Intellectual Honesty in the Electronic Age

John Iliff and Judy Xiao

College of Staten Island

The City University of New York

Intellectual Honesty in the Electronic Age

An Age-Old Issue

In the 1896 H.G. Wells short story, A Slip Under the Microscope, protagonist William Hill, a poor cobbler’s son in college on a scholarship, thwarts his academic career by admitting to accidentally viewing a specimen under a microscope slide during a critical test. The rules were such that he was considered a cheater and expelled, even though he admitted to an honest accident. In contrast, the wealthy H.J. Somers Wedderburn got away with actual cheating during the same exercise, but he had no moral scruples and was rewarded with a pass (Wells, 2004). This story is over a century old, but the problems with cheating in higher education are very much the same. Many students strive to be honest, while some cheat and get away with it.

What is cheating? The Educational Testing Service provides a simple and yet informed definition: “claiming the work of another as one’s own.” (Educational Testing Service, 1999) One of the foremost experts on the issue is Dr. Don McCabe, Professor at Rutgers University and founding president of the Center for Academic Integrity. Dr. McCabe has interviewed thousands of students from high schools, small liberal arts colleges, and large universities throughout North America. In the process, Dr. McCabe found sixty-eight percent of students cheated at least once in schools with no honor codes, and forty-five percent claimed cheating on tests (Educational Testing Service, 1999).

In other studies, the numbers vary, but there appears to be a preponderance of cheating.
A study conducted by Who’s Who Among American High School Students revealed 80% of top students cheated (Educational Testing Service, 1999). In other studies, 40% to 70% of college students have cheated. (Davis, 2002)

The trend toward dishonesty seems to be increasing. One study reports, “About 20% of college students from across the nation admitted to cheating in high school in the 1940’s. That percentage has since soared, with no fewer than 75% and as many as 98% of 8000 college students surveyed reporting cheating in high school.” (Davis quoted in Educational Testing Service, 1999). With such large percentages of students reportedly cheating, it is not surprising a student was quoted recently on a U.S. national news program, saying, “You don't want to be a dork and study for eight hours a day. You want to go out and have fun.” (Gibson, 2004)

High Tech Cheating

Cheating can be as simple as a glancing over the shoulder, scribbling note on a gum wrapper, or paying someone to take a test or write a paper. With the dawn of the Internet and other digital technologies, cheating has taken on new forms. Plagiarism now gives rise to new businesses on the Internet. Web-based services offer ready-made papers for sale, with premium charges for custom creations. These sites include SchoolSucks.com, Evil House of Cheat, and Superior Term Papers (Herbeling, 2002). In response, other Internet businesses have sprouted to aid instructors in finding instances of plagiarism, such as TurnItIn.Com and CopyCatch (Humes, Stiffler, & Malsed, 2003).

With the addition of the Internet to the plagiarizer’s toolbox, it would seem new cheaters are being created as a result of this technology. According to one extensive survey, instances of using the Internet contributing to increased plagiarism are not significant (McCabe quoted in “New research,” 2000). Apparently, those who use the Internet to plagiarize also use other sources to cheat. The Internet may not be creating new cheaters so much as giving existing cheaters new tools and tricks. On the other hand, it is the authors’ experience, while anecdotal, that many of our colleagues are alarmed by the extent the Internet is being used as a source for plagiarized materials.

In addition to the Internet, technology also adds new vistas to in-class cheating. Cell phones and PDA’s provide a platform to share real time text messaging, adding a new angle to a note tossed not only from one side of a room to another, but also from one side of the campus or further beyond. With programmable calculators, PDA’s and other handheld intelligent devices, students can store notes, access websites, send e-mail, or grab ready-made formulas to ease calculations. Camera phones have also been reported as potential devices for cheating by scanning a test’s contents for later review (Kopacz, 2004). No gum wrapper or note tucked into a sleeve can compare to the storage and intelligence of these devices. In one news program, a journalist reported, “their techniques are so technologically sophisticated they say most professors just can’t keep up” (Gibson, 2004).

Why Students Cheat?

There are many reasons students cheat. As educators, we need to recognize the causes of cheating in order to address them (Weeks, 2001). However, cheating is often complex, with no clear or simple explanation (Park, 2003). In many respects it is as varied as those who cheat. The following list of common causes of cheating, compiled by Park (2003) “captures the multiple and contingent motives of plagiarism by students.”

1. Some students plagiarize unintentionally, when they do not know proper
   ways of quoting, paraphrasing, citing and referencing or when they are not
   clear about the meaning of ‘common knowledge’ and phrase like ‘in their
   own words’.
2. Some students cheat or plagiarize to get a better grade. They do not see the value in being honest when it may mean getting a lower grade.
3. There are many calls on student’s time, including peer pressure for an active social life, work, family responsibilities and pressure to complete multiple assignments in limited time.
4. Some students cheat because they have negative attitudes towards assignments and tasks that instructors think have meaning but they don’t (Howard, 2002).
5. Temptation and opportunity. It is easier and more tempting for students to cheat as information becomes more accessible on the Internet and search engines make it easier and quicker to find and copy.
6. Procrastination is another cause of plagiarism. Some students don’t do their research till their assignments are due.
7. Lack of deterrence. To some students the benefits of cheating outweigh the risks, particularly if they think there is little or no chance of getting caught and there is little or no punishment if they are caught (Davis & Ludvigson, 1995).

