ERIC EJ720381: It Takes a Village: Academic Dishonesty & Educational Opportunity

2005·1 MB·English

by  ERIC

It Takes a Village
Academic Dishonesty
DONALD L. MCCABE
FORTHELASTFIFTEENYEARS,I have researched The problem
questions of academic integrity. My initial in- In the fall of 1990, I surveyed students at
terest in these questions was driven by my own thirty-one of the country’s most competitive
experience as an undergraduate at Princeton colleges and universities (McCabe and
University in the mid-1960s. Graduating from Trevino 1993). Fourteen institutions had tra-
a high school where cheating was common, I ditional academic honor codes, and seventeen
C
I was particularly intrigued by one item I re- did not, having chosen instead to “control”
P
ceived among the blizzard of forms and papers student dishonesty through such strategies as
O
T Princeton sent me as I prepared to matricu- the careful proctoring of exams. From the more
late: information about the Princeton honor than six thousand students who responded,
D
E code. I was informed that exams would be un- I learned several important lessons.
R proctored; that, on every exam, I would have The incidence of cheating was higher than
U
to affirm that I had not cheated or seen any- I expected, and many students were quite
T
A one else cheat by signing a pledge (which I can willing to admit their transgressions. For ex-
E still recite verbatim almost forty years aftermy ample, 47 percent of students attending a
F
graduation); and that all alleged violations of school with no honor code reported one or
the code would be ad- more serious incidents of test or exam cheat-
dressed by a student ing during the past year, as did 24 percent of
honor committee. Although somewhat skep- students at schools with honor codes. While
If we truly believe tical in light of my high school experience, I such comparisons would seem to support the
headed off to Princeton confident I would do power of honor codes, it was not the code it-
in our role
my part to uphold this seventy-year-old tradi- self that was the most critical factor. Rather,
as educators,
tion. Apparently, the overwhelming majority the student culture that existed on campus
we would do better of my classmates felt the same way. During my concerning the question of academic integrity
to view most four years at Princeton, I never observed, sus- was more important. The existence of a code
pected, or heard of anyone cheating, although did not always result in lower levels of cheat-
instances of
surely there were at least some minor trans- ing. More importantly, the converse was also
cheating as
gressions of the code. true: some campuses achieved high levels of
educational When I returned to academia after more integrity without an honor code. While these
opportunities than twenty years in the corporate world, campuses were doing many of the same things
where I witnessed at firsthand the continuous as campuses with codes—e.g., making academic
erosion in the ethical values of recent college integrity a clear campus priority and placing
graduates, I was intrigued by the opportunity much of the responsibility for student integrity
to conduct meaningful research on academic on the students themselves—they did not use
integrity. I was particularly curious to see a pledge and they did not mandate unproctored
whether campus honor codes were still a vi- exams. What was important was the culture
able strategy and to explore the impact they of academic integrity to which incoming
were having on a new generation of students. students were exposed.
While I remain a strong advocate of honor Many of the students I surveyed were trou-
codes, my thinking about academic integrity bled by the failure of their institution, and often
has evolved over the last fifteen years—often its faculty, to address the issue of cheating.
in surprising ways. Because they believed that weak institutional
policies and unobservant or unconcerned
DONALD L. MCCABE is professor of management faculty were “allowing” others to cheat and,
and global business at Rutgers University and thereby, to gain an unfair advantage, students
founding president of the Center for Academic viewed cheating as a way to level the playing
Integrity. field. This was a particular problem on large
26 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER/FALL 2005
& Educational Opportunity
campuses and in courses with large enroll- schools. For example, 39 percent of students Rutgers
ments—environments where, arguably, it is completing the 1963 survey acknowledged University
harder to establish a strong, positive commu- one or more incidents of serious test or exam
nity culture. cheating; by 1993, this had grown to 64 per-
In 1993 (McCabe and Trevino 1996), I sur- cent. Based on student responses to the 1993
veyed nine medium to large universities that, survey, however, it was difficult to tell how
thirty years earlier, had participated in the much of this change represented an actual in-
landmark study of college cheating conducted crease in cheating, and how much was simply
by William Bowers (1964). Bowers’s project a reflection of changing student attitudes
surveyed over five thousand students on about cheating. In 1993, many students sim-
ninety-nine campuses across the country and ply did not see cheating as a big deal, so it was
provided considerable insight on how often easier to acknowledge—especially in an
students were cheating and why. Two out- anonymous survey.
comes of my 1993 project are particularly Second, there was no change in the inci-
noteworthy in comparison to Bowers’s results. dence of serious cheating on written work; 65
First, there were substantial increases in self- percent of students in 1963 acknowledged
reported test and exam cheating at these nine such behavior, and 66 percent did so in 1993.
