements/reasons mentioned in research done by Baird (1980), Davis et al (1992) and Hetherington
& Feldman (1964) are presented.

Researcher External factor Personal factors

Baird Seating order Laziness
Importance of the test Awareness of the
Level of test-difficulty performance of fellow
Unfair test students
Scheduling Low grades
Supervision Previously experienced
failure
A certain expectation of
success
Davis et al. Overcrowded, great classes Wish to help a friend
Multiple-choice questions Aversion to teacher
Economic benefit
Hetherington Difficult test To gain social
& Feldman Lacking supervision acceptance/liking
Badly organised
Course

Table 1. Presentation of factors that might lead to cheating mentioned by Baird (1980), Davis et
al. (1992) and Hetherington & Feldman (1964). It is adapted from Bjorklund and Wenestam
(1999).

7
Most frequent reasons for not cheating were that it is immoral and pointless to do so according to
Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995). In their study it was also surprising that religious
convictions and devaluation of one’s achievement were not frequent reasons considering that
religion is viewed as a moral source. Newstead et al later reported that over years fewer and fewer
people agreed that they did not cheat due to morality (1998).

2.6 Consequences of Cheating

This was a question most educators know the answer to, but prefer not to talk about or tackle. It is
a question asked in many of these such studies (Jaffe, 2014). In recent survey, ½ of students
surveyed believe the faculty in their university do not try to catch cheaters (Schimming, 2014).
Schimming and other researchers say that integrity loss is a problem because new students find
themselves in courses beyond their capability so they resort to cheating to cheating to succeed in
the course, the difficult job market places a premium of high grades or some students believe
professors are cheating them in the classroom by shirking their teaching responsibilities.

But it is during this time, when metaphors like cheating is just a game, cheating is addiction,
cheating is a personal dilemma, cheating is a team effort, degree is harambee are common. These
social constructs show how rampant this practice is.

8
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY
3.1 Target Population:
The study targeted all Egerton University student in all the nine academic faculties and 2
directorates. The nine faculties included Faculties of Science, Agriculture, Arts and Social
Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Education and Community Studies, Health Sciences,
Environmental and Resource Development, Commerce. The two directorates were College of
Open and Distance Learning (CODL) and Gender Institute. Populations in these faculties were as
follows:

3.2 Sample Frame:

The survey frame was all Students in the Faculty of Science, who were 1399 in total at the time.
The students belonged to the six departments in the faculty: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
Biological Sciences, Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Science departments. The
students who were sampled in this study satisfied simple conditions. First, they had come to class
5 minutes before the normal lecture time, and secondly volunteered to fill in the survey
questionnaire with highest sincerity. The Faculty offers technical and teaching courses in basic
sciences.

3.4 Sample Size:

The study sampled 333 students, which was bigger than sample size proposed by Odhiambo et al
(2010) in their review of Basic Statistics. They had proposed a sample size of 286 subjects for and
333 subjects for a 1000 and 2000 population sizes respectively for ±5% precision in their table.
The distribution of participants was as shown in the tables 3 and 4.

9
Year of Study Gender Total
Male Female
1.00 26 15 41
2.00 42 39 81
3.00 101 69 170
4.00 26 15 41
Total 195 138 333

Table 3 showing distribution of participants according to year of study and gender.

Discipline/Course of the Respondent Gender Total

Male Female

Biomedical Science 56 39 95
Biological Science 32 19 51
Physical Sciences and 23 22 45
Mathematics
Biochemistry 26 18 44
Chemistry 21 17 38
Aquatic Science 17 16 33
Computer Science 19 7 26
Total 195 138 333
Table. 4. Showing distribution of respondents according to course and gender

3.5 Research Design

This was an exploratory and descriptive study meant to determine academic dishonesty behaviors
among students. The research variables included tendencies, methods, reasons for and reasons for
not cheating. They were tested if they were independent to age, year of study, gender and
deferment status of the respondents.

