Who is Cheating in Engineering and Why? A Research Talk March 28, 2007 Cindy Finelli, Ph.D. Managing...

Who is Cheating in Engineering and Why?

A Research Talk March 28, 2007

Cindy Finelli, Ph.D.Managing Director, CRLT North

Associate Research Scientist, Engineering Education

[email protected]

http://www.engin.umich.edu/research/e3/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.engin.umich.edu/research/e3/

March 28, [email protected]

Cheating is becoming a social norm

■ “The evidence is that a willingness to cheat has become the norm and that parents, teachers, coaches and even religious educators have not been able to stem the tide. The scary thing is that so many kids are entering the workforce to become corporate executives, politicians, airplane mechanics and nuclear inspectors with the dispositions and skills of cheaters and thieves.”

– Michael Josephson, President Josephson Institute of Ethics


Past research on cheating

■ Unethical behavior of high school youths is high (2006 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, The Josephson Institute) 60% admitted to cheating on an exam at least once in past year 35% admitted to cheating on an exam two or more times 62% lied to a teacher about something significant

■ Unethical behavior of “high achievers” is also high (1998 survey from Who's Who Among American High School Students) 80% admitted to some form of cheating 60% did not believe cheating was necessarily wrong


Past research on cheating

■ Consistently, more than 80% of undergraduate students have reported cheating at least once in college

■ Over time, severity of college cheating has increased Copying on an examination: 26% in 1963 (Bowers) 52% in

1993 (McCabe) Collaborating on assignments when it is specifically prohibited:

11% in 1963 49% in 1993■ “What concerns me ... is that students have a different

perspective on cheating now. Twenty or 30 years ago, they might have done it out of necessity but felt guilty about it. Today, there’s very little guilt.”

– Don McCabe


Cheating by engineering students

■ Engineering students self-report some of the highest cheating rates–up to 9 in 10 admit to cheating in college

Discipline Bowers (1964)

McCabe (1997)

Business 66% 91%

Engineering 58% 82%

Social Sciences 52% 73%

Physical/Natural Sciences 47% 71%

Humanities 39% –

■ Up to 23% admit to repetitive exam cheating


Implications of cheating

■ The learning process is undermined■ The validity of the assessment measures is damaged■ The ability of the institution to achieve its mission is

compromised■ Unethical behavior is likely in other contexts

Cheating in graduate or professional schooling Risky driving Theft from employers Shoplifting Alcohol and other substance abuse Cheating on taxes


The E3 Team

■ The core team Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan Don Carpenter, Lawrence Technological University Trevor Harding, California Polytechnic State University

■ Other current members of the team Eric Dey, School of Education, U-M Pat King, School of Education, U-M Matt Mayhew, New York University

■ Previous members of the team Susan Montgomery, Chemical Engineering, U-M Honor Passow, School of Education, U-M Nick Steneck, History, U-M


The E3 Team


Goals of the research

■ Increase integrity (i.e., reduce cheating) in engineering students Quantify frequency of and identify reasons for engineering

student cheating Identify similarities in the decision-making process regarding

cheating in college and violating workplace policies■ Understand (and influence) the decision-making process

Create a theoretical model with factors that influence the process

Use the model to develop practical methods to help students make better decisions

■ Improve the ethical development of engineering students

The PACES-1 Study


PACES-1 Study

■ Goal: Investigate general issues around cheating■ Instrument: 39 Scantron questions

Definitions and frequency of engagement in cheating activities Psychological and situational factors that might affect decisions

about cheating Deterrents to cheating and perception of their effectiveness Student demographics

■ Sample: 643 engineering and pre-engineering undergraduates from all class levels at 11 institutions United States, Puerto Rico, and Saudi Arabia Large publics, small privates, and community colleges


A quick aside

Percent who did this at least once:Overall sample

U-M sample

Cheated during high school 71% 79%

“Cheated” as a college student 93% 88%

Engaged in a specific act of cheating 3+ times 71% 58%

Copied from another student’s homework 59% 54%

Copied from another student on a test 31% 26%

Copied from crib sheet during closed-note test 25% 13%

Witnessed a case of cheating and didn’t report it 56% 35%


Major findings of PACES-1 Study

■ Many factors that influence students’ decisions about cheating vary by context (e.g., exam cheating and homework cheating) Overall model predicted 39% of the variance in exam cheating

but only 17% of the variance in homework cheating Year in college: seniors were more likely to report cheating on

exams than were others; but this was not true for homework Past cheating in high school and being on scholarship: both

were strong predictors of cheating on exams but not homework



■ Despite several differences, there are common factors (primarily psychological factors) that influence students’ decision to cheat in exam and homework contexts Moral obligation not to cheat was a unilateral deterrent Students who agreed they would cheat to alleviate stressful

situations were more likely to cheat in both contexts Gender, GPA, age, SES, most personal pressures, and grade

competition were not significant in either context



■ There is a clear relationship between definition of a behavior and self-reported engagement in that behavior Students who have a more “lax” definition toward a behavior

are, not surprisingly, more willing to engage in that behavior

Definition

Permitting another student to look at your answer during an exam

Cheating

(73%)

Unethical but not cheating

(23%)

Neither

(4%)

Percent who did it: 35% 67% 78%



■ Students often rationalize cheating behavior using instructor-based neutralizations (It is wrong to cheat if...) The instructor did an inadequate job of teaching the course The instructor wrote unfair exams The instructor did not grade fairly The instructor assigned too much material The instructor didn’t seem to care if I learned the material


Implications of PACES-1 Study

■ Context is important in issues related to cheating■ The most successful deterrents to cheating may involve

psychological factors such as moral obligation and shame

■ Individual instructors can take steps to minimize academic dishonesty by making sincere efforts to improve teaching and show concern for student learning

■ A theoretical model of the decision-making process could be useful in developing more effective strategies

The Work Experiences Study


Work Experiences Study (WES)

■ Goal: Examine factors that affect decisions about behaving unethically in the classroom and workplace

■ Instrument: 13-item questionnaire, students contemplate one classroom scenario when they were tempted to behave unethically and one workplace scenario Pressures to engage in the behavior Deterrents to engage in the behavior The ultimate decision

■ Sample: 130 engineering undergraduates at two technical private universities Average full-time employment = 6.8 months/previous year


Major findings of WES

■ Participation in past unethical behavior is a strong predictor of subsequent unethical behavior

Subsequent unethical behavior

Percent who did this:Did cheat in

college

Did violate workplace

policies

Past unethical behavior

Never cheated in high school 32% 38%

Cheated frequently in high school 62% 64%



■ There are common factors that influence an individual’s decision about engaging in unethical behaviors in the classroom and in the workplace Common pressures: insufficient resources, importance of

success, projection of blame (i.e., others “deserved it”) Common hesitations: moral obligation, conscience, risk of

detection or formal sanctions



■ The context in which the decision is made is important for both settings

Percent who did this: Academic setting Professional setting

Context #1Cheated on exam

< 15%Falsified records

< 55%

Context #2Cheated on homework

> 45%Used supplies improperly

> 70%


Implications of WES

■ Reducing current unethical behavior (i.e., college cheating) could result in less instances of future unethical behavior

■ Approaches designed to affect the ethical decision-making process in the college setting could extend to other settings if they are based on the common factors of the model

The PACES-2 Study


PACES-2 Study

■ Goal: Test a theoretical model of the ethical decision-making process used by undergraduates and investigate how it differs for engineering and humanities students

■ Instrument: PACES-2 Survey and DIT-2 Past behavior, college cheating, and student demographics Variables of the model (in exam and homework contexts) Measures of moral judgment

■ Sample: 527 undergraduates at three institutions 79% engineering, 11% humanities 60% first-year, 40% senior-level


A model of the decision-making process

Attitude Toward

Behavior

Perceived Behavioral

Control

Subjective Norm

Intention Behavior

Moral Obligation

Moral Reasoning

Demographics andPast Behavior



■ There are differences in college cheating rates between engineering and humanities students, and they are independent of the number of opportunities to cheat

Percent who did this: Humanities students

Engineering students

Cheated at least a few times they took tests during the previous term

18% 33%

Cheated at least a few times they worked on an assignment

36% 60%



■ Differences in cheating rates between engineering and humanities students exist only in college, not in high school Both groups reported cheating in high school at statistically

identical rates The historically higher rates of cheating reported by engineering

students are more likely a result of the curriculum or academic environment than any inherent difference between engineering students and students from other disciplines



■ The model is appropriate for understanding why students cheat The model explained 58% of the variance of intention to cheat

for both the exam and homework context It explained 39% and 27% of the variance in actual exam

cheating and homework cheating, respectively Additional contextual influences could further increase the

model’s ability to predict behavior


Implications of PACES-2 Study

■ The traditional engineering focus on knowledge application (vs. development of critical thinking skills) and the quantitative nature of exams and homework (vs. essays, reports, and projects in humanities) might create a different culture

■ Using teaching practices such as project-based learning to emphasize higher-order thinking skills and adopting assessment measures such as report writing and short answer assignments may be useful classroom strategies

Next steps


Next steps: The SEED Study

■ Goal: Develop practical strategies to improve ethics instruction at the undergraduate level, in turn resulting in a more ethical engineering profession

■ Strategy: Conduct a national assessment of formal and informal curricular experiences that positively influence the ethical development of engineering undergraduates in the United States

■ Funding: Four-year NSF grant for > $850K


Next steps: The SEED Study

■ Conduct focus groups with faculty, students, and administrators at 16 diverse institutions nationwide

■ Create an inventory of educational experiences that may affect ethical development

■ Design a survey to assess the impact of various factors on ethical development

■ Administer the survey at 16 institutions to a total of 4,000+ engineering undergraduates at all class levels

■ Identify and disseminate approaches that have the most positive impact on ethical development

Strategies for the classroom


Promoting academic integrity

■ Punishment—focus on penalties Pros: Requires little effort Cons: Creates a hostile environment, not every student is

caught, promotes better cheaters

■ Prevention—create an environment that fosters trust, conveys clear expectations, and educates students about integrity Pros: All students learn importance of academic integrity,

students feel they are treated equally Cons: Takes significant effort, requires buy-in of entire

community


Practical suggestions

■ Classroom environment Make efforts to teach well and to show concern for student

learning Emphasize higher-order thinking skills Discuss integrity and its importance in school and elsewhere Carefully define what does and does not constitute cheating

(and empower students to assist in defining it) Clearly and consistently implement the honor code


Practical suggestions

■ Homework Adopt policies (and make them clear) that address homework

cheating Organize cooperative learning groups Provide enough time for students to complete the assignments

■ Testing Provide equity in study materials Write fair and relevant exams Allow open books or reference sheets for tests

Who is Cheating in Engineering and Why? A Research Talk March 28, 2007 Cindy Finelli, Ph.D. Managing...

Documents

Transcript of Who is Cheating in Engineering and Why? A Research Talk March 28, 2007 Cindy Finelli, Ph.D. Managing...