How to Prevent Cheating

As the reasons for cheating are so varied and complex, there does not appear to be a silver bullet that will stop this activity. However, many studies have offered good advice or demonstrated effective methods to help prevent and reduce academic dishonesty. These include:

• McCabe & Trevino (2002) found that implementing, promoting, and enforcing an academic honor code leads to a decline in cheating. However, they caution the codes should be under constant review as technology and other issues change the ethical landscape. They also warn that the process to create a “culture of academic integrity” resulting from implementation of the codes takes time and effort on the part of all stakeholders in higher education.
• Davis (1993) provides an excellent and simple checklist to cut down on cheating. These include:

Ø Clarify for students the criteria of assessments.

Ø Develop a climate of honesty.

Ø Look for heightened student stress and refer students for help accordingly

Ø Provide consistent and fair access to course materials.

Ø Confront academic dishonesty directly.

• Wankat & Oreovicz (2002) encourage prevention of plagiarism by explaining what plagiarism is. Many students don’t understand the nature of this form of cheating,
  and a description helps some to stop once they are better informed.
• In the web-based pedagogical aid Pointers and Clickers (1999), plagiarism prevention advice includes:

Ø Become aware of a student’s writing ability and note instances when writing ability changes.

Ø Devise writing assignments that are incremental, and have students submit work in steps.

Ø Make specific topic assignments; don’t assign broad and general topics.

• Pointers and Clickers (1999), further advises on test cheating prevention:

Ø Require IDs before examinations.

Ø For online assessments, deliver them via “chat”, debrief students following the tests, or make all tests “take-home” by nature.

• Kerkvliet & Sigmund (1999) estimate that intellectual dishonesty declines by 12% by announcing plainly “honesty is an enforced university policy.”
• LaVoie (2004) reports of instructors who maintain in-class integrity by not allowing caps, electronics, or even coats during a classroom test session.

Possibly the best prevention is ongoing awareness of trends and issues related to intellectual honesty. One excellent website is the Plagiarism Resource Site: http://www.plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/, which provides a list of plagiarism detection services as well as links to key sites addressing the topic of intellectual honesty (Bloomfield, 2004).

The Center for Academic Integrity (CAI): http://www.academicintegrity.org/ provides a wealth of information and important research on the topic, with an extensive list of links to honor codes. Most significantly, CAI offers a forum for academic institutions to address issues of intellectual honesty (“Center for Academic Integrity,” 2004).

Conclusion

Student cheating is very much with us and is a problem that is growing bigger. The Internet and other new techniques of cheating with electronic devices have only made student cheating faster and easier. As educators, we should focus more on plagiarism prevention than prosecution. We need to spend more time helping our students improve their research skills, teaching them what is right and fair and making sure that students understand what plagiarism is and how they can avoid it. Implementation and promotion of an honor code is also effective in preventing student cheating. While technology is changing the landscape of intellectual honesty, maintaining a culture of integrity will help keep intellectual honesty in academia largely intact.

References

Bloomfield, L. (2004). The plagiarism resource site Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Retrieved May 30, 2004, from, http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/links.html
Davis, B. G. (2002). Preventing academic dishonesty. Retrieved May 31, 2004,
from University of California Berkeley, Tools for Teaching Web site:
 http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/prevent.html

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

Educational Testing Service (1999). Academic cheating background. 

Retrieved May 3, 2004, from, http://www.glass-castle.com/clients/www-nocheating-org/adcouncil/research/cheatingbackgrounder.html
Gibson, C. (Reporter). (2004, April 29). Primetime live. Caught cheating. 

[Television broadcast]. New York: American Broadcasting Companies.

Heberling, M. (2002). Maintaining academic integrity in online education. Online

Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1). Retrieved May 27, 2004,
from, http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/heberling51.html

Howard, R. M. (2002). Don’t police plagiarism; just teach! Education Digest,
67 (5), 46-50.

Humes, C., Stiffler, J., & Malsed, M. (2003). Examining anti-plagiarism software: choosing the right tool. Retrieved June 9, 2004, from Claremont McKenna College, FITness Fluency in Technology Web site:
 http://writing.claremontmckenna.edu/Examining Anti.htm
 
Kerkvliet, J. & Sigmund, C. L. (1999). Can we control cheating in the classroom?
 Research in Economic Education, 30(4), 331-343.

Kopacz, K. (2004, February 13). Cheating could rise with phones. Digital collegian.

Retrieved May 29, 2004, from, http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/02/02-13-04tdc/02-13-04dnews-13.asp

LaVoie, M. (2004, April 30). Can cheating be defined? Universitydaily.net.
Retrieved May 17, 2004, from, http://www.universitydaily.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/30/4091cfbccbdd5

?in_archive=1

McCabe, D. & Trevino, L.K. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1), 37-42.

New research on academic integrity: The success of “modified” honor codes (2000).

Retrieved July 24, 2004, from College Administration Publications Web site:

http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000515.shtml

Park, C. (2003, October). In Other (People’s) Words: plagiarism by university students – literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
28 (5), 479-480.

Pointers and clickers: Technology tip of the month (1999). Retrieved June 7, 2004,

 from Illinois Online Network Web site:
 http://illinois.online.uillinois.edu/pointers/1999_12.html

Wankat, P & Oreovicz, F. (2002). Teaching: Keeping students honest. ASEE prism

online, 12(1). Retrieved May 31, 2004, from, http://www.asee.org/prism/sept02/teaching.cfm

Weeks, S. (2001). Plagiarism: think before pointing finger of blame. Times Higher Education Supplement. 15 May, 24.

Wells, H.G. (2004). Project Gutenberg eBook, The Country of the Blind, And Other
 Stories, A slip under the microscope. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from
 http://www.gutenberg.net/1/1/8/7/11870/11870.txt