10
3.6 Data collection instrument:

Collection of data was done during normal lecture time. Students were requested to fill in the
questionnaire about academic dishonesty with sincerity and anonymity. The questionnaire
consisted of five sections: the personal details part, cheating method questions, reasons for
cheating, reasons for not cheating and feeling about cheating with yes/no questions. The study
respondents were to mark with a √ or an X for yes or no respectively. The fifth section was an
additional part that was meant to assess how students felt about academic dishonesty.

The questionnaires were distributed during ordinary lecture hours after assessment exams and
just before end of semester examinations. The respondents completed on-spot and anonymously.
Completing the questionnaire took them 15 minutes.

3.7 Data Analysis:

Data was then analyzed using SPSS Version 21.0.0.0 (IBM).

11
CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 FINDINGS
4.1.1 General Frequencies of Cheating

88.2 % of the respondents in the survey had engaged in at least one of the behaviors listed in the
questionnaire. However, only 43.5 % of them admit to cheating in the overall question at the end
of the questionnaire, 44.7% have cheated on evaluation and only 11.7% of the respondents has
never involve in the cheating behavior. The overall tendency to cheat correlated with year of study
(Kendall’s rho=, 214, P=.066) and gender (Kendall’s rho=, 333, P=0.015); while there was no
correlation with, course of the respondent (Kendall’s rho=, 908, P=-0.009, deferment status
(Kendall’s rho=957, P=-0.003) and not with age of the respondent (Kendall’s rho=, 583, P=-0.03).
This appeared to imply that the overall amount of cheating is relatively stable, but that the methods
used vary depending on aspects like course of study, gender, age and year of study, since there are
some significant correlations for the individual items on the basis of these background variables.

Students’ Tendencies of cheating Frequency Percent

Never cheated 39 11.7
Has cheated on evaluation 149 44.7
Admitted cheating 145 43.5
Total 333 100.0

Table. 5. Shows Overall Cheating Tendencies of Students

Year of Study Students' Tendency of Cheating Total

Never cheated Has cheated on Admitted
evaluation cheating
1.00 7 19 15 41
2.00 6 35 40 81
3.00 23 74 73 170
4.00 3 21 17 41
Total 39 149 145 333

Table. 6. Shows Tendencies of Cheating in relation to year of study

12
Students' Tendency of Cheating Gender Total
Male Female
Never cheated 24 15 39
Has cheated on evaluation 92 57 149
Admitted cheating 79 66 145
Total 195 138 333
Table. 7. Students' Tendency of Cheating according to Gender

With the majority of 44.7% cheating without admitting or knowing, this makes this study an
interesting one. A considerable amount of the students do seem to cheat, even though they do not
always consider what they do as wrong. More female students (47.8%) admitted cheating than
their male counterparts (40.5%).

4.1.2 Methods of Cheating

Various methods were listed in the questionnaire, which a participant was to say yes/no to and
these items were considered cheating and/or a dishonest behavior. 86.8% of the respondents
admitted to have kept quiet, which in the study was considered a dishonest behavior. The other
frequently used methods included allowing copying of coursework (72.2%), copying coursework
(66.4%) and copying without referencing (59.3%). Least used methods included exchanging marks
for favors e.g. student’s sex (3.1%), impersonation (4.7%) and bribery and corruption to access
exams in advance or increase marks (5.1%). The occurrence of these items are as illustrated in the
table below.

Methods used by students to cheat Responses Percent of

No Percent Cases
Do Paraphrase without Referencing 112 7.0% 38.0%
Do copy without References 175 10.9% 59.3%
Do allow copying of coursework 213 13.3% 72.2%
Do copy coursework of others 196 12.2% 66.4%
Do copy exams 57 3.6% 19.3%
Do fabricate references 120 7.5% 40.7%
Do alter experimental/research data 120 7.5% 40.7%

13
Doing others coursework on their behalf 32 2.0% 10.8%
Do hire another to do coursework on behalf 15 0.9% 5.1%
Collude with others to do coursework 132 8.2% 44.7%
Use private banks/cribs (written on desk top, tissue 45 2.8% 15.3%
paper)
Kept silent: not reported cheating 256 16.0% 86.8%
Use handset/internet enabled gadgets 58 3.6% 19.7%
Impersonate to do on another’s behalf 14 0.9% 4.7%
Do preset formulae on calculators and other gadgets 33 2.1% 11.2%
Exchanged favors for marks 9 0.6% 3.1%
Corrupt/bribed for marks or access to exams 15 0.9% 5.1%
Used other method 1 0.1% 0.3%
Total 1603 100.0% 543.4%
Table. 8. Frequencies of Cheating Methods

