Why do so Many Students Cheat in Engineering? Perceptions, Evaluations, and Justifications

• In Event: Poster Session 14
  In Poster Session: PS 14 Topic - Education, Schooling

Abstract

Academic misconduct in higher education is a major concern for educators and researchers. Past research suggests that engineering students, more than most majors, report higher rates of misconduct (Carpenter et al., 2013; Harding et al. 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Why do so many engineering students cheat, despite knowing that cheating is wrong? The present research examined three potential contributors to cheating among engineering students: uncertainty about whether their acts constituted a violation, judgments that cheating is okay in specific circumstances, and that despite thinking it is wrong, students cheat because of competing considerations (e.g., feeling unable to complete the assignment without cheating).

We recruited undergraduate engineering students between 18 and 22 years (N = 123, M = 19.6 years) to participate in structured interviews about times when they had cheated. Students were interviewed about what happened, their evaluations, and reasons for their actions. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Then, interview data was coded using four categorization schemes: whether the act was cheating, spontaneous expressions of uncertainty, judgments about the act, and reasons for the act (Table 1).

Most students described an act that constituted possible cheating (86%). However, most students did not recognize their acts as cheating in the moment (80%). Also, most students (89%) spontaneously expressed uncertainty about whether their act was alright or whether it constituted cheating (e.g., “There is a huge gray area, in terms of programming, of what defines cheating”). Of those who had cheated, nearly all participants (97%) provided at least one positive evaluation of their decision at the time of acting, while 33% provided at least one negative evaluation at the time of acting. Students who had cheated despite thinking their act was wrong often explained their actions by reference to learning (e.g., “If I get help this time, I can still learn and further my knowledge”), a mismatch in ability and task requirements (e.g., “I didn’t understand it and the deadline was approaching”), or the amount of effort already put into the assignment (e.g., “It’s okay because I really tried…”; Table 2). Contrary to expectations, year in college did not predict frequency of uncertainty (X2 [119, N = 120] = 1.77, p = .622), action judgments (p = .201), or category of reasoning (X2 [119, N = 120] = .324, p = .100)

Although most participants had cheated, most did not think their actions counted as cheating at the time and many expressed uncertainty about their actions. When students had thought their actions were wrong at the time, they reported having cheated out of concerns with learning or because of a mismatch between their abilities and the task requirements. The findings support efforts to improve education by highlighting the value of (1) lessening the gap in understanding between faculty and students about what constitutes cheating, and (2) reducing students’ reasons for cheating, for instance by helping them develop problem solving skills or rely on permitted course resources.

Authors

• Rhea Nimish Modi, University of California - Santa Cruz
  Presenting Author

• Talia Waltzer, University of California - San Diego
  Non-Presenting Author

• Audun Dahl, University of California - Santa Cruz
  Non-Presenting Author