SUMMER/FALL 2005 LIBERAL EDUCATION 27
However, student comments in the 1993 survey Of concern to whom?
C
I suggested that this younger generation of Each campus constituency tends to shift the
P
students was more lenient in defining what “blame” for cheating elsewhere. This is a major
O
T constitutes plagiarism. Although survey ques- problem. Many students argue, with some jus-
tions were worded to ask students about a spe- tification, that campus integrity policies are
D
E cific behavior, without labeling it as cheating, ill-defined, outdated, biased against students,
R more than a trivial number of students in and rarely discussed by faculty. They also fault
U
1993 said they had not engaged in a particular faculty who look the other way in the face of
T
A behavior, while providing an explanation of obvious cheating. They are even more critical
E why the instances in which they actually had of faculty who, taking “the law” into their own
F
done so were not cheating. The ethics of hands when they suspect cheating, punish
cheating is very situational for many students. students without affording them their “rights”
Just as technology has enabled new forms of under the campus integrity policy. Many faculty
cheating that are becoming popular with stu- believe that these campus policies are overly
dents, that same technology has made it easier bureaucratic and legalistic and that they often
to reach large numbers of students in surveys. find “guilty” students innocent. Some faculty
Since 2001, I have been conducting Web-based argue that they are paid to be teachers, not
surveys that make it possible to reach an entire police, and that, if students have not learned
campus population with relative ease. However, the difference between right and wrong by the
many students are concerned that it is easier to time they get to college, it’s not their job to
identify the source of electronically submitted teach them—especially in a publish-or-perish
surveys, so they elect either not to participate or world. Although the evidence suggests other-
to do so while being cautious about what they wise, many also believe it’s too late to change
say. While it is hard to get people to be honest student behavior at this point.
about their dishonesty in any circumstances, it Faculty also complain about administrators
is even harder to get them to do so when they who fail to support them in the face of what
are concerned about the anonymity of their re- they perceive as obvious cases of cheating. They
sponses. This is reflected in notably lower rates complain about administrators who, at least in
of self-reported cheating in Web surveys and the minds of some faculty, are more concerned
lower levels of participation (as low as 10–15 with whether the student is a star athlete, the
percent on average compared to 25–35 percent child of a major donor, or has achieved some
for written surveys in this project). other favored status. Of course, many adminis-
Nonetheless, in these Web surveys of over trators can detail a litany of the ways in which
forty thousand undergraduates on sixty-eight they think faculty shirk their responsibilities in
campuses in the United States and Canada, the area of academic integrity. Still others com-
conducted over the last two academic years, 21 plain that students are only concerned with
percent of respondents have acknowledged at grades; how they obtain those grades is less
least one incident of serious test or exam cheat- important for many.
ing, and 51 percent have acknowledged at least The most appropriate response to student
one incident of serious cheating on written cheating depends in large part on the goals of
work. Although most had engaged in other the institution. If the primary goal is simply to
cheating behaviors as well, four out of every reduce cheating, then there are a variety of
five students who reported they had cheated on strategies to consider, including increased proc-
a written assignment acknowledgedthat they toring, encouraging faculty to use multiple ver-
had engaged in some form of Internet-related sions of exams and not to recycle old tests and
cheating—either cut-and-paste plagiarism exams, aggressively using plagiarism detection
from Internet sources or submitting a paper software, and employing stronger sanctions to
downloaded or purchased from a term-paper punish offenders. But while such strategies are
mill or Web site. Although the self-reported likely to reduce cheating, I can’t imagine many
rates of cheating found in these Web surveys people would want to learn in such an environ-
are lower than in earlier surveys, they clearly ment. As educators, we owe our students more
are still of concern. In addition, the difference than this, especially when cheating may reflect
may relate more to research methodology cynicism about what they perceive as eroding
than to any real change. moral standards in the academy and in society.
28 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER/FALL 2005
The ethics
Today’s students seem to be of cheating is values to students by the stan-
C
less concerned with what ad- very situational dards they set for themselves.” I
P
ministrators and/or faculty In setting standards, faculty
for many students O
consider appropriate behavior have a particularly important T
and much more concerned role to play; students look to
D
with the views and behavior of their peers. them for guidance in academic matters—not E
Students do expect to hear the president, the just to their peers. In particular, to help stu- R
U
provost, a dean, or some other official tell dents appropriately orient themselves and de-
T
them during orientation how they are about velop an appropriate mental framework as A
to become academic “adults,” adults who re- they try to make sense of their college experi- E
F
spect the learning process and who, among ence, faculty must recognize and affirm acade-
other things, don’t cheat. And many students mic integrity as a core institutional value.
want to hear this message. But it’s clear from Without such guidance, cheating makes sense
student comments in my surveys that the real for many students as they fall back on strategies
“proof” for students is in the behavior of their they used in high school to negotiate heavy
peers and the faculty. Regardless of the campus work loads and to achieve good grades.
integrity policy, if students see others cheating, One of the most important ways faculty can
and faculty who fail to see it or choose to ignore help is by clarifying their expectations for ap-
it, they are likely to conclude that cheating is propriate behavior in their courses. Although
necessary to remain competitive. Many students faculty certainly have the primary responsibil-
ask, “if faculty members aren’t concerned ity here, they should share this responsibility
about cheating, why should I be?” with students. Not only does such “consulta-
tion” result in policies in which students feel a
It takes a village greater degree of ownership and responsibility,
I have always been intrigued by the African but it also helps to convince students they truly
tribal maxim that it takes a village to raise a are partners in their own education. Nonethe-
child. In a similar sense, I would argue it takes less, faculty do have a unique and primary role
the whole campus community—students, fac- to play in the classroom, and it is incumbent
ulty, and administrators—to effectively edu- upon them not only to minimize opportunities
cate a student. If our only goal is to reduce to engage in academic dishonesty (even if only
cheating, there are far simpler strategies we out of fairness to honest students) but also to
can employ, as I have suggested earlier. But if respond in some way when cheating is sus-
we have the courage to set our sights higher, pected. While some may argue over the most
and strive to achieve the goals of a liberal edu- appropriate response, it is essential that there
cation, the challenge is much greater. Among be someresponse. As noted earlier, students
other things, it is a challenge to develop stu- suggest that faculty who do nothing about what
dents who accept responsibility for the ethical appears to be obvious cheating simply invite
consequences of their ideas and actions. Our more of the same from an ever-increasing
goal should not simply be to reduce cheating; number of students who feel they are being
rather, our goal should be to find innovative “cheated” by such faculty reluctance.
and creative ways to use academic integrity as While faculty can do much to improve the
a building block in our efforts to develop more climate of academic integrity in their campus
responsible students and, ultimately, more re- “villages,” they should not be expected to
sponsible citizens. Our campuses must become shoulder this burden alone. University admin-
places where the entire “village”—the commu- istrators need to look more carefully at the
nity of students, faculty, and administrators— role they play. The Center for Academic In-
actively works together to achieve this goal. tegrity at Duke has encouraged, and helped,
As Ernest Boyer observed almost two decades many campuses to examine their academic
ago (Boyer 1987, 184), “integrity cannot be integrity policies, yet there are still many
divided. If high standards of conduct are ex- schools that have not reviewed their policies
pected of students, colleges must have impec- in decades. Instead of reacting to an increas-
cable integrity themselves. Otherwise the ingnumber of faculty complaints about Inter-
lessons of the ‘hidden curriculum’ will shape net plagiarism by simply subscribing to a
the undergraduate experience. Colleges teach plagiarism detection service, for example,
SUMMER/FALL 2005 LIBERAL EDUCATION 29
perhaps these schools should take a more When more faculty take such actions, stu-
C
I comprehensive look at their integrity policies. dents who cheat sense they are more likely to
P
While some may decide that plagiarism detec- be caught, and the overall level of cheating on
O
T tion software is an appropriate component of campus is likely to decline. Administrators,
their integrity policy, I trust many more will especially student and judicial affairs person-
D
E conclude that it’s time to abandon their almost nel, can then devote more of their time and
R exclusive reliance on deterrence and punish- resources to proactive strategies. For example,
U
ment and to look at the issue of academic dis- several schools have developed mini-courses
T
A honesty as an educational opportunity as well. that are commonly part of the sanction given
E Over the last fifteen years, I have become to first-time violators of campus integrity poli-
F
convinced that a primary reliance on deter- cies; others have devoted resources to promot-
rence is unreasonable and that, if we truly be- ing integrity on campus, rather than investing
lieve in our role as educators, we would do further in detection and punishment strategies.
better to view most instances of cheating as A common outcome on campuses implement-
educational opportunities. While strong sanc- ing such strategies is a greater willingness on
tions clearly are appropriate for more serious the part of faculty to report suspected cheat-
forms of cheating, it’s also clear that most stu- ing. They view sanctions as more reasonable,
dent cheating is far less egregious. What, for designed to change behavior in positive ways,
example, is an appropriate sanction for a stu- demonstrating to students that inappropriate
dent who cuts and pastes a few sentences from behavior does have ethical consequences. As
a Web site on the Internet without citation? students quickly learn that second offenses
In some cases, this behavior occurs out of ig- will be dealt with much more strongly, in-
norance of the rules of citation or is motivated creased reporting also serves as an effective
by a student’s failure to properly budget his or deterrent to continued cheating.
her time. In a last minute effort to complete Of course, the most effective solution to
the two papers s/he has due that week, as well student cheating is likely to vary from campus
as study for a test on Friday, s/he panics. If the to campus, depending on the unique campus
student is a first-time “offender,” what’s the culture that has developed over the course of
educational value of a strong sanction? a school’s history. Indeed, no campus is likely
Having decided that sanctions do little to reach the ideal state where the proactive
more than to permanently mar a student’s strategies I have described are sufficient in
record, an increasing number of schools are and of themselves. Rather, some balance of
taking a more educational approach to acade- punishment and proactive strategies will be
mic dishonesty. They are striving to imple- optimal on each campus and, although that
ment strategies that will help offending optimum will vary from campus to campus,
students understand the ethical consequences punishment will always have some role. The
of their behavior. These strategies seem often stakes are high for most college students to-
to be win-win situations. Faculty are more day, who think their entire future—their
willing to report suspected cheating, or to ad- chances of gaining admission to professional
dress it themselves, when they understand school, getting job interviews with the best
that educational rather than punitive sanc- companies recruiting on campus, etc.—de-
tions are likely to result. A common choice pends on a few key grades. It is, therefore, un-
now is to do nothing or to punish the student realistic to think that none will succumb to
privately, which makes it almost impossible to the temptation to cheat.
identify repeat offenders. On a growing num- Students, even the most ethical, want to
ber of campuses, however, faculty are being en- know that offenders will be punished so that
couraged to address issues of cheating directly other students will be deterred from engaging
with students. As long as the student acknowl- in similar behaviors. In fact, I am often sur-
edges the cheating and accepts the faculty prised by the comments many students offer
member’s proposed remedy, the faculty member in my surveys calling for stronger punishments
simply sends a notation to a designated party for students who engage in serious cheating.
and never gets involved with what many con- While they are willing to look the other way
sider the unnecessary bureaucracy and legalisms when someone engages in more trivial forms
of campus judicial systems. of cheating to manage a heavy workload, for
30 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER/FALL 2005
example, they are far less forgiving of students Rutgers C
who cheat in more explicit ways on major tests University I
P
or assignments. The difficult task for every
O
school is to find the appropriate balance be- T
tween punishment and proactive strategies
D
that deters students who would otherwise cheat E
when the opportunity arises yet that also works R
U
to build a community of trust among students
T
and between students and faculty, a campus A
community that values ethical behavior and E
F
where academic integrity is the norm.
The need to achieve some balance between
punishment and proactive strategies was well
summarized for me this spring when I made a
presentation at the Coast Guard Academy in
New London, Connecticut. A second class-
man who was listening to my emphasis on
proactive strategies suggested that, since stu-
dents see so much cheating in high school and
in the larger society, deterrence probably plays
an important role in reducing cheating in col-
lege. In his own case, he suggested that during
his first two years at the academy the biggest
factor in his decision not to cheat was fear of
the strong sanctions that existed and were of-
ten used. But during those two years, he was suggestions offered here may not work as well
also exposed to many proactive messages as other possible choices, I’m even more con-
about why integrity matters, especially in an vinced that any campus that has not reviewed
occupation where the lives of so many may its integrity policies for some time is derelict
depend on doing one’s job with integrity. He in its responsibilities to its students and likely
observed that he has now reached the point has a degree of discontent among its faculty.
where he wouldn’t think of cheating—no Perhaps even more important, it is depriving its
longer for fear of punishment, but because he students of an important learning opportunity
understands the importance of integrity. How- in the true liberal arts tradition. ■■
ever, for him, and perhaps for many other stu-
dents, those strong rules helped him learn To respond to this article, [email protected],
behaviors that he could later understand and with the author’s name on the subject line.
value for more idealistic reasons. No campus
may ever reach a truly ideal combination, but
deterrence and proactive strategies both REFERENCES
should play an important role in any academic Bowers, W. J. 1964. Student dishonesty and its control
integrity policy. in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Social
Research, Columbia University.
Boyer, E. L. 1987. College: The undergraduate experience
Do something in America. New York: Harper & Row.
It is impossible to know whether such propos- McCabe, D. L., and L. K. Trevino. 1996. What we
als will work on every campus. But to those know about cheating in college: Longitudinal
campuses that have doubts about the effec- trends and recent developments. Change 28, 28–33.
——. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and
tiveness of such strategies, I offer the same ad-
other contextual influences. Journal of Higher
vice I give students when they express
Education 64, 522–38.
concern about reporting peers they suspect of
cheating because of the fear of reprisal or be-
cause they believe sanctions on their campus
are too severe. Do something! While I’m sure
there are some campuses where the modest
SUMMER/FALL 2005 LIBERAL EDUCATION 31