4.1.3 Gender Difference in the Methods

Since there was correlation between gender and tendencies of cheating, some methods were tested
for association. For most items on the questionnaire, students seemingly responded similarly
regardless of their gender. However they responded differently to two items. One of them being
“exchanging favors for marks”. 5 males said yes while 4 females agreed to have exchanged favors
for marks. There was significant difference (Fisher Exact Test DF=1.0, p=0.56). The responses
were as follows:

Gender Exchanged favors for marks Total

Yes No
Male 5 173 178
Female 4 123 127
Total 9 296 305
Table.9. Gender and Exchanged favors for marks

Another response to which they responded differently was “doing others coursework for them”. In
this item, 21 males admitted having committed it compared to 11 females. The difference was
statistically different (Pearson Chi-Square DF=3, P=0.414; Likelihood Ratio DF=3, P=0.310 and
Linear-by-linear Association DF=1, P=0.904). Students’ responses were as follows:

Gender Yes No Total

14
 Male 21 157 179
Female 11 115 127
Total 32 272 306
Table. 10. Shows Female/Male responses to doing others coursework on their behalf.

4.1.4 Reasons for Cheating

This was the second area where explanation, arguments and excuses for the misconducts were
given so that the respondent agrees to or disagrees with it. Of the motives, respondents argued that
time pressure (66.1%) was the most likely reason to cheat, followed by fear of failure/F (61.9%),
content not grasped (58.4%) and increasing of marks (54.9%). The least frequent reasons were: it
is my way; I have always cheated before (3.8%), I don’t like my course (5.6%) and lack of
supervision in the examination room (12.6%). There was significant association between
respondents fabricating of experimental data, argument that lab officials are to blame and the
course being done by the respondent (Kendall’s Rho=302, P=0.291).

Responses Percent of
Reasons for Cheating
No of cases Percent Cases
Due to time pressure 189 14.3% 66.1%
Did not prepare well 122 9.2% 42.7%
Fear of failure (F) 177 13.3% 61.9%
To increase marks 157 11.8% 54.9%
Everyone does it so do I 116 8.7% 40.6%
Due to laziness 53 4.0% 18.5%
It does not affect others 60 4.5% 21.0%
The Course is difficult 121 9.1% 42.3%
Content not grasped 167 12.6% 58.4%
Lack of supervision presented the opportunity 36 2.7% 12.6%
I do not like my course 16 1.2% 5.6%
It is my way; I have always cheated before 11 0.8% 3.8%
I blame lab officers/project supervisors 101 7.6% 35.3%
Total 1326 100.0% 463.6%

4.1.5 Reasons for not cheating

These reasons against cheating were provided in the questionnaire, however it was open for
respondents to give any other that we might have not enlisted. Many pointed out that it was

15
immoral to engage in this misconduct (79.8%). 67.9% of the student respondents do not cheat
because it would devalue their achievement while 62.8% feared being caught for embarrassment
and punishment. Only 7.3% would not know how to cheat, 11.9% never thought if it whereas
17.0% thought it was thought less to cheat. It was surprising since it is assumed that majority of
the student population is religious, but only 56.9% of respondents thought of it as an argument
against. A lovely 60.6% said they loved their course. The reasons for not cheating were selected
variously by the respondents independent of gender.
Opportunity to cheat safely without being caught (20.2%) scored averagely and it was tested for
relationship with tendency not to cheat to see if in the future when this opportunity arise, then more
cases would be expected. There was no correlation between the two (Kendall’s Rho=498, P=-
0.046).

Reasons/Motives against cheating Responses Percent of

No of cases Percent Cases
It will devalue my achievement 148 14.8% 67.9%
It is immoral to be dishonest 174 17.5% 79.8%
Due to my personal pride 67 6.7% 30.7%
I love my course 132 13.2% 60.6%
It is unnecessary/pointless 37 3.7% 17.0%
I have never thought of it 26 2.6% 11.9%
Fear of punishment 137 13.7% 62.8%
I do not know how to go about it 16 1.6% 7.3%
It is unfair to others 92 9.2% 42.2%
Opportunity to do it safely has not risen 44 4.4% 20.2%
My religious convictions 124 12.4% 56.9%
Total 997 100.0% 457.3%
Table. 12. Reasons for Not Cheating and Frequencies

4.1.6 What do the findings say in Summary

12.6% of the responded who had cheated did so because lack of supervision presented them with
opportunity compared to 20.2% who did not cheat because opportunity to cheat safely did not
arise. 79.5% of the respondents feel academic dishonesty is a problem while 19.9% says it is not.
And 72.1% said the situation need to change compared to 24.3% who says cheating is normal. So
more students admit that it a problem while less feel it should/will change.

16
16.9% of the respondents admit to have cheated before coming to campus. If this is tested against
today’s tendencies of cheating. There is no significant difference between having cheated before
campus and the tendencies.

4.2.0 DISCUSSION
4.2.1 Cheating Tendencies
The majority of the respondents had cheated only after evaluation, meaning they have cheated
either without knowing or they are shying to admit to this wrongdoing. We there presented more
students cheating admittedly. This is in congruence with other studies done in Finland by
Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999). Tendencies of cheating were also found out to be related to
gender and year of study of a respondent. More third years and second years were implicated with
both unadmitted and admitted cheating. The more senior students get the more confident they
might get with the act and the more they influence others to join their tendencies. Bjorklund and
Wenestam in their study implied that new generations cheat more than the preceding generations.
(1999). This may not be the case here. They might be one generation and the progressive increase
speculated would only happen if same survey is done after sometime.

More female students admit to cheating than their male counterparts. This is not in concord with
earlier studies that had shown that more males admitted (Davies et al, 1992). But in a society we
live in today, women are getting more powerful and more open than the male counterparts.

Courses being taken by these individuals did not have any association with cheating tendency.
Since the study was only carried out among faculty of science students, levels of difficulty among
these courses is not significant. Bjorklund and Wenestam had reported an overt association
between technicality of the course and the inclination to cheat by students (1999). Average age of
the respondents was 21 years with a deviation of only 4 years. That implied that they are in same
age group thus generational change that might also shift cheating tendencies was unlikely.

4.2.2 Cheating Methods

Many of the respondents said they had kept silent about cheating. This is a similar action taken by
educators and administrators that not only propel more and more student to carry on with the
misconduct but it also drives the vicious cycle of dishonesty through generations and off to work

17
environment. Most frequent methods selected in this study are those students consider as ‘not
cheating’ ‘not condemnable’ because they are either helping their fellow through difficulty or it
may not be detected out rightly. This is in synchrony with earlier studies (Bjorklund and
Wenestam, 1999; and Davies et al, 1992)

It also important that there is evolution of these methods i.e. they come out of creativity to easy
way out of difficult situations therefore, some methods expire while some advance while other
new ones are invented. So that methods of 1990, some still persist whereas others have advanced.
For example, plagiarism was copying a book without acknowledging it in the 90s. Today
plagiarism has taken a different form that one may not feel guilty of due to many available internet
sources.

Some bizarre method like ‘sex or money for marks” were also selected in the survey. And this just
points to the moral deterioration that may be there among both lecturers and their students.
Corrupting any officer to get marks or test questions in advance are some issues that come handy
with very corrupt systems.

4.2.3 Reasons for Cheating

In many researchers’ views, these motives justify why students cheat and to some extent they are
just excuses (Lang, 2013). Hypercompetitive society demands that even in class everyone
competes to be the best. Getting the best grades rather than the education itself is today the focus
of many. So the harmony with other studies is shown by many students selecting reasons like to
‘to increase mark’ ‘fear of failure’.

With many selecting time pressure, several questions are raised. Are the students too lazy to work
with time lines? Is time management a problem to most undergraduate students? Is the university
time lines too short for thorough work? Is that the reason why many students feel course contents
were never grasped because lecturing is done in a rush? Why would many students report that their
courses are difficult?

These reasons were classified as external and personal motives by researchers (Davies, 1992;
Baird, 1980; Hetheringon & Feldman, 1964). This kind of classification help in understanding of

18
this behavior. For instance, laziness and one not liking their course are personal reasons. While
absence of supervision during exams is an external factor.

4.2.4 Reasons for Not Cheating

Many students felt cheating is immoral and would devalue their achievements. This is contrary to
general practice because many in numbers have also cheated knowingly or unintentionally.
Newstead et al, (1995) reported that there were significant differences between the age groups: the
older students gave the reason immoral more often than their younger peers did. If a study is done
later it can be predicted that less and less people would give morality as a reason not to cheat. In
the study, less third year students thought they would not cheat because of the moral issue. And
similarly less second years considered it valid reason for not cheating. As more people cheat, it
becomes more common and normal practice that cannot be deduced as wrong or right.

Two categories of students were noted: one group that had cheated because lack of supervision
provided the opportunity and the other that had not cheated because such opportunity has not
occurred to them. It means with strict supervision the 20.2% who cheated are stopped while 12.6%
are prevented from cheating. And lessening supervision combines these percentages to increase
cheating by the 12.6% percent since those who had not would now. However, for students who
said they have not cheated because opportunity has not occurred means two things: that the
university examinations invigilators are doing exemplary and that if not more stringent measures
are taken, then more students would indulge in cheating.

19
CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION
Many students cheat knowingly and unknowingly. They mainly believe that it is external factors
that propel them to cheat. Time pressure and course content not grasped are among these outside
factors. Lang argues that it is education systems that provide students with these excuses (2013).
Training of these students should be done in an easy environment, where students compete
uniformly to gain education. This framework can be borrowed from private institutions.

Since many agree that it is immoral to cheat in any way and many say the situation needs to be
averted, it can be taken as an affirmative dimension it gives faculties and educators to remedy
academic dishonesty. There is a gap between the notions of morality and correctness as withheld
by society and university staff and the notions of these phenomena withheld by the students.
(Davies et al, 1992). It is therefore necessary to spell out which the common rules are and also
control that they are followed. To go even further it is also important to stress the importance of
moral education for moral development in order to secure a functioning society, presuming that
that is what is wanted.

The results of this study present very serious case about the future of our society. What kind of
professionals in scientific world will these individuals be, how are they going to lead their
communities in solving problems if they cannot be trusted because of dishonesty. A country where
a biochemist working as quality control officer approves alcohols for sales to the public without
doing the thorough quality testing; then the alcohol kills a mass. Samples are sent to a biomedical
laboratory to determine the cause and unskilled insincere biomedical scientist cannot work on the
samples well enough to help the situation.

Jaffe and many other researcher view that strategies put to reduce these misconducts not only serve
the purpose but also improve students’ general performance (2013). Fewer student agree that they
cheat to increase marks. And that’s true because students who cheat even all the time do not
improve significantly their grades. They only move to safer zones like grades Cs if they were
scoring Ds or Ds if they were likely to fail.

20
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to be able to deal with the problem in an efficient manner it is necessary to reach the
causative factors, which probably are best reached with a flexible and qualitative approach
(Bjorklund and Wenestam, 1999). Everyone would agree with me that cheating is only a symptom
to the problem. To understand delicate and inaccessible phenomena like the one at hand it is
important to benefit from as many sources of knowledge as possible; an interdisciplinary
collaboration would probably be most adequate. I would have wanted to share the results with a
psychologist and a lecturer who attends classes so that we derive all accurate deductions. It is also
important to realize the problem with truthfulness. To support this, I found out that students were
more relaxed and more open when they realized I, a fellow student was the one carrying out the
survey.

Ethics may be lax among scientists, but that should not be so. They also deal with people, animals
and any other dilemmas. I recommend bioethical be taught to all students so that they will be able
to deal well with personal dilemmas and even those involving others.

Academic staff can no longer presuppose that students know and behave according to unwritten
moral rules or code of conduct book I was given in first year. In these rules, the forms of
misconducts are never elaborated, but it is assumed that a student knows that for some reason s/he
cannot help a fellow with assignment. One, obvious way of reducing cheating in universities is
then to spell out what rules and codes the students are subjected to. These codes should be
discussed at all levels periodically before they are passed. Or most tangibly, there should be either
specific required course or a campus wide forum for newly admitted students to acclimate them to
the culture of academic responsibility on campus. This will also explain to them expected code of
conduct to all academic community. Such as course or activity, early on the first term on campus
could help cohere the concept of academic honesty.

According to previous research, students’ moral behavior and ethical reasoning seems to develop
under continuous education. I am thus convinced that this influence can be made stronger through
focused attention to the area and an open ethical dialogue, not in any specific course, but as every

21
lecturer’s concern. This would create a good socio-moral environment for moral development,
which is what universities ought to foster in their students, since that is something they will need
in their everyday life as well as in their professional activities, and of which society will benefit or
suffer in the long run.

As discussed earlier, motives for cheating are both intrinsic and extrinsic. It is therefore important
that those involved try reducing/eliminating the external ones. The most cited reason is time
pressure, which can be eliminated by better co-ordination of courses and exams between university
staff. Proper supervision and invigilation of examinations can be obliging to the situation.

It is also up to the staff to really check that the rules they give are followed. Such a behavior signals
that the rules are judged as important and might awaken conscience in the students, or at least
make the "cheating alternative" less attractive and easy to carry out. If a fellow has been caught
twice and still sits in the same class as another student who has had two failures in the same courses
this fellow was caught cheating at and the fellow did not get a retake. Next time, the student might
see it as the only way out.

22
 REFERENCES

Academic Cheating: Definition. Delta College Resources. Retrieved 1st May, 2014 from URL:
www.deltacollege.educ/catalog/cat0910/1841.html

Ashworth, P. Bannister, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of

cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education,
22 (2): 187-204.

Baird, J.S. Jr. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools 5(17): 515-
522.

Bjorklund M. and Wenestam G-C. (1999). Academic Cheating: Frequency, Methods and Causes.
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research.

Brian A. J. & Steven D.L. (2003). Catching the Cheating Teachers: Results of an unusual
Experiment in the Implementing Theory. Retrieved 1st May, 2014.

Davis, S.F., Grover, C.A., Becker, A.H. & McGregor, L.N. (1992). Academic dishonesty:
prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19(1):
16-20.

Davis, S.F. & Ludvigson, H.W. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal
for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2):119-121.

Donald L., McCabe & Klebbe L.T. (1993). Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other
Contextual Influences. The Journal of Higher Education 64(5): 532-533

Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Newstead, S.E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why?.
Studies in Higher Education, 20(2):159-172.

Hetherington, E.M. & Feldman, S.E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and
situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(4):212-218.

Jaffe D. (2014). Perspective in Assistive Technology: Academic Cheating Fact Sheet. Stanford
Univ. Press. Retrieved from URL: www.stanford.edu//Cheating.html

Jendreck, Margareta, Platt. (1992). Students’ reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College
Student Development, 33(3): 260-273.

Jude C. (2002). Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education. (Oxford: the Oxford
Center for Staff and Learning Development, Online).

23
Lang J.M. (2013). Cheating Lessons; Learning from Academic Dishonesty. Harvard Univ. Press.

Lang J.M. (2013). Cheating Lessons Part 1. Chronicles of Higher Education Article. 28th May
2013.

Fishbein L. (1994). We can Curb College Academic Cheating in the The Education Digest. Pp.58-
61

Maclen G, (2003). 80% Admit to Cheating Survey of Students on Australian Campuses. Times
Higher Education Supplement 2(1): 123-24

McKeachie, W. J. (2005) Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university
teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

Maramark, S. & Maline, M-B. (1993) Academic dishonesty among college students. Issues in
education. Office of Educational research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC

Murray, B. (1996). Are professors turning a blind eye to cheating? Schools facing a plague of
cheating. Beware the ‘A’ student: Overachievers can be cheaters. The APA monitor, 27(1):
1-42.

Newstead, S.E., Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Armstead, P. (1995) Individual differences in student

cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Odhiambo R., Kihoro J., Mwalili S., Waititu A., Orwa G., Mung’atu J. & Mugo C. (2010). Basic
Statistics with Practical Examples in SPSS.

Patrzek J. & Fries S. (2014). Investigating Effects of Academic Procrastination on the Frequency
and Variety of Academic Misconduct: a panel study. In the Higher Education. Retrieved
1st May, 2014.

Scanlon P.M. (2004). Student Online Plagiarism. How do we respond? College Teaching, 51(4):
161-65

Schimming R. C. (2014). Academic Dishonesty Newsletter. Minnesota State University Press.

Articles. Retrieved 7th June, 2014

The Ethics of American Youth: 2008. Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth. Joseph
Institute. Retrieved on 27th April, 2014.

24
Tim W., Revescroft S., & Shrader C. (2004). Cheating and Moral Judgement in the College
Classroom: A natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics 54(2): 181. Accessed online
on 1st May, 2013.
Wankat, P. (2002). The effective, efficient professor. Boston: Allyn Bacon, 2002

Wilfried D. (2002). Crisis on Campus: Confronting Academic Misconduct (Cambridge, Mass,;

MIT Press) p. 23.

25
APPENDIX
The Survey Questionnaire
General information

Year of Study: …………. Gender: ……………… Age: ………..

Course (e.g. BSc Biochem): ………………

Instructions

You are requested to fill in the questionnaire sincerely and to the best of your knowledge. Please
take your time and provide honest and accurate information. Answer ALL the questions as
instructed on each.

Questions

1. Classify your tendency of cheating/not cheating as:

I. Never Cheated II. Rarely Cheat III. Sometimes Cheat

2. Mark method(s), if you selected (I) or (II) ABOVE, used to cheat(mark using *an
asterisk or √ a tick as appropriate; you can make more than one method)

Copying without reference

Paraphrasing without references

Allow copying (coursework e.g. allow a friend to copy your assignments)

Copying coursework with knowledge of fellow (e.g. copying practical

report)

Copying in exam

Fabricating references

Altering data of experiment/research

Doing another’s coursework for them

Coursework done by another (e.g. hired person to do your for you)

Collusion with others to do a given work (coursework)

26
Cribs/Mwaks (in exams)

Private banks to access during exam(e.g. writing on tissue, body, desk)

Essay banks (e.g. websites with done write-ups)

Copying coursework without knowledge of the owner

Collusion (in exam)

Inventing data without doing research/experiment

Keeping silent/not reporting cheating

Use a handset/internet enabled gadget

Impersonation (i.e. doing exam on behalf)

Presetting formulae in calculators

Exchanged favors for marks

Corruption/bribery

Any other specify…………………………………………………………………………...

3. Due to your selected reasons, WHY do you cheat? (you can mark more than one reason):

Reason

Time pressure

Did not prepare well

To increase the mark

Fear of failure/retake

Everybody does it

Laziness

It does not affect others

The course is difficult

Lecture content not grasped

Supervision presented opportunity

27
I don’t love what I’m doing

It is my way, did it before

Blame lab officers for poor experiments/research arrangement

Any other specify……………………………………………………………………………….

4. Mark reason (s) why you would not cheat (You can Select > one reason):

Reason

It would devalue my achievement

It is immoral/dishonest

Personal pride

I love what I’m doing

It was unnecessary/pointless

Shame/embarrassment at being caught

I never thought of it

Fear of detection/punishment

I would not know how to go about it

It would be unfair to other students

Situation did not arise/not applicable

Any other (specify)…………………………………………………………………………………

5. Do you find out that you have cheated, without knowing after filling in this
questionnaire?
YES NO
6. Do you think academic cheating is a problem?
YES NO
7. If ever cheated, do you think you need to change?

28
 YES NO
8. Do you know consequences if found guilty of it?
YES NO
9. Did you ever cheat in exams before joining campus?
YES NO
10. Suggest solutions you think can be done to reduce cases of academic cheating
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

29