Cheating Academic Integrity. Группа авторов
2004 (n = 425) 2009 (n = 119) 2014 (n = 106) 2019 (n = 1099)
Next, I outline the methodologies of these studies. Then a graph is presented summarizing the aggregate percentages of students who engaged in any form of plagiarism or cheating at least once over time. In all cases, these studies collected self‐report data from college students. One common methodological evolution in each of the three studies was a transition from pencil‐and‐paper to online survey data collection as technology progressed.
Stiles et al. (2018)
The studies of Stiles et al. (2018) commenced with Haines et al.'s (1986) study in 1984 and used a questionnaire developed for that study. All survey participants were undergraduate students at Midwestern State University in Texas. Students in these studies answered the three questions listed below (1–3) using a response scale to indicate their frequency of ever cheating:
1 Have you ever cheated on a major exam?
2 Have you ever cheated on a daily or weekly quiz?
3 Have you ever cheated on a class assignment (i.e. term paper, lab assignment, homework assignment, etc.)?
A fourth item, “Have you ever helped someone else cheat?” was added in the 2014 survey. Cheating was measured on a 0 to 4 scale from low to high cheating, where 0 was “no,” and 1 or higher was coded as “yes”. Students who had ever engaged in any of the cheating behaviors listed above were counted as having cheated in order to estimate the total prevalence of cheating in each survey.
McCabe et al. (2012)
McCabe and colleagues’ work surveyed large groups of undergraduate and graduate students over multiple institutions and campuses. Some of the same institutions made the survey available to their students in several of the years in which data were collected. Students in these studies indicated their engagement in numerous types of cheating and plagiarism behaviors within the last year, based on Bowers's (1964) study, with nine behaviors (below) common across all times of testing.
1 Copying a few sentences of material without footnoting in a paper.
2 “Padding” a few items on a bibliography.
3 Plagiarized from public material on papers.
4 Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken the same exam.
5 Copying from another student on a test or exam.
6 Working on the same homework with several students when the teacher doesn't allow it.
7 Turned in papers done entirely, or in part, by other students.
8 Giving answers to other students during an exam.
9 Used crib notes during an exam.
Students who had ever engaged in any of the behaviors listed above were counted as having cheated/plagiarized to estimate the total prevalence of cheating/plagiarism in each survey.
Curtis and Tremayne (2021)
Curtis and Tremayne's (2021) studies were conducted at Western Sydney University, previously named the University of Western Sydney until 2015, and most participants were undergraduate students from this university, with some graduate students also surveyed. Students in these studies were presented with scenarios representing seven forms for plagiarism as defined by Walker (1998); see Table 2 (see also Maxwell et al., 2008).
Table 2 Types of plagiarism
| Type | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sham Paraphrasing | Material copied verbatim from text and source acknowledged in‐line but represented as paraphrased. |
| Illicit Paraphrasing | Material paraphrased from text without in‐line acknowledgement of source |
| Other Plagiarism | Material copied from another student's assignment with the knowledge of the other student |
| Verbatim Copying | Material copied verbatim from text without in‐line acknowledgement of the source |
| Recycling | Same assignment submitted more than once for different courses |
| Ghost Writing | Assignment written by a third party and represented as own work |
| Purloining | Assignment copied from another student's assignment or other person's papers without that person's knowledge |
Note: From Walker, J. (1998). ‘Student Plagiarism in Universities: What Are We Doing About It?’, Higher Education Research and Development, 17, p. 103. Copyright © HERDSA, reprinted by permission of Taylor and Francis Ltd.
Students were asked how frequently they had ever engaged in the behaviors described in each scenario using a 5‐point scale from 1 “never” through a range of frequencies to 5 “more than 7 times”. Students who had ever engaged in any of the plagiarism or cheating behaviors described in the scenarios were counted as having plagiarized/cheated to estimate the total prevalence of plagiarism/cheating in each survey.
Trends from the time‐lag studies
As you can see in Figure 1, the first two surveys from McCabe et al. (2012) in the early 1990s are the only hint of any increase in the percentage of students engaging in cheating or plagiarism; otherwise, the trend in the three lines on the graph is consistently downward over time. Indeed, the difference between more recent prevalence rates and older prevalence rates is statistically significant within all three studies.
Figure 1
Note: Curtis and Tremayne (2021)—any of 7 forms of plagiarism at least once, McCabe et al. (2012)—any of 9 cheating behaviors at least once, Stiles et al. (2018)—any affirmative response on 3‐4‐item cheating survey.
There are three years in common in which data were collected among the three time‐lag studies: 1994 (McCabe et al., 2012 and Stiles et al., 2018), 2004, and 2014 (Curtis and Tremayne, 2021 and Stiles et al., 2018). Both McCabe et al. (2012) and Stiles et al. (2018) found lower percentages of students reporting engaging in plagiarism or cheating in subsequent studies than in 1994. Similarly, Curtis and Tremayne (2021) and Stiles et al. (2018) found lower percentages of students reporting engaging in plagiarism or cheating in 2014 than in 2004.
One notable feature of Figure 1 is that even though the trends appear similar for the three studies, the level of reported plagiarism or cheating differs consistently among the studies. That is, the percentages at any common points in time are highest for Curtis and Tremayne (2021) and lowest for Stiles et al. (2018). There are two possible explanations for these differing levels of reported academic misconduct: 1) differing cohorts of students, where some cheat more frequently as a consequence of national or institutional cultural differences or 2) the different measures elicit more or less admission of misconduct. The latter is more likely.
The surveys used by Stiles et al. (2018) rely on students knowing that they have cheated