Running head: ACADEMIC HONESTY IN THE ONLINE SETTING

Academic Honesty in the Online Setting

Madelon Reed Gruich

The University of Southern Mississipp i

IT755 Web-based Instruction

November 17, 2009

 Academic Honesty 2

Introduction

Academic dishonesty concerns teachers, students, and educational institutions and seems

to be a growing problem. The digital revolution continues to influence the delivery of instruction

as more and more institutions of higher education are offering distance learning opportunities.

With courses being offered online, issues of integrity and unethical behavior must be addressed

in this arena as well as in the traditional setting. Individuals now have choices of online classes

to fulfill degree requirements, and questions arise concerning whether stude nts are do ing their

own work to achieve the objectives of the courses or whether they utilize dishonest means of

completing class work, exams, and projects, etc. Even the ide ntity of the online stude nt comes

under scrutiny because the lack of face-to-face contact often prevents the personal interaction

between teacher and student. Dishonesty is not limited to the online classroom but is often more

difficult to recognize and de al with than in the traditional classroom.

Online classes present opportunities for dishonesty in a variety of ways, and this paper

will explore why students cheat, how cheating occurs, prevention of unethical practices in the

online environment, and the effects of cheating on the educational facility, the instructor, and the

stude nt. Understanding the ps ychology of human be havior related to d ishonesty and the causes

associated with cheating will also be addressed.

Human Behavior and C heating

Many factors influence the way individuals interact with their environment and ot her

humans. The expos ure of an individual to matters of morality during t he early years of

develop ment can have a profound consequence on the way integrity is viewed. One would trust

that stude nts do not cheat; however, a Duke University study referenced by Kleiner and Lord
 Academic Honesty 3

indicated that when students were asked if they had cheated at least once, 75 percent answered in

the affirmative (as cited in McMurtry, 2001).

The reasons cited for cheating are varied, but Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper believe that a

cognitive process is responsible for planned cheating, a category of cheating that is premeditated

and viewed as more dishonest than panic cheating which is spur-of-the- moment cheating (as

cited in Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006). There is likely an increased social stigma

associated with planned cheating because of the deliberateness of the act. Social norms tend to

influence the behavior of individuals, and a support system of peers would actually encourage

cheating which could evolve into a culture of cheating on campuses (Grijalva et al., 2006). An

attitude could even develop that academic dishonesty is a normal, expected behavior (Grijalva et

al., 2006). Chapman, Davis, Toy, and Wright (2004) discovered that cheating is more likely

between friends rather than between acquaintances.

People tend to rationalize their cheating in the classroom, the work place, in relationships,

or with regards to taxes and insurance because their definitions of ethics are based on their

personal frames of reference (James, 2002). Many students, therefore, may feel that cheating is

not necessarily wrong. Many examples can be cited which express opposite opinions regarding

certain behaviors. Athletes use performance-enhancing drugs to improve their game—many

agree that this is wrong; others think that use should be a personal choice. The issue of abortion

is debated by proponents and opponents, and laws vary according to people’s choices. Some

individuals favor therapeutic marijuana use, while others oppose the use. Some students think

that checking a few answers in the textbook while completing an online exam is acceptable, and

others view this as cheating. Even instructors have different opinions regarding what constitutes

acceptable behavior while completing online tests. Some instructors allow one attempt for each
 Academic Honesty 4

exam; other instructors allow unlimited access to exams. These instructors would argue that

their methods of evaluation lead to achievement of learning.

Students tend to rationalize cheating by denying the occurrence of cheating, blaming

others, and condemning the accusers, according to McCabe (as cited in Keith-Spiegel & Whitley,

2001). Studies support the belief that older stude nts cheat less than younger stude nts, s tude nts

enrolled in large lecture courses rather than small courses tend to cheat more because monitoring

is difficult, students at small liberal arts colleges tend to cheat less than their larger university

counterparts because of a closer rapport with their instructors, and that cheating related to gender

is about equal (Keith-Spiegel& Whitley, 2001). Studies also have shown that students with

lower GPAs cheat more frequently than students with higher GPAs (Keith-Spiegel & Whitley,

2001). A 1999 study by McCabe et al. identified the following factors that can influence

cheating:

Pressure to get high grades, parental pressures, a desire to excel, pressure to get a

job, laziness, a lack of responsibility, a lack of character, poor self- image, a lack

of pride in a job well done, and a lack of personal integrity (as cited in Keith-

Spiegel & Whitley, p. 228).

Online Dishonesty

Academic misconduct includes any type of cheating which relates to plagiarism,

falsification of data, providing false information to an instructor, obtaining unauthorized

assistance, preventing others from completing their work, and fraud relating to academic

endeavors (Wikipedia, 2009).

Studies are inconclusive as to the degree of academic dishonesty in online classes or

whether cheating is more prevalent than in traditional classrooms; however, students and
 Academic Honesty 5

instructors perceive that dishonesty is increased in online settings. Neil Rowe (2004) argues that

cheating online is easier and, therefore, the temptation is greater to cheat. Stude nts find

numerous ways to cheat in the online setting. Some of the more prevalent ways are text

plagiarism using the Internet, impersonating a student, using spyware, sniffer, and forensic

computer software to view and steal the work of others, obtaining the instructor’s password in

order to change grades, breaking the connection to the server in order to have tests reset, and

collaborating on tests (Rowe, 2004).

Computer users could be grouped according to their perception of the usefulness of

computers and whether they possess computer confidence or anxiety relating to their skills

(Koohang, 1989). Many students are technologically savvy and have the ability to create

opportunities to cheat. Others have only minimal skills required to complete an online course so

cheating would not be done using computer knowledge but rather submitting the work of

someone else.

Computers have made cheating easier in some regards because copying and pasting can

be done with little effort. Students often do not stop and think that this is plagiarism. Most

would agree that buying a paper prepared by someone else or from Web paper mills is dishonest,

but few recognize the many situations in which the work of other people can be inappropriately

used, such as downloading a song from the Internet rather than buying the artist’s CD, copying a

picture or graphic that is not in the public domain to use in a brochure, or using the words or

thoughts of another without giving credit to the author. Texting via cell phones, graphic

calculators, and palm pilots can be used by students to transfer information during exams in bo th

traditional and online classes (Adkins, Kenkel & Lim, n.d.). Not only does the instructor need to

monitor the classroom for overt means of cheating but digital dishonesty as well. Panic cheating,
 Academic Honesty 6

according to Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper is less of a problem online than in traditional

classrooms, simply because students do not have the opportunity for panic cheating (as cited in

Grijalva et al., 2006). Online cheating must be planned, and unless the student is knowledgeable

about the technology, cheating may not be possible in many cases.

Rowe (2004) identifies the following three problems associated with cheating in online

assessments: (1) obtaining the answers in advance, (2) retaking assessments unfairly, and (3)

receiving unauthorized help during the test. To prevent the first problem, a pool of questions

should be created from which the test questions are selected, and tests should be updated every

time the course is offered. Students will often contact the online instructor asking that a test be

reset due to a power interruption, technical difficulties with the course management system, or

because they “accidentally” submitted the test before its completion. These scenarios present

unfair advantages to this group of students. How often a test is reset for each student should be

strictly limited. Students at the same address taking the same class have increased opportunity

for unauthorized collaboration.

Prevention of Online Cheating

Studies have shown that institutions with honor code s in place tend to have less cheating

among the stude nts than institutions without honor code s (Keith-Spiegel & Whitley, 2001).

However, K eith-Spiegel and Whitley (2001) stress that a truly effective honor system must be

embedded in the culture of the institution and emphasis must be placed on integrity within the

system whether or not an honor code is in place. Stude nts who feel that they are pa rt of an

environment which places value on trust among faculty and students rather than a fear of

punishment are more likely to conduct themselves with integrity and honesty in academic

endeavors (Keith-Spiegel & Whitley, 2001). Creating a n ethical community on campuses which
 Academic Honesty 7

includes clear understanding of rules and expectations, moral behavior, and mutual respect

among stude nts and faculty encourages honesty in the classroo ms (Keith-Spiegel & Whitley,

2001).

Traditional methods of deterring cheating such as random seating arrangements and

proctoring are not conducive to online classes because of the lack of face-to-face meetings.

Teachers are challenged to find successful means of ensuring academic integrity in the online

environment. Carneval be lieves that with the advancements in computer technology, not only do

students find more efficient ways to cheat but teachers also have more tools to identify and

counter academic dishonesty (as cited in Adkins et al., n.d.). More optimistic views support the

opinion that cheating may not be as easy online, resulting in less cheating overall (Adkins, et al.,

n.d)

McMurtry (2001) suggests eight possible deterrents to e-cheating: (1) establish and

explain an academic honesty policy, (2) design writing assignments which suppor t specific goals,

(3) explore available online resources before assigning a paper, (4) allow adequate time for the

assignment, (5) require oral presentation of assignment, (6) have assignments submitted

electronically to be archived, (7) require citations and check them, and (8) consider plagiarism

search services.

Rowe (2004) includes six additional ways to combat online dishonesty: (1) encourage

honesty by defining cheating, (2) safeguard passwords and keep hard copies of grades, (3) utilize

proctored assessments, (4) prohibit all handheld devices, (5) disable printers, and (6) consider

entrapment measures such as planting a fake test. Establishing an honor code encourages

integrity among students, but typically ethical principles are more rigidly ingrained in older

students who are found more frequently in online classes (Rowe, 2004). Instructors should
 Academic Honesty 8

include warnings about plagiarism and cheating on syllabi, including a link to the institution’s

policy, so that students have a clear understanding of expectations and penalties which would be

imposed if the policy is violated (Krsak, 2007). By expressing ethical expectations, academic

dishonesty may be curbed to an extent. Often students do not wish to disappo int their instructor

nor do they desire the consequences assoc iated with cheating.

Many students express opinions concerning classroom management which would create a

more honest environment, such as unde rstanding course expectations and c heating po licies,

assuming classroom responsibilities, exhibiting suppo rtive interaction with students, stressing

fairness, focusing on learning instead of grades, and assigning interesting and nontrivial

assignments (Keith-Spiegel & Whitley, 2001). Increased interaction among stude nts and

instructors in the online setting establishes a professional relationship, creating an environment

which discourages cheating. By discussing expectations and creating alternative applications of

learning, students do not feel the need to cheat for grades.

Open book tests designed for searching information and applying the knowledge is one

solution to online testing problems. A combination of traditional paper-and-pencil testing with

online testing may lessen the problem of cheating, but constant testing may prevent the student

from digesting the material and often creates a climate of distrust (Rowe, 2004). The desire is to

ensure a long-term effect of learning for the student, not short-term; hence, final exams are

critical for evaluating overall understanding of content (Rowe, 2004). Validating student

knowledge is essential because educational institutions must protect their reputations and

accreditations by assessing learning o utcomes of their students and ensuring that students are

completing their own work (Rowe, 2004). Convincing students that cheating is not allowed is
 Academic Honesty 9

essential and will be met with strong consequences; furthermore, faculty who a llege that cheating

has occurred must be supported (Keith-Spiege l & Whitley, 2001).

Keith-Spiegel and Whitley (2001, p. 234) agree on four factors which influence student

cheating and have intervention potential—“motivation, perceived social norms, attitudes toward

cheating, a nd k nowledge of institutional po licy regarding cheating.” Intrinsic and extrinsic goals

determine how dr iven students are to succeed and whether cheating will play a role in that

decision. When students want to learn specific skills at the mastery level, the desire to work

independently is greater than the desire to cheat for grades. Peers continue to have a tremendous

influe nce on be havior, includ ing cheating and o ther negative be havior, for instance alcohol use

was decreased through peer interventions (Keith-Spiegel & Whitley, 2001).

McCabe and Trevino discovered that faculty members often are hesitant to enforce rules

relating to academic integrity because cheating is extremely difficult to prove (as cited in Adkins

et al., n.d.). Teachers should strive to ensure that every student has the opportunity to succeed

with proper guidance and without the need to cheat. The learning environment should be

conducive to individual learning styles and needs. Focus should be on methods of delivering

instructional content which requires application of knowledge. Developing course objectives

requiring specific mastery and then communicating those expectations to students will aide in

learning. Instructors must also identify inappropriate or unacceptable behavior in the learning

process, explaining e xplicitly that cheating will result in serious penalties (Christie, 2003).

Areas requiring attention online are the syllabus, content, instructor/student relationship,

assessment design, and monitoring course activity (Christie, 2003). Specifically, discussion

should ensue between student and teacher regarding the relevance of course materials and

desired outcomes of the learning (Christie, 2003). Students should also understand that tracking
 Academic Honesty 10

tools are available within course management programs to guarantee that they are accessing the

content and completing assignments regularly. Tracking allows instructors to closely monitor

the activity on the course site by the students. Students should also realize that national

examina tions exist in many areas of study and are routinely required by many businesses. More

and more national certifications are expected of graduates of technical and skill programs. This

method de termines that the graduates of the programs are well trained and able to pe rform in the

workplace.

Deadlines force students to participate in a timely manner and to submit work on a

regular basis. Technology is available, but reliability should be ensured before incorporating the

technology into the online courses. If links do not work, for example, students become frustrated

and may seek alternative means of completing assignments. Students, once introduced to the

technology available, should be able to focus on the content and submission of assignments and

realize the importance of each assignment.

Teachers should rework each class each semester to prevent students from copying work

from former students (Christies, 2003). That instructors monitor all activities within the online

setting is imperative, and they may even consider creating a fake student to gain access to

discussions and information sharing among the class members.

Effects of Cheating

Cheating affects faculty, students, and institutions in many ways. Faculty members

experience feelings of disappo intment and failure. The main reason individuals teach is to

increase knowledge, and cheating decreases knowledge because all students do not learn the

material presented (Wikipedia, 2009). Teachers often blame themselves and wonder why their

students would be dishonest in their academic dealings. One survey claims that 77 pe rcent of
 Academic Honesty 11

teachers believe that dealing with cheating is one of the most burdensome aspects of the job

(Wikipedia, 2009).

Stude nts who engage in cheating are more likely to cheat in the future, putting them on

the path to a life of duplicity (Wikipedia, 2009). Potential employers find themselves in the

situation of not knowing whether graduates are skilled or ha ve de ficient knowledge required to

work; thus all graduates generally earn less than if their true skill level is known (Wikipedia,

2009) . This adversely affects all graduates whether they cheated in college or not. A

relationship between unethical behavior in the educational setting and unethical behavior in the

work place is probable. If a student cheats in the traditional or online setting, an unfavorable

recommendation for employment is likely. While instructors cannot force morality on students,

ethical behavior and integrity should be expected in any educational setting. Beliefs concerning

values will dictate students’ opinions regarding what is right and wrong.

Academic misconduct affects the institution by undermining the reputation. When

stude nts see others cheat and are not punished, the prevailing c limate is one of negativism and

disinclination to work on their own. Neither donors nor future students are attracted to these

institutions. Accreditation may also be lost as a result of the lack of student success in

completing programs of study. Ultimately, cheating in academia undermines the entire process.

Dishonesty interferes with the basic premise of education which is to expand knowledge, by

allowing stude nts to get by without mastery of subject matter (Wikipedia, 2009 ).

Conclusion

Teachers are expected to create a learning environment where dishonesty is discouraged

and where the value of honest work and ethical be havior are instilled in s tude nts so that these

attributes will carry over into careers. O nline instruction is a viable educational process with
 Academic Honesty 12

obvious concerns regarding academic dishonesty in addition to the amount of time and cost

associated with course development. If students want to cheat, they will do so regardless of

whether the class is in a traditional setting or online. Perhaps society does not put enough

emphasis on values, ethics, and integrity. When stude nts see others cheat and reap no negative

consequences, they may decide that cheating is acceptable. According to Hartsell and Yuen

(2003), cheating cannot be completely eradicated regardless of venue, but this should not deter

the use of online exams because of the many advantages offered through this media. The focus

of any course delivery should be on student achievement and ensuring that an ethical

environment is maintained for all students.

 Academic Honesty 13

References

Adkins, J., Kenkel, C. & Lim, C. L. (n.d.). Deterrents to online academic dishonesty. The

Journal of Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from

http://jwpress.com/JLHE/Issues/v1i1/Deterrents%20to%20O nline%20Academic%20Dis

honesty.pd f

Chapman K., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2004). Academic integrity in the business school

environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing

Education, 26, 236-249.

Christie, B. (2003). Designing online courses to discourage dishonesty. Educause Quarterly.

54-57.

Grijalva, T. C., Nowell, C. & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College

Student Journal, 40(1), 180-185.

Hartsell, T. S. & Yuen, S. C. (2003). Developing online exams. American Technical Education

Association Journal. 30(4), 12-14.

James, M. S. (2002). Are you ethical? The truth isn’t exactly clear: politics, circumstances,

excuses can blur what is right. ABC News. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=89985

Keith-Spiegel, P. & Whitley, B. E. (2001). Academic dishonesty: a special issue of ethics and

behavior. Ethics & Behavior. 2(3), 219-232.

Koohang, A. A. (1989). A study of attitudes toward computers: anxiety, confidence, liking, and

perception of usefulness. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(2),

137-150.
 Academic Honesty 14

Krsak, A. M. (2007) Curbing academic dishonesty in online courses. ETEC: TCC 2007

Proceedings. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from

http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2007/krsak.pd f

McMurtry, K. (2001). E-cheating: combating a 21st century challenge. The Journal. Retrieved

October 17, 2008, from http://www.thejournal.com/the/printarticle/?id=15675

Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: beyond plagiarism. Online Journal

of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2), 1-10.

Wikipedia. (2009). Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty