Students' Perspectives of the Influence of Web ... - ACS Publications

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, DC 20064

Students’ Perspectives of the Influence of Web-Enhanced Coursework on Incidences of Cheating

Amy J. Phelps Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Paul Charlesworth Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931; *[email protected] Debra D. Charlesworth Department of Biomedical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931 Chelley Vician School of Business and Economics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931

Online course management systems (CMS) such as WebCT and Blackboard provide a means of organizing technology supported learning (TSL) environments by allowing instructors to automate and informate selective portions of course materials (1–3). At our university, WebCT is used primarily as a support tool for classroom-based content delivery, and secondly to support videotape-based content delivery for distance education efforts (3–5). During collegial discussions about the online quizzing and testing features of WebCT, we are commonly asked “How do you know who was taking the quiz?” There are many variations on this valid question, yet it is clear that most educators are legitimately concerned about the impact of technology on various forms of academic dishonesty (cheating). To address this important issue, we conducted a preliminary investigation into how students define cheating, factors that result in students’ desire or need to cheat, and what students believe the influence of using a CMS will be upon the incidence of cheating. In academia, the concern with student cheating is clearly not a new one, however, many authors report it as a “growing” problem (6). More than 200 publications can be identified over the last 100 years discussing instructor concerns with cheating in one form or another (7). More recently, researchers have begun to raise concerns about how TSL environments and cyberspace will change the way students approach cheating (8, 9). The majority of researchers focus primarily on plagiarism and how the Internet can be used to both enhance and fight plagiarism (10–16). Prior research on cheating has neglected to investigate student perceptions of cheating (9, 17–20). Furthermore, none of the extant literature addresses the impact of using a CMS, such as WebCT, on student perceptions of cheating in science and engineering programs. The few authors who have addressed the topic of cheating and TSL environments present quite divergent conclusions. Plowman (8), for example, considers the relationship between academic integrity and information technology as a new challenge for students, faculty and administration. Plowman (8) presents many examples, concluding that if the student’s interest is stimulated, this becomes a motivation to learn and students become focused on the learning process rather than cheating through the use of electronic aids. Kennedy et al. (9), however, take a much less positive view of information technology’s influence on cheating in a distance 1368

Journal of Chemical Education

•

education setting. These researchers surveyed 172 students and 69 faculty, with two, six-question instruments (one for students and one for faculty) addressing factors such as frequency of cheating, exam grade improvement, and approaches to cheating control. From this they concluded that if given the opportunity to cheat, students will always cheat, and that distance education environments foster technology-based cheating requiring strong technology-based counter measures. A consideration of individual perceptions on cheating is critically important, although noticeably missing from current research on cheating in TSL environments. The information systems discipline has a long history of studying how individual perceptions and beliefs shape subsequent information technology adoption and use behaviors (21). As a CMS is a specialized type of information technology, and since using the CMS is key to participating in the learning environment, it is highly relevant to consider individual perceptions related to information technology use behaviors. A CMS can be used as the sole vehicle through which instruction occurs (Web-based or Web-enabled learning) as in a distance education program, or the CMS may be used as a supplement to conventional classroom instruction (Web-enhanced learning). It is important to discover whether such tools will live up to their promise of providing an increased motivation level for learning or whether they will foster new and innovative forms of cheating. The CMS, by itself, is value-neutral; rather, it is how it is perceived and used that will determine its influence on student cheating. To start investigating the nature of cheating in a Webenhanced learning environment, this study examines student perceptions of cheating in our first-year chemistry course. Method This section discusses our approach to the investigation, including the particular CMS in use, the measurement of research variables, subject pool and demographics, and the procedures followed in this investigation.

Course Management System We used WebCT in this investigation. Based in Massachusetts, WebCT is software that enables the creation of elearning environments that support instruction. Like other CMS packages, WebCT has many features that can be con-

Vol. 83 No. 9 September 2006

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education

figured flexibly to meet multiple instructional situations, to engage students, and to personalize the learning environment. The table on p 1334 of ref 3 summarizes a selection of these features and how we used them to automate and informate the chemistry learning environment (1–3). In addition to these WebCT features, QuickTime movies and animations of chemical concepts, Microsoft PowerPoint lecture slides, and links to other Web-based content were among the available resources presented as a part of the WebCT course.

Measures Two survey instruments were used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data about student perceptions of cheating in a Web-enhanced learning environment. The first survey consisted of two open-ended questions regarding student definitions of cheating and what students perceive as the main reason for cheating in a class. The second survey consisted of a number of Likert scale surveys directed at uncovering students’ perceptions of how the online administration of quizzes and tests affects the level of cheating in a class. All surveys were administered during the last two weeks of class using WebCT’s built-in survey tool. The survey tool preserves subject confidentiality by keeping responses anonymous, yet enables researchers to gather the data quickly and easily. Once a student has submitted a survey it ceases to be available to them, thus preventing subsequent modifications or multiple submissions. Setting, Subjects, and Procedures The investigation focused on the first-year chemistry program for engineering and science majors at a small, public, midwestern university where an instructor-developed WebCT supplement was added to conventional instruction. The WebCT portion of the course was accessible from individually owned personal computers with an Internet connection or from any of the university’s public computer labs. The subjects for our investigation were drawn from firstyear college students enrolled in engineering and science curricula. All students were required to use the WebCT supplement for the class, although participation in the study was voluntary. Table 1 reports representative demographics for our subjects. The 178 students who participated in this study were evenly distributed in terms of gender and represented all students who completed the course (as measured by the number who took the final examination). Students rated their computer skills and 98% reported having more than just basic skills with IT applications such as e-mail, Web browsing, and word processing. Most students reported having never used WebCT or any similar tool prior to this course and were unfamiliar with its capabilities. During the first recitation session of the class, students were given a guidebook and guidance on the use of WebCT, its testing component, and how to maximize the benefit of this environment by means of an in-class demonstration. Students were encouraged, although not required, to visit the site on a daily basis and were required to score a minimum of 60% on each online homework assignment before a subsequent one would become available. The homework assignments used the WebCT quizzing module and were targeted at textbook chapters covered in the course, with the completion schedule limited only by the requirement to comwww.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

plete 10 assignments in 15 weeks. Each homework assignment presented a student with 10 problems randomly selected from a database of over 250 multiple-choice questions per chapter. Students were typically encouraged to complete each homework assignment within one week of the lecture material. During this time they could complete up to five attempts, each with a different randomized set of questions, and each without a fixed time limit. About 5000 questions are available in our database to cover a yearlong course. Students were Table 1. Student Sample Demographic Characteristics Demographicsa (%)

Characteristics Age (years) 18

29

19

53

20

9

21

3

22 or older

6

Gender Female

42

Male

58

Current GPA x ≤ 2.4

11

2.5 < x ≤ 3.0

23

3.0 < x ≤ 3.5

31

3.5 < x ≤ 4.0

49

Year in School Freshman

78

Sophomore

13

Junior

6

Senior

9

Major Biological sciences Biomedical engineering Chemical engineering

18 9 38

Chemistry or physics

7

Civil or environmental engineering

3

Mathematical sciences Otherb

3 22

Computer Experience (Self-Reported) Advanced M(Confident with all hardware and Msoftware tasks; can build a Mcomputer from scratch)

18

Intermediate M(Confident with most hardware Mand software tasks; can install Mextra drives, memory, cards)

43

Beginner M(Confident with general software Mtasks such as e-mail, Web Mbrowsing, word processing)

36

Novice M(Little or no experience with basic Msoftware tasks such as e-mail, MWeb browsing, word processing)

2

a N = 178; bIncludes geological, metallurgical, computer, and social sciences, technical communication and undeclared.


•


1369


encouraged to seek help from their instructor or the Chemistry Learning Center coaches if they needed it. Essentially, these online homework assignments might be considered as being similar to classroom take-home quizzes. Unlike takehome quizzes in a conventional classroom situation, however, students received their grades immediately and could complete five attempts for each homework assignment. The highest grade obtained from those attempts would be recorded as the grade for that assignment. Online examinations received similar treatment; however, the numbers of attempts were reduced to two and a time limit of four hours was applied to each attempt. Students were also required to wait for six hours before making their second attempt at the exam. This introduced reflection time into the learning environment and encouraged students to review their errors with Chemistry Learning Center coaches. Ground rules were set for student–coach interactions when discussing online homework and online exams. For the online homework, coaches were instructed to provide whatever assistance they felt would help the student. For online homework exams, they were instructed not to answer the question directly, but to work through a similar example problem with the student. In addition to online assignments, students’ final grades included the following in-classroom administered examinations: a one-hour mid-term, a two-hour final, and the ACS Standardized Test. The conventionally administered exams represented approximately 50% of the final grade. Results

Analytic Approach Qualitative data were gathered from the open-ended questions on the survey and subjected to content analysis

(22a, 22b, 23) to determine common themes in student responses. Quantitative data were gathered from the Likert scale surveys and analyzed using a combination of Microsoft Excel (Version X for Macintosh) and StatSoft STATISTICA (Version 5.5 for Windows).

Qualitative Analysis—Student Perceptions of Cheating The content analysis of student responses is presented according to their respective open-ended questions. The first question asked students to provide their personal definition of cheating; this then provided the basis upon which they were to answer the remaining questions on the survey. The second question asked students what they felt was the main enticement to cheat in a typical classroom. In this preliminary study, we believe it is important to know what students consider to be cheating and what induces them to cheat. Student Definitions of Cheating Students were asked to provide their personal definition of cheating; these definitions fell into a surprisingly small number of categories. We categorized the responses into three groups based on terms used by students in their definitions; each response was placed into only one category. Table 2 presents our categorizations and representative responses.1 The most common response was that of copying or taking answers (50% of all responses). While many instructors may argue that there is little difference between obtaining answers with or without contributions from another person, students clearly differentiate between the two and use the term copying to identify the latter. From the student perspective, the terms described for this group are akin to plagiarism, but different from working in groups and asking for an answer, or having one student supply another student with

Table 2. Content Analysis of Student Responses to the Question: What Is Cheating? Content Analysis Category

Distribution of Responsesa

Copying or Taking Answers

50%

Getting or Giving Answers

Rule Breaking

a

Definitions

Common Terms Used

Response Examples from Students

Cheating instigated by one party and without knowledge of other party(ies); Plagiarism

Copying, Taking, Looking at, Using, Stealing

“Looking at someone’s paper in a testing environment”; “Taking someone’s answers without their permission for your personal use”; “Cheating is when you take answers or ideas from others without any effort to understand what you are doing”; “I think that copying someone else’s work as your own would be cheating”

25%

Cheating undertaken by a collaborative or group effort where answers are fed to another student rather than helping the student understand the material

Getting, Relying, Giving, Telling

“Having someone tell you, or work out the answer for you”; “Cheating is not doing your own work, and relying on other people to do the work for you”; “Information that is shared by two people that only benefits one of them”; “Letting someone else do the work for you”

25%

Cheating is any action taken by a student that is not permitted by the instructor

Not Allowed, Not Authorized, Not Legitimate, Lying, Deceit

“Unauthorized help”; “Doing what is not allowed to gain an advantage”; “Cheating is using an advantage that you have gained through means not legitimately available to all others”; “Breaking the rules to better your grade”

N = 178

1370


•


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


an answer. Copying appears to require an element of betrayal in the interaction. The joint second-most common response was that of getting or giving answers (25% of all responses). While many instructors still require students to complete at least part of their work on an individual basis, it is becoming increasingly common to assign group work or allow students to form their own study groups. The idea behind these assignments is to help students develop group skills and to discuss problems with the premise that “two heads are usually better than one”. When one student completes the assignments and shares his or her answer with the group or completes each student’s work for them, students felt that this would be considered cheating. They differentiated this form of cheating from copying or using someone’s work, possibly without their consent. Students felt very strongly that if two or more students worked together and one or more of those students relied on the group for answers without making a contribution to the group, that person would be cheating. Getting or giving answers appears to require a lack of contribution in the interaction. Rule breaking (25% of all responses) constituted a clearly identified and unique theme in the responses. The students whose responses fell into this category stated that any action not allowed by the instructor is cheating. For example, some classes encourage students to work together, but when an instructor explicitly forbids such collaborative effort, students indicated that working together would be considered cheating. Rule breaking appears to require an understanding of the class ground rules in the interaction. It is interesting to note that several students commented in absolutes, where they indicated that some number or types of violations would constitute cheating. Examples of student comments were: • “Taking answers for a major and important test” • “Getting an A on something you cannot do yourself ” • “My definition of cheating is constantly having someone else do your quiz or exam for you”

The absolute comments raise a number of questions from an instructor’s perspective. Is it acceptable to cheat on an unimportant exam, or if you ultimately receive less than a letter grade of A? Is it acceptable to cheat once or twice, but not repeatedly? Some students seem to imply that cheating is acceptable, provided it is within boundaries they find acceptable. Understanding student perceptions of boundaries will continue to be important to understanding the nature of cheating in coursework, whether it is Web-enhanced or not.

Why Do Students Cheat? If Plowman’s (8) conclusion that increasing motivation is one way to reduce cheating, then we might expect that a lack of motivation would induce students to cheat in a class. However, what markers are appropriate to imply that a lack of motivation exists? One might suggest that laziness results from being unmotivated, as does a lack of knowledge. Indeed, both markers could be closely linked. Unmotivated students would be expected to work less and therefore have poor knowledge of the subject matter. This raises the question of how we define a motivated student. In this context we define a motivated student as one who thrives on intrinsic motivation, such as their desire to learn and to be successful in their college www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

career, and an unmotivated student as one who uses extrinsic motivation, such as grades. Since the university system is based on grades, many students feel that they must compete for grades and may use whatever means necessary to obtain the grade needed. Students were asked what (based on their personal definition of cheating) induces a student to cheat. Student respondents reported reasons for cheating: we assigned each response into one of five categories. Table 3 presents the categorizations and representative responses. The most common reason cited for cheating was lack of motivation (31% of all responses). It was very clear that students considered “laziness” to be an important factor driving the lack of motivation. This category included students who do not want to work on assignments or procrastinate to the point that they have insufficient time to complete the assignments and so look for alternative approaches. Lack of motivation appears to be a strong force in student explanations for cheating. The second-most commonly mentioned reason was grades (26% of all responses). Students clearly identified grades as a specific reason for cheating. With the emphasis placed by colleges and employers on the importance of good grades, many students feel compelled to use any means to obtain the grade required for their goals. Students perceive the need to maintain a minimum GPA to remain in college and some other GPA to gain employment or attend graduate school as an overriding factor in their academic lives. Therefore, regardless of whether they are unmotivated, have demands placed on them, or lack academic ability, many students continue to believe grades are the overriding factor that governs a need to cheat. The third-most common reason indicated was pressure (21% of all responses). This response group represents many of the fears and demands associated with college life. The pressure category includes those general kinds of demands and stresses encountered by students, other than those associated with achieving high grades (the prior category). The student responses indicated that the majority of those fears are of failure, but many students are also insecure about their abilities and so may seek to ensure success by reducing the pressures placed on them through cheating. The fourth-most commonly named reason was lack of knowledge (16% of all responses). This response group featured comments such as: lack of preparation, not understanding materials, insufficient study, or simply not understanding questions. Many students report lengthy study sessions yet realize incomplete understanding due to factors such as poor study skills and lack of knowledge. As a result, students may feel unprepared for quizzes and examinations, and seek alternative methods to ensure success. In addition to this, some students may be reluctant to turn to an instructor or tutor for assistance, feeling it is easier and less humiliating to copy answers than to ask for assistance. The final reason indicated by the data was opportunity (6% of all responses). This response group covers the concerns stated by some students that cheating may take place for no reason other than the opportunity existing, or the sense that one could “get away with it”. It is interesting to note that although this reason appeared in our data, it occurred with a significantly lower frequency of appearance than the other reasons named above.


•


1371


Analysis of Open-Ended Question Responses During the content analysis process, we became aware of an unexpected theme in many of the responses to the two open-ended questions in the survey. Instead of providing their definition of cheating, or their views on why cheating occurs, respondents provided a commentary related to the use of WebCT and the incidence of cheating in this Web-enhanced learning environment. These responses, though unintended by our survey design, provide additional, preliminary evidence on the nature of cheating in a Web-enhanced learning environment. Such responses (with emphasis added) include: • “WebCT, however, should not be considered a mode of cheating. In my experiences with online quizzes, students are able to learn concepts from one another. In this sense, there is no cheating.” • “I feel that WebCT does not increase cheating and helps some students learn the material better.”

• “Most of the teachers use WebCT as learning aids, and students are at more of a loss by cheating on WebCT, than doing it themselves.” • “I don’t think it increases cheating, but I do believe that it enforces outside learning.”

An interesting supplementary theme in these comments appears to be connected to student perceptions of the quality of learning in a Web-enhanced instructional setting. From these unexpected response outcomes, it appears that some students focus on the learning opportunities provided by WebCT and believe that WebCT usage does not increase the propensity of cheating beyond that found in a conventional classroom setting.

Quantitative Analysis—Student Perceptions of Cheating Student responses were correlated with the Barsch learning style inventory,2 age, gender, average GPA, and year in

Table 3. Content Analysis of Student Responses to the Question: Why Do Students Cheat? Common Terms Used

Response Examples from Students

Students don’t want to work on assignments or procrastinate

Laziness, procrastination, lack of effort, little work

“When someone is simply too lazy to put the time in to learn something”; “If they haven’t put the work in and don’t care about the material”; “Desire not to fail with the laziness of self-motivation”

26%

The need to obtain good grades will drive the choice to cheat

Grades, succeed, do well

“Wanting a better grade in a class”; “Trying to get good grades—not wanting to disappoint parents or lose scholarship—so, GRADES!”; “A student cheats in order to get a better grade without the work involved”; “Being forced to compete for grades. No matter how you try so long as the goal of the course for students is to get the highest grade and not to learn, cheating will be evident”

Pressure

21%

Personal and academic pressures perceived by students drive cheating decisions

Fear, pressure, helplessness, desperation, worry, frustration

Lack of Knowledge

16%

Cheating occurs when students lack the knowledge due to under-preparation or lack of understanding

Knowledge, unprepared, understanding

“Not knowing how to work problems, or if they forget when a quiz was due and so got answers from friends”; “Not knowing the information”; “Lack of knowledge in the subject area”; “When a student doesn’t understand what he or she is doing”

Opportunity

06%

Cheating occurs because it is possible to do so

No consequences, easy way out, chance, opportunity

“Person in front of you is slouching down”; “It is an easy and quick way to get work done”; “I think students cheat sometimes just because they can”; “If the opportunity to cheat is there, and they won’t get caught”

Content Analysis Category

Distribution of Responsesa

Lack of Motivation

31%

Grades

a

Definitions

“Competition, pressure, parents, etc.”; “When they are completely lost, struggling, at the end of their rope”; “Feeling pressured to perform at exceptional levels when so many other students are also excellent students can cause them to resort to cheating”; “A desperate attempt to pass a difficult class”

N = 178

1372


•


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


school. A nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA by ranks was used to determine statistical differences between groups. A p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. When a statistical significance was found, a Newman–Keuls post hoc test was used to determine which groups were different. Two different statistical analyses were performed. In the first, the independent variables were the demographic information available for the students (age, GPA, number of study hours, etc.) and the dependent variable was their response to the statements, “I have contemplated cheating in class” (Table 4, #13) and “I have cheated in previous online assignments” (Table 4, #15). This analysis determined whether any demographic factor led to an increased incidence of cheating in a Web-enhanced class. In the second analysis, the independent variable was either demographic information or the students’ response to the statements, “I have contemplated cheating in class” (Table 4, #13) and “I have cheated in previous online assignments” (Table 4, #15). Dependent variables were the responses to the remainder of the survey questions. In the second analysis, we can determine whether students in different demographic groups or who cheat have different perceptions about cheating. Table 4 presents the quantitative data of student perceptions about the influence of online assignments on the propensity of cheating in a class. Although students strongly condemned the use of cheating as a means to succeed (Table 4, #1–6), they were suspicious that “other students” would take advantage of online assignments as an opportunity to cheat (Table 4, #7, 8). However, they clearly denied that the online assignments would increase their own desire to cheat (Table 4, #10). Although these data do not directly support Plowman’s (8) argument described earlier in the paper, we believe it clearly rejects the conclusion of Kennedy et al., (9)

who suggested that when given the opportunity, students will automatically cheat. Three questions on the survey asked students to report whether they had contemplated cheating in class, had actually cheated on written assignments, and had actually cheated on online assignments (Table 4, #13–15). Over 60% of the total sample reported that they had contemplated cheating at some point in previous classes, but only 38% of the sample reported having actually acted on that and cheated on written assignments, while 17% reported cheating on online assignments. Based on demographic data, we were interested in whether factors such as age, gender, year in school, learning style, or average GPA could be used to predict a tendency to cheat. Of these, GPA was the only factor with a statistical difference (Kruskal–Wallis test: H (9, N = 115) = 19.50; p = 0.02). Students with an average GPA of 2.4–3.0 were statistically more likely to cheat on written assignments (Newman–Keuls, p = 0.016), while no such relationship was found for online assignments. We posit that students in the 2.4–3.0 GPA range tend to focus heavily on maximizing their grade point rather than learning the material presented to them, and so might be expected to try alternative methods for grade improvement under conventional examination conditions. However, it is possible that this group of students was the only subsection of the students responding to the survey willing to admit to cheating. Students were also asked to consider the effect that online assignments might have on the occurrences of cheating relative to written assignments (Table 4, #7). Approximately 42% of the students believed there would be no change, while another 40% believed that there would be an increase in the occurrences. Our data showed that students who indicated a

Table 4. Distribution of Student Responses to Written Statements about Cheating Distribution of Responses,a in Percent

Statements about Cheating To Elicit Students’ Perceptions

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

1. Even if I was struggling in class, I would never cheat in that class.

68

14

18

2. I would only cheat in required classes that are not in my major area.

06

30

64

3. It is OK to cheat a little; I probably would not be the only one.

19

17

64

4. Cheating is the only way to pass my classes.

02

03

95

5. Cheating is the only way to get good grades in my classes.

03

02

95

6. I would only hurt myself if I chose to cheat.

78

07

15

7. Online exams and quizzes will increase the incidence of cheating relative to written exams.

45

30

25

8. Providing the opportunity to cheat, through the use of online materials, quizzes and exams, 0automatically leads to a class that will cheat.

17

12

71

9. Removing the need to cheat, through the use of online materials, quizzes and exams, 0automatically leads to a class that does not cheat.

47

14

39

08

08

84

10. Online quizzes and exams increase my desire to cheat. 11. Online quizzes and exams allow me to cheat without risk.

27

20

54

12. Online quizzes and exams remove my need to cheat.

63

24

14

13. I have contemplated cheating in a class.

Yes

No

62

38

14. I have cheated in previous written assignments.

38

62

15. I have cheated in previous online assignments.

17

83

aN

= 178

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•


•


1373


history of cheating (Table 4, #13–15) were more likely than students with no history of cheating to report that online assignments would lead to higher occurrences of cheating than written assignments (Table 4, #7, 8, 10, and 11). This suggests that the general concern that online assignments promote cheating in classes may only be valid for students who are predisposed to cheating. When students were asked to consider whether online assignments increase the incidence of cheating in a class, less than 20% agreed with this statement (Table 4, #8). However, they also reported that removing the need to cheat (by providing online assignments) would not automatically eliminate cheating (Table 4, #9). We found no statistically significant difference between students in any demographic group (for example, GPA, gender, major, etc.) and the responses to these questions. This suggests that, from the student perspective, the utilization of online assignments has very little influence on the overall level of cheating in a class. Although 84% of students disagreed with the statement that online exams increased their desire to cheat (Table 4, #10), students who reported no history of cheating (Table 4, #13) disagreed with this statement (Table 4, #10) more often than those who reported cheating on previous assignments (Table 4, #13). A similar statistical result was observed for the statement that online assignments allowed them to cheat without risk (Table 4, #11). These results suggest that students who had never cheated do not believe online assignments increase their ability or desire to cheat in a Web-enhanced course.

Summary of Results The qualitative data show that students define cheating as copying or taking answers (without knowledge of other party), getting or giving answers (collusion between parties), and rule-breaking. Students believe that the major causes of cheating are a lack of motivation, grades, pressure, and lack of knowledge. Students mentioned opportunity as an inducement to cheat, but not as frequently as one might expect if opportunity was perceived as a driving force for cheating behavior. In general, the quantitative data show that the students do not perceive cheating as a viable means of succeeding for themselves, however, they are somewhat skeptical that “other students” might take advantage of Web-enhanced coursework as a way to cheat. Student GPA was the only statistically significant factor related to the tendency to cheat. On average, students with an average GPA of 2.4–3.0 were more likely to report cheating on written assignments than students in other GPA groupings. Discussion Taken as a whole, the results are somewhat heartening and lead us to the following conclusions: • Definitions of cheating are influenced by the studentperceived boundaries of learning behaviors in the classroom • Reasons for cheating appear to be largely psychological in nature and thus, susceptible to influence from instructor-developed interventions • The use of a CMS as part of a Web-enhanced course is not perceived as a means of automatically increasing the amount of cheating in a class

1374


•

Setting the boundaries of acceptable learning behaviors (e.g., ground rules) in educational settings that vary from the conventional, face-to-face, paper-bound classroom setting is critical to having a common student and instructor understanding of what constitutes academic dishonesty or cheating. In courses where teamwork or collaborative activities are intertwined with individual efforts, the distinction must be made and emphasized to communicate clearly what activities must be done individually and what activities may be accomplished collaboratively. Further, when information technology is used to enable the collaborative efforts, the ground rules for what can be shared and how assistance is gained must be revisited. Our study’s results suggest that instructors can set the boundaries of acceptable learning behaviors in a Web-enhanced course such that collaborative activities are perceived by students as opportunities for learning, rather than opportunities to cheat. Our students defined cheating largely as instances of submitting someone else’s work as one’s own (with or without the consent of that person) or as an instance of behaving not in accordance with the instructor’s guidelines for acceptable learning behaviors. Instructors can choose to set the features of a CMS such that students can work at their own pace and seek out assistance when confronted with difficult concepts or can set the features of the CMS such that the high-pressure environment of the conventional written examination session is replicated. The instructor’s choice of CMS settings will also serve to define the boundaries of acceptable learning behaviors in the course. Care must be taken to set the CMS features in a manner conducive to the learning objectives of the course and the instructor’s expectations regarding acceptable learning behaviors. Our results indicate that students believe that cheating results primarily from a lack of motivation for the course or the topical material, the pressures of competing for good grades and other collegiate pressures, or from a lack of knowledge in the subject material. All of these reasons for cheating, supplied by the students, appear to be psychological in nature and may be malleable under the right conditions. Instructors can “set the tone” for the learning experience in what they say and do, as well as how they develop the boundaries for acceptable learning behaviors, in the courses that they teach. A Web-enhanced course has many ways to support a learning environment that rewards effort, perseverance, and positive learning behaviors, so that students experience less of the negative forces that can induce students to cheat. In particular, our WebCT experience provided many ways to facilitate positive student learning opportunities and reinforce positive psychological experiences, as described below. Encourage Mastery The quiz modules allow instructors to provide students with multiple attempts at a particular assignment while potentially randomizing questions on each attempt. If the grading is set so that only the highest score is finally recorded, students will develop a sense of mastery and be motivated to keep trying until they succeed. Encourage Group Work The quiz modules allow students to print out their online assignments and work on them away from the computer. Our experience has been that students work in groups to as-


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


sist each other with their individual assignments, ask instructors, or attend our learning center for assistance from a coach. Since each student received a slightly different set of questions, there is little opportunity to copy. Encourage Flexibility Although students are encouraged to complete one online homework assignment per week, they are not forced to do so. Instead of enforcing time limits, students must complete each (within 5 attempts) with a minimum of 60% correct, before the next one is released. We believe this encourages mastery of the material, allows students to work at their own pace, and motivates them to plan their time wisely. Provide Instant Feedback Instant feedback is a feature that permits writing questions that contain the correct answer as well as an explanation of the answer and how students can correctly solve the problem. Our students report that in addition to easy access to their grades, the ability to repeat questions using the feedback is a valuable feature to them. It is our belief that when carefully integrated into the curriculum, WebCT is a powerful tool with which instructors can motivate student learning and reduce the need for cheating. WebCT cannot defeat opportunistic cheating, yet, by providing a learning environment that rewards effort and perseverance, we hope to motivate students to succeed without feeling the pressure to compete for grades in examinations. Many instructors believe that TSL environments, such as our Web-enhanced chemistry course, present new opportunities for students to cheat and that students, if given these opportunities, will cheat. However, our results suggest that the students do not perceive the Web-enhanced course as a means of automatically increasing the amount of cheating in a course. This is certainly heartening news and validates our initial beliefs that it is possible to create a learning environment that can reduce the need for students to cheat. Although students still perceive that cheating can and will occur, they do not expect cheating behaviors to be any more likely in a Web-enhanced course than in a conventional course. Conclusion In this study, we investigated student perceptions of cheating in a Web-enhanced learning environment in our first-year chemistry course. Utilizing both qualitative and quantitative analyses, we explored student beliefs about definitions of cheating, reasons for cheating, and the influence of online assignments and quizzes on the propensity for cheating in Web-enhanced learning environments. The most important finding from the analyses in our study is that student perceptions provide preliminary evidence that the use of online assignments and quizzes may not increase the incidence of cheating found in the general student population of a particular class. Our findings also indicate that students with a GPA of 2.4–3.0 are more likely to cheat on written assignments, which may indicate a preoccupation with GPA maximization as opposed to focusing on content mastery. We believe our results also indicate that the use of online work using WebCT might provide a means of counteracting such student tendencies, as many features can be configured to emphasize facilitation of learning rather than competition for achievement. We also found that students primarily perceive www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

cheating as copying or taking answers and primary reasons for cheating include lack of motivation, grades, pressure, and lack of knowledge. Although more research is needed to understand the influence of a CMS on the incidences of cheating, these early results shed considerable light on the student perspective of cheating relative to online coursework. Notes 1. The categorizations were derived from our analyses of student personal definitions of cheating. We believe that they are representative of how students perceive the act of cheating in the classroom. 2. Barsch inventory Web site. http://ww2.nscc.edu/gerth_d/ AAA0000000/barsch_inventory.htm (accessed Jun 2006).

Literature Cited 1. Leidner, D. E.; Jarvenpaa, S. L. ISR 1993, 4, 24–54. 2. Leidner, D. E.; Jarvenpaa, S. L. MIS Quarterly 1995, 19, 265– 291. 3. Charlesworth, P.; Vician, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1333– 1337. 4. Charlesworth, P.; Vician, C.; West, A. In Using Information Technology to Rejuvenate General Chemistry Instruction: An Investigation of WebCT Usage, 220th ACS National Meeting, Washington DC, August 20–24, 2000; American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education: Washington DC, 2000; Abstract 339. 5. Charlesworth, P.; Vician, C.; West, A. In WebCT@MTU: Rejuvenating General Chemistry, 16th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, July 30–August 2, 2000; American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2000; Abstract 524. 6. Kerkvliet, J.; Sigmund, C. L. J. Econ. Educ. 1999, 30, 331–343. 7. Payne, S. L.; Nantz, K. S. College Teaching 1994, 42, 90–96. 8. Plowman, T. TechTrends 2000, 44, 24–30. 9. Kennedy, K.; Nowak, S.; Raghuraman, R. S. College Student Journal 2000, 34, 309–314. 10. Lathrop, A.; Foss, K. E. Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era; Libraries Unlimited: Engelwood, CO, 2000. 11. Renard, L. Educational Leadership 1999, 57, 38–42. 12. Gibelman, M.; Gelman, S., R; Fast, J. Journal of Social Work Education 1999, 35, 367–376. 13. Gardiner, S. Phi Delta Kappan 2001, 83, 172–174. 14. Laird, E. The Education Digest 2001, 67, 56–59. 15. McMurthy, K. THE Journal 2001, 29, 36–41. 16. Roach, R. Black Issues in Higher Education 2001, 18, 92. 17. Davis, S. F.; Noble, L. M.; Zak, E. N. College Student Journal 1994, 28, 353–356. 18. Livosky, M.; Tauber, R. T. Psychol. Sch. 1994, 31, 72–82. 19. Davis, S. F.; Pierce, M. C.; Yandell, L. R. College Student Journal 1995, 29, 493–497. 20. Lupton, R. A.; Chapman, K. J.; Weiss, J. E. Journal of Education for Business 2000, 75, 231–235. 21. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M. G.; Davis, F. D.; Davis, G. B. MIS Quarterly 2003, 27, 412–478. 22. (a) Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 1st ed.; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, 1980; (b) 2nd ed.; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, 2003. 23. Weber, R. P. Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1990.


•


1375

Students' Perspectives of the Influence of Web ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents