Post on 29-Jan-2023
FACTORS INFLUENCING UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS TO CHEAT ON EXAMINATIONS
Case study: Undergraduate Students in Dongdok Campus, the
National University of Laos (NUOL)
A coursework project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as
a Foreign Language (Master of Arts in TEFL)
THANONGDETH NALISAK
Academic year 2013-2014
FACTORS INFLUENCING UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS TO CHEAT ON EXAMINATIONS
Case study: Undergraduate Students in Dongdok Campus, the
National University of Laos (NUOL)
A coursework project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(Master of Arts in TEFL)
Student’s name: Mr. Thanongdeth NALISAK
Student ID: MFLT0024/11
Supervisor(s): Assoc. Prof. Vongdeuan OSAY
Mrs. Bounnam SOULIYAPHANH
Date: ........................... Date: ...........................
Dean of Faculty of Letters Head of Department of English
Acknowledgement
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor. Mrs.
Bounnam SOULIYAPHANH, who understands in what I am suffering and trying to
discover. I also want to acknowledge her time spending to read my thesis and all the
support to make these pieces of jigsaw becomes an image.
I really need to say thank you very much to Miss. Julia Mitchell for sparking my
ideas and encouraging me to face all my fear. All her attempts in overseeing, editing,
checking from the beginning till the end of this project.
I also would like to take this opportunity to give thanks to all teachers in each
class I administered the questionnaires for all their kindness and all participants who
helped me filling the questionnaire forms with valuable information to make this
research happened.
I deeply would like to say thank you to my family who forever takes care of me
and loves me unconditionally.
I am grateful to thank all the teachers and staff in the National University of Laos,
especially the teachers and staff in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters who
always guided me and transferred their knowledge to me with sincerity and devotion.
I honestly would like to thank my friends and everyone whom I have met since I
was young until now, their life has influenced me to come at this stage.
Abstract
This study was inspired by the researcher’s experience in observing the problem
of cheating during his years as a primary, secondary, high school and the university
student (the National University of Laos). There were many questions raised such as:
“Why do the students do this?” “How many students do this?” “Why is nothing done
about it?” and “How can this problem be solved?” During 2007 to 2010 there were
several articles in the newspaper regarding the cheating problem. In addition, in the
academic year 2012-2013 there were several teachers in the Dongdok campus who
reported that, there were some students caught while taking an exam. Furthermore,
some of the teachers at the department of English, Faculty of Letter also stated that they
used some techniques to prevent their students from cheating on the exams. Thus, the
purpose of this study will be to find out the factors which are affecting students’
decision to cheat on examinations at the National University of Laos, in Dongdok
Campus. The findings claimed that, there were 2 main factors that influence the
students to cheat: 1. Internal factors, and 2. External factors. Cheating was rampant at
the campus. For instance, there is a 96% participation in copying the answers from
friends while there is a 97.9% participation in letting friend(s) copy the answer from
their sheet.
In addition, there were some practical implications such as: 1. Organizing
campaigns, workshops and orientations. And 2. Engaging the students in knowledge
from the lessons rather than scores, grades or certificates. Furthermore, some
recommendations for short and long-term deterrents were also included.
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract
Acknowledgement
Chapter I Introduction 1
Contextual Framework 4
Statement of Problem 5
Objectives 7
Research Questions 7
Significance of the study 8
Basic Assumption 8
Chapter II Literature Review 9
Cheating Mechanisms 9
Associated Factors 10
Theoretical Explanation 17
Lack of Integrity Concern 18
Consequences Confirmation 18
Prevention of cheating in the Classroom 20
Chapter III Research Methodology 25
Research Design 25
Ethical Consideration 25
Scope of Sampling 25
Sampling 26
Descriptions of Respondents 27
Population 28
Research Instrument 29
Data Collection 30
Data Analysis 30
Chapter IV Findings 43
External Factors 43
Internal Factors 59
Summary of Open-ended Questions 61
The Pervasiveness of the Cheating Problem 71
Chapter V Conclusion 74
Chapter VI General Opinions and Recommendations 76
Future Research 80
Reference
Questionnaire (English version)
Questionnaire (Lao version)
List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Table of random sampling technique 26
Table 2: Populations, Scope and Samples 28
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics 31
Table 4: Total Variance Explained 32
Table 5: KMO and Bartlett's Test 34
Table 6: Rotated Component Matrixa 34
Table 7: Scree Plot 36
Table 8: Component Matrixa 37
Table 9: Communalities 38
Table 10: KMO and Bartlett's Test2 39
Table 11: Communalities2 40
Table 12: Rotated Component Matrixa2 41
Table 13: Variables contributed to explain student’s cheating
behaviors influenced by social value 44
Table 14: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors
influenced by teachers 47
Table 15: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors
influenced by the examination’s difficulty and unfairness 54
Table 16: Variables explaining student’s cheating
behaviors influenced by students’ characteristics 59
Table 17: Variables contributed to explain how pervasive
the cheating problem at the campus is 71
1
Chapter I
Introduction
In 2007 The Deputy Head of the Committee for University Entrance
Examinations, Saengmany (2007) said that, one of many students from
Vientiane was caught when using his mobile phone to receive answers from his
friend through messages during a chemistry test last week.
Later in 2010 The Ministry of Education claimed that degrees awarded in
education are not transparent enough in Laos, Viphavanh, (2010) Minister of
Education stated on Lao National Assembly. He added, in the future to control
the examination process, the latest technology systems would be used. Vaenkeo
(in 2012) reported from a seminar, which the officials in charge of the
educational and sport across the country came to meet. He reported that, 6
measurements were outlined to prevent use of falsified certificates and fake
diplomas. These were the circumstances regarding the cheating problem and
how it was announced to the public in Laos from the past few years. Cheating
doesn’t only happen with the entrance exams or the way the degree is awarded.
At the same time, cheating also happened in class such as: copying the answers
from friends, smuggling some clip notes into the exam class. This reflects the
researcher’s empirical observation as a Lao student since an early stage during
his studies in secondary school that his classmates and other students always
cheat on exams. It seemed like there was nothing being done about it. There was
no accountability, clear policies, or punishment. The researcher started to
wonder why, if this is our culture, or is cheating acceptable or at least
permissible? The researcher graduated from high school and started as a
freshman at the National University of Laos (NUOL) in 2005. Until now, He has
2
had 7 years of experience as a student at the NUOL. The researcher still has
never seen any orientation, campaign, codes of honor or clear policies to control
or manage the students who cheat on the exams. On the other hand, it is believed
that cheating is morally wrong. The detections and penalties done are based on
the assumption that cheating is generally a bad behavior. Some of the teachers
have tried to ban students from cheating. The actions from the teachers come in
many forms such as: rearranging the seat order, preparing several versions of the
test, trying to test students orally, keeping eyes on the students all the time and,
proctoring by sitting at the back of the class. The scenarios from several teachers
concerning the cheating circumstances in the campus could be illustrated as
follows. (Khantry, L. personal communication 16 May, 2013) a teacher at the
Department of English, Faculty of Letters, the NUOL has decided to test her
students orally with reading exam for several reasons, and one of them is to
prevent her students from cheating. Furthermore, in 2013 there were several
students caught cheating in classes and kicked out of the exam class in the
university final exams (Souliyaphanh, B. personal communication 20 April,
2013). (Bears, S. personal communication 20 April, 2013), exclaimed that, “last
year (2012) I had year one students and on “most tests about ten students out of
thirty-one were noticeably cheating”. This clearly shows that cheating does exist
and it has become a very serious problem for the campus.
As the country proceeds into the 20th century, the National University of
Laos (NUOL), Dongdok campus is considered as the largest and most
experienced in higher education to have thousands of students graduate and
serve the country in the present era. While the number of students enrolled in the
NUOL has been increasing rapidly in the past decades since the first academic
3
year 1996-1997 until now. This is a big challenge for the campus to manage
between the balance of quantitative and qualitative education
Mohammad (2012) suggested that,
“The major challenges faced in higher education in Laos are to produce
and provide good quality of human resources meeting the level of
international standard in support to the country’s socio-economic
development goals, reducing poverty and graduating from the least
developed country status by 2020. Also to realize the long-term goals in
turning the country to industrialization and modernization, developed
education is regarded as the means and tools”.
At the campus, the students’ abilities are measured from the certificates
and scores they get, in order to certify the quality in teaching and learning.
According to UNESCO, Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Reporting
2005 (THE QUALITY IMPERATIVE) states, “an assessment is one of the
crucial components mentioned in a framework for understanding education
quality”. To illustrate, the framework has an assessment as a good filter to cut
out and identify the problem in order to implement a standard and specify where
the quality is. Thus, if the assessment does not give an accurate evaluation,
especially when the examination process does not indicate the real level of the
students’ knowledge and ability, this means the assessment fails to do its work in
providing the status of the efficiency of teaching and learning. Then what kinds
of citizenry would the country have to help, serve and develop the social-
economy of the country. As a result, academic dishonesty at the National
University of Laos, especially cheating on the exams has become one of the
serious problems reducing the quality of education. The lack of integrity in
4
learning may be associated with many aspects such as: large class size, not
enough qualified and professional teachers, lack of supporting materials, lack of
appropriate lecture and academic misconducts managements, lack of good
attitude towards learning, students’ moral, teaching and learning, pressure from
parents, and pressure to get a good job are the presumed root causes urging
students to cheat on the exams.
Contextual Framework
Dongdok campus, the National University of Laos (NUOL) is considered
as the biggest campus in higher education in Lao P.D.R which consists of 8
Faculties, they are: 1. Faculty of Sciences, 2. Faculty of Education, 3. Faculty of
Social Sciences, 4. Faculty of Economics and Business Management, 5. Faculty
of Letters, 6. Faculty of Architecture, 7. Faculty of Environmental Sciences and
8. Faculty of Forestry. In the academic year 2012-2013 there are 25,955 students
in these 8 faculties.
Based on the real situation, which the qualification in academic fields
place a significant amount pressure to challenge Lao students at the campus to
overcome the situation in which the qualification is the first important
impression considered. As a result, cheating on the exams seemed to be a good
way for students to deal with the circumstances. In addition, the concept of
society has forced students with strong desire to receive good scores and grades.
Choi, (2009); Cohen & Brawer (2003); McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino (2006)
as cited in Witherspoon (2012) stated that, students cheat on exams because of
the “degree for future employment, financial security, and personal reasons”.
Furthermore, students do believe that they will get well paid and earn higher
salaries from future employment if they have got outstanding grades throughout
5
their periods as a college student (Norton; Tilley; Newstead, & Franklyn-Stokes
2001 as cited in Witherspoon 2012). What is more, grades are important
measurements in society, significantly impacting the lives of students; therefore,
students are under pressure, McCabe et al., (2006); Norton et al., (2001) as cited
in Witherspoon (2012) and are extremely concerned about the grades they
receive (Choi, 2009; McCabe et at. 2006; Wilkerson, 2009 as cited in
Witherspoon 2012).
Statement of Problem
Each year some thousands of students graduate from the campus without
certainty that they can acquire the knowledge needed to be transferred, if it is
compared to the qualification the students are awarded. The campus must adapt
to the changing times and began to understand the root causes of some of the
key educational issues in Laos. In addition, essential to achieving quality in
education is the implementation of educational standards, especially in regards
to holding students accountable for the information and knowledge they are
required to learn. This requests a closer look at the process of assessment,
especially the examination process. It is no secret that students in Laos often rely
on dubious methods to pass their examinations or to get a higher score. The
country will lose human resources when students get higher marks than their
performance deserves because they will be unprepared to enter the workforce
effectively. “Cheating is a serious problem in many countries, the cheater gets
higher marks than deserved, thus reducing the efficiency of a country’s
educational system”, Magnus et al (2002). Furthermore, the research conducted
would be a reference and an initiative to study about the problem of cheating.
Although this topic is often not talked about at higher institutions, developing
6
the departments, faculties, and the campus educational system requires an
understanding of the reasons behind this serious problem. In addition, Lao
students are under pressure to cheat because of the country’s needs of labor
market, college students feel significant pressure to cheat, McCabe et at (2001).
Since Lao students at Dongdok campus are teenagers and adults, studying
includes the cognitive development for both academic knowledge and ethical
perspective the college years are a critical period for ethical development.
Cheating in college years may lead the students to cheat in their professional
careers. Happel and Jennings (2008) as cited in Taderera et al (n.d), stated that,
“cheating in business starts with cheating in a test.” McCabe et al (2001). When
dishonesty does occur with professional career, and the sense of survival of
human beings from the society and real world supporting the students to have a
role modal in academic misconduct, McCabe et al (2001) college students are
being taught that cheating is acceptable. In addition, “Character development,
moral and ethical development of students is an important mission of higher
education” e.g., Dalton, (1985); Kibler, (1993a); Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, &
Pavela, (1988) as cited in Whitley & Spiegel (2002), “academic dishonesty is
acceptable or at least permissible”. Besides that, students graduating from the
campus are the country future’s leaders, and students who cheat in college
frequently go on to cheat in graduate and professional school and to engage in
unethical business practices (e.g., Baldwin, Daugherty, Rowley, & Schwarz,
1996; Sims 1993 as cited in Whitley and Spiegel 2002) because having
successfully cheated at the undergraduate levels can make it easier to cheat in
one’s professional career. Thus, failure to deal adequately with academic
dishonesty and educate students about the consequences of their behavior
7
constitutes a disservice not only to the academic community but also to society
in general, Whitley and Spiegel (2002). What is more, if the students at the
campus cheat and can get away with it, the country would actually have human
resource with good qualifications but less potential. McCabe et al (2012)
“today’s college students represent tomorrow’s leaders”, in addition students
who cheat would not learn what they are required to learn. Gehring and Pavela,
(1994) as cited in McCabe et al (2002) states “a university has a mission to
transfer knowledge, students who cheat their way through the higher education
system do not acquire the knowledge to which their degrees are supposed to
attest nor do they engage in the intellectual and moral struggles that foster
personal development”.
Therefore, the objectives of this research are threefold:
Objectives
- To find out what factors are influencing undergraduate students to
cheat on the exams.
- To find out and suggest the pragmatic solutions against cheating on
the exams.
- To provide information for further research in term of qualitative
education.
Research Questions
This research will be focused on 3 main questions:
1. What are the factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on
examinations?
2. How pervasive is the problem of cheating amongst students at
Dongdok campus?
8
3. What are the practical implications of this research?
Significance of the study
No one has ever conducted research for this issue in Laos before, so
there’s no statistics or supported details about this problem. Therefore, this
research will be the first investigation into the motives and aspects that influence
students’ decision to cheat on exams. Another significance is to provide the first
step to further research related to this topic and find out the ways to prevent,
deter and reduce cheating on the examination in order to create a culture of
academic integrity. Schab (1991) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) said that
studies in other countries show that cheating on examinations has been
recognized as a significant problem on college campuses. Therefore, this
research sought the practical implication for the campus. In addition, the result
gained will be a guideline for Departmental, Faculty and university levels to
cope with academic dishonesty providing insightful instructions for creating a
strong academic honesty environment. Mitchell (personal communication 8,
March 2013) claimed that, although it may seem embarrassing and scandalous to
study about cheating in the short term, in the longer term it will bring a good
result for education in Lao P.D.R.
Basic Assumptions
This study has assumed that cheating is one of the major factors reducing
efficiency and quality in the Educational system of Laos, particular in Dongdok
Campus. In addition, the instances of academic misconducts have not been
managed effectively. Students cheat because of two main factors. 1. Internal
factors and 2. External factors.
9
Chapter II
Literature Review
There has not been any research done about Academic dishonesty in Laos
before, especially cheating on exams in higher institutions. Thus, it is very hard
to find the documents to support and reflect on such circumstances. As can be
seen, cheating is one of the serious problems in term of qualitative education,
particularly in higher education. It is believed that students’ cheating behaviors
are influenced by many factors. Though it is still a mystery, the actions taken for
cheating such as banning mobile phone, punishing students who are caught
cheating and so on are the strategies to solve the problem in the short-term. On
the contrary, in the longer-term good knowledge and comprehension to cope
with the cheating problem is required. In Laos, such problems have never been
studied. On the other hand, many studies have been done in many higher
education institutions in many parts of the world for example the studies in:
Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, America, Britain, Japan, Sweden, Finland,
Turkey, Iran, and Thailand. The research conducted in these countries has
significantly provided many themes in different focuses such as: ethical,
situational, external, and personal factors. In addition, several studies also aimed
to find out the methods, associated factors, theoretical explanation, integrity
concern, consequences, prevention of cheating, short and long term deterrence
as can be mentioned in this literature review.
Cheating Mechanisms
In the last few decades, there have been numbers of studies related to
cheating on examinations. Students were found using and doing many different
10
methods to cheat on the examinations such as: smuggling crib notes in to the
class. Cohen and Felson (1979) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) “literature has
established that, using crib notes is a common tactic that students use to cheat in
examinations”. Furthermore, changing seats and sitting in the back row where
students expect to be able to look at someone’s answers is one of many ways
students try to cheat. Schab (1991) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011)
“candidates sit in a zone of maximum surveillance in the proximity of someone
who knows”. In addition, Chinamasa et al (2011) found out in their research’s
findings that, notes are written on some learning equipment, clothing, and parts
of body of the candidates such as: rulers, shirtsleeves, skirt hems, inside the
shades of their caps, thighs, and their hands. Chinamasa et al (2011) also
claimed that, another way of cheating is to peep on the answers of the student
who is sitting beside or next to. Furthermore, their research pointed out that,
some of the candidates hold up the sheet of the test paper in front as if he/she is
revising; meanwhile the position of the sheet is set to allow the one who is
sitting behind to read and copy the answers.
Associated Factors
Student’s cheating behaviors are influenced by many aspects.
Furthermore, there are a number of researchers who classified and defined the
reasons why the students decided to cheat on the exams such as: the
environment in which students are in, pressure for pursuing higher grade, using
multiple choices items in tests, personal beliefs that students will never caught
and punished, there is no initial orientation about the examination room’ rules,
strict invigilators and proctors. Schab (1991) and Cizek (1999) as cited in
11
Chinamasa et al (2011) claimed that the aspects below are associated with
motivation to students’ decision to cheat on the examination:
- “A competitive academic atmosphere among students, compelling
weak candidates to feel at a loss in an unsupportive learning
environment.
- The high utility value of a passing grade at the world of work, the
selective function of examinations compels students to get the grade
by whatever means.
- Use of multiple choice and short answer questions requiring
responses in point rather than in essay form.
- Students’ perceptions that, those who cheat are not caught or if they
are, they are not punished.
- Lack of supervision when candidates enter the exam room or go into
the toilet during examination as a result of insufficient invigilators.
- Invigilators’ inability to check programmable calculators and cell
phone messages.”
The findings they found recommend that: academic atmosphere, natural
features of examination, high expectation in cheating successfully,
procrastination of invigilator to catch students who cheat and modern technology
misusing are the associated factors.
Davis et at (1992) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) pointed out
the other interesting findings that, “pressures for good grades in higher
education, student stress, ineffective deterrents, teacher attitudes, and an
increasing lack of academic integrity are important determinants of cheating”.
Meanwhile, a study by Singhal (1982) as cited in Björklund & Wenestam (1999)
12
states a large percent of 68 of the students wished to receive good result as one
reason why they cheat. Another common explanation for cheating is the push to
achieving good grades puts students under pressure, Dalton (1998), Kibler
(1993b), Higbee and Thomas (2002) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s
Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005).
Kibler (1993b) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on
Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) claimed that,
students are more likely to prefer and value achievement much more than
scholarship, giving a view as cheating is “a necessary means to a desirable end”,
Dalton, (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on
Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005). Furthermore,
Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, and Armstead (1995) as cited in Björklund and
Wenestam (1999) found out several reasons why the students cheated including,
wishing to get a better grade dominates 20 %, Followed by 14 % of sympathy to
help friends and 10% goes to laziness. Another study from Maramark and
Maline (1993) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) had seen that, “stress,
competition for jobs, scholarships and admission to post-graduate programs
were important determinants.”
Grade pressure
Grade pressure is one of the stimuli which encourages students to cheat.
Anderman, Griesinger, and Westerdield (1998) as cited in Björklund and
Wenestam (1999) suggested that, “classrooms that emphasize high grades and
test scores may drive the students to cheat.”
13
Work-load
Besides grade pressure, too much work and too many test items on a test in
which the time is limited could lead students to cheat. Lipson & Macgavern,
(1993) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) said that, student’s workload
is found to be a crucial factor explaining why student decide to cheat. Baird
(1980) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) reported similar findings
that, 35 % of the students explained that they had only little time for studying for
the exam, and 26 percent of the students stated that the test load of test they had
made them feel it necessary to cheat.
Internal and External Factors
There have been many studies that indicate 2 major factors: Internal and
External factors related to the explanation of why students dare to cheat on the
examination:
External factors
Baird (1980), Davis et at (1992) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam
(1999) mentioned that, external factors did affect students to cheat. External
factors included, “seating order, importance of the test, level of test-difficulty,
unfair test, scheduling, and supervision, overcrowded, great classes, multiple-
choice questions, economic benefit. Rodolph and Timm (1998) as cited in Vice
Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on
Academic Integrity (2005) said that, students have been allowed to cheat or used
to cheat in high school, and as a result they subsequently cheat in college. The
“reasons may include a weakening of social prohibitions against cheating” they
added. Another interesting point is external influence caused by lack of role
models. Dalton (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on
14
Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) emphasized that,
the greatest influence of cheating are peers, cheating being condoned among
peers which can be illustrated as “peers don’t report students”. Besides this, Vice
Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on
Academic Integrity (2005) stated that, “when universities don’t set a culture
where academic integrity is valued, then students take their cues from other
students, whose standards are lesser”. In addition to this, the policy is considered
as a good tool to provide role model to students, Cole and Kiss (2000) as cited in
Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on
Academic Integrity (2005) claimed that, “Instances of academic dishonesty are
more common when faculty are considered “weak” in their policies on cheating.
To illustrate, the teachers leave the room during the test or there is no campaign
or orientation regarding the consequences of being dishonest. Hetherington &
Feldman (1964) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) said that, “difficult
test, lacking supervision, badly organized course” are other external factors.
Hetherington & Feldman (1964) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999)
said that, “To gain social acceptance and liking” is a kind of personal factor.
Moreover, Higbee and Thomas (2002) as cited in Vice Chanceller and
Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity
(2005) explained cheating caused by situational factors. They listed a few factors
for instance: anxiety on test, the environment in the classroom. McCabe and
Pavela (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on
Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) explained about the
uncertainty of “getting caught”, lack of serious and ignoring of severity of
punishment, and levels of awareness of comprehension and understanding of
15
university policy. Besides that, linking between satisfaction and the course
content should be relevant to the goals of the students in the future. Rudolph and
Timm (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic
Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) indicated that, students are not
actively engaged in learning by activities. In addition to this, several researchers
have stated situational factors for cheating including, “time constraints,
difficulty of the task, and lenient penalties”, Kibler (1993a) as cited in Vice
Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on
Academic Integrity (2005). “large class size”, Nowell and Laufer, (1997) as
cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity,
Research on Academic Integrity (2005). “ready availability of papers and other
ways to cheat that offer temptation”, Capano, (1991), Kibler, (1993a), Wilhoit,
(1994) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic
Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005). “an instructor’s laissez-faire
attitude”, Love and Simmons, (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s
Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005).
Likewise, some researchers have found out links between students who
cheat and the professional status of their instructors. To Illustrate, Kerkvliet &
Sigmund (1999) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on
Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) claimed that, 32%
of cheating was likely to happen when classes were taught by teaching assistants
rather than by professors of the faculty. This circumstance may be illustrated as
when the students do not trust in the teachers’ ability. Thus, the students cheat
by looking at the book to make sure.
16
Internal factors
Macabe, Trevino, and Butterfied (1999) as cited in Ruto (2011) classified
several internal factors influencing students’ decision to cheat for example:
laziness, lack of responsibility, lack of good character, lack of personal integrity,
lack of clear image & attitude, awareness of the performance of fellow students,
low grades, previously experienced, failure, a certain expectation of success”,
wishing to help a friend and aversion to teacher is personal factors, disposition
of students are also one of the main powerful driven factor.
Intelligence
According to Davis et al (2009) he mentioned that, there was a study in the
seventies which showed that both high school and college students with high
intelligence measured by IQ test scores cheated less than students with lower
intelligence.
Ethically Desirable Traits
Students who have high integrity and honesty as a core value inside them
were more likely to focus on great ideology which could prevent them from
relying on cheating. Schlenker (2008) as cited in McCabe et al (2012) indicated
that integrity, “operationalized as a principled ideology”, was negatively
associated with cheating behavior.
Moral identity was a powerful inner aspect which strengthened students to
be honesty, that meant students who had less moral identity could have easily
decided to cheat. Wowra (2007) as cited in McCabe et al (2012) showed that
students were less likely to cheat when they “placed greater emphasis on their
moral identity and were less sensitive to social evaluation.”
17
Theoretical Explanations
There are several theoretic explanations defined in the past to explain the
reasons why students decide to cheat on the examination. Desforges (1990) as
cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) proposed that, “students cheat to aid memory,
because test items are really tests of memory for a few facts and procedures
which lack application and divorced from the way the physical world worked.”
Generally this perspective explains that the lessons are sometimes different from
the real use. Thus, the exams are only the memory tester to test how much the
students can remember the lessons. Besides that, one of several theories about
cheating is preparation of one’s self to qualify into the workforce, Beck (1981)
as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) defined the relation between life and
education as he explained, “the purpose of education is life enhancing: it
contributes to the whole quality of life” Chinamasa et all (2011) also stated that,
“One can infer that, the motivating instrumentality function of the world of work
compels candidates to get the grade.” It does seem that this is true as the
allocation of a scholarship is usually considered by the honors, and
qualifications rather than what a candidate could do exactly to study. Another
example is ranging of the socio or even order in work place of hierarchy. People
are often judged by grades or degrees and not by their competency or ability.
Bray and Jones (1992) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) pointed out that,
students cheat because they have expectation and hope to cheat. Basically this
explanation shows that students do not study in class because they expect to
cheat, as a result students are not ready, confident and comfortable to take an
exam. Smith (2000) and Agnew (1985) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) tried
to summarize as dishonesties are stimulated by three main factors: firstly, the
18
honesty is reduced by the failing marks in an exam. Secondly, negative
motivation and pressure from family and pursuing appreciation for loved one.
Lastly, intension to be honest is thwarted by having loss of scholarship or
educational degree qualification.
Lack of Integrity Concern
Integrity is a good disposition of a student to fight against cheating; it is
honesty that most students who cheat are missing in learning. In this part, there
are several researchers who specify and explain the reasons why students should
be concerned about integrity and take it into consideration. According to
Whitley and Keith-spiegel (2002,) as cited in Ruto (2011) teaching and learning
will not reach its potential points since the score of students who cheat raises the
mean score building the assessments process and creating a lack of care towards
poor students or students who do not cheat. If the penalty applied is not strong
then the students who do not cheat lack a belief in honesty creating bad character
development among integrative students
Consequence Confirmation
Cheating on exams can significantly affect the students’ characteristics
which are considered as a basic aspect of good citizen, educator and member of
a society at large. Johnson (n.d) said that, "Integrity without knowledge is
useless and weak, knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful".
Therefore, cheating on exams can cause many serious problems such as:
1. Cheating on exams can indicate the untrue result for evaluation,
since the cheaters raise the average grade of a class. This can lead the examiners
to over estimate the students’ learning progress. Students who cheat may get
higher grades than their progressive level in learning. Bushweller (1999) as cited
19
in McCabe (2012) claimed that, “grade inflation” could directly change the
average score in class or norm referenced means.
2. Student morale, when honest students see some of their peers cheat
and get away with it, especially if it appears that instructors do not seem to care,
they become frustrated and angry (e.g, Jendrek, 1992 as cited in McCabe 2012)
3. Faculty morale. Faculty can feel personally violated and mistreated
by their students, reacting with feeling of anger and disgust (e.g, Jendrek, 1989;
Johnston, 1996 as cited in McCabe 2012). These negative emotions can be
compounded by perceptions that administrators do not support their efforts to
control academic dishonesty and punish cheaters (e.g, Schneider, 1999; Wilson,
1988 as cited in McCabe 2012)
4. Reputation of the institutions, public confidence in higher education,
McCabe et al (2012).
Dishonesty is considered as a bad habit that can reduce trustfulness, create
poor image of one’s character, damage integrity, support further awful
dishonesty, and lose self-confidence. In addition, the students’ life could be
ruined when they believe cheating is a good way out when they can not do the
exams. Bob Roth (2011) pointed out that, “Cheating in College Can Ruin Your
Life”. He explained that cheating is not worth doing. When students get caught
during an exam and their transcripts are marked. This can stay as a flaw on the
students’ transcripts permanently. What is more, when students get caught and
they get zero from cheating, the zero marks are not admirable for the employers
in any company.
20
Prevention of Cheating in the Classroom
There have been many studies regarding cheating, both influenced by
external or internal factors (personal). Educational responses derived from
several significant results, which gained from research to research. Thus a
recommendation to minimize cheating problem was established to solve and
prevent cheating, especially in the classroom. For example: teacher and students’
learning agreement.
One of the greatest cures is to solve the problem from its root. Beauchamp
and Murdock (2009) specified that when students surrender their heart to learn,
and focus content rather than receiving a grade, cheating is less likely to happen
through several means as stated below:
1. “teachers should seek student input into content or allow students to
choose specific topics for projects or papers.”
2. “tasks and assignments should be constructed so that they are at
appropriate levels for students.”
3. “teachers should strive to create an atmosphere that is safe for and
encouraging of student curiosity, risk-taking, and improvement.”
Besides this, other attempts have been made by researchers in 1990s
regarding the influences of institutional context on students cheating, Baird
(1980); Eisenberger & Shank, (1985); Perry, Kane, Bernesser, & Spicker,
(1990); Ward, (1986); Ward & Beck, (1990) as cited in McCabe et al (2001)
whose research pointed out that behavior of students such as, “competitive
achievement striving and self-esteem can significantly influence the prevalence
of cheating.” In 1990s, several studies focused on contextual factors such as:
“faculty responses to cheating, sanction threats, social learning, and honor codes
21
where it has ideally been shown to influence college cheating (e.g., Canning,
1956; Jendrek, 1989; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Tittle Rowe, 1973)”. McCabe et
all (2001) they also added, “Although these studies made important
contributions, most of them had significant limitations. Perhaps of greatest
importance, most of these studies only sampled students at a single institution,
obviously limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions about contextual
influences”.
Bowers (1964) as cited in McCabe et al (2001) said that, “our
distinguishing methodology has been the use of large-scale, multi-campus,
multivariable studies”. Most of the result ended with only a series of studies that
have advantages for their understanding to why college students cheat, provided
administrators and faculty with a broader set of tools that can be used to curb
cheating on college campuses, and helped foster academic integrity in American
colleges and universities (e.g, McCabe, 1992, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993,
1997; McCabe et al., 1996, 1999). McCabe et all (2001) defined that “Although
the center understands there is no one size fits all solution to academic
dishonesty, it does indicate that certain fundamental initiatives can yield positive
results on almost any campus”.
Short-Term deterrence
Steve Davis and his colleagues (2012) indicated that the most preferred
deterrents to discourage cheating in the classroom were (the following are listed
in order of preference):
1. Teachers should use different forms of a test.
2. Teachers should inform the students why they should not cheat.
3. Teachers should arrange the classroom seating so that an empty desk
22
separates the students during a test.
4. Teachers should walk up and down the rows during a test.
5. Teachers should constantly watch the students during a test.
According to the students’ respondents, the less preferred deterrents included:
1. The teacher simply announcing “do not cheat”
2. Having assigned seats;
3. Having an all-essay exam;
4. Requiring the students to leave their belongings outside the
classroom during the tests;
5. Embarrassing students in front of their classmates.
Although there are many methods to manage with the problems of
cheating in classroom, they are only a short-term deterrence. In the long run, it is
highly required students with permanent dispositions such as: personal integrity,
moral developments and ethics. Davis (2009) stated “the main task of an
institution is not to detect cheaters, but rather create an environment where
academic dishonesty is socially unacceptable”. As a result, the deterrence
requires a long term and steady progress to deter cheating.
Long-Term Deterrence
Moral development could be developed in both individuals and
Institutions. It is believed that “whose” values should be taught is not important.
It is suggested that educational institutions can reduce student cheating and
create an ethical, educated workforce by teaching “universal values, developing
moral reason, and honing ethical decision-making”. Kibler now Vice President
for Students Affairs at Mississippi State University, and colleagues (1988) as
cited in Davis (2009), were the first to suggest attending to student moral
23
development as a long-term deterrent in student academic misconduct.
In a nutshell, although cheating on an exam is considered as a serious
negative behavior, it is necessary to cheat without any avoidance from various
situations. For instance: “financial stress, family status, scholastic ability, and
feelings of alienation”, Meizlish (2005). A Comment of a student mentioned in
(Excellence and ethic, Winter 2011. Page 3) indicated some surprising themes
about cheating. It is said that, “Some acts of cheating are acceptable”. There are
several interesting comments such as, “cheating is considered wrong, but there
are circumstances when everyone accepts it, such as if you’re going to get a bad
grade because you didn’t have time to study and your teacher doesn’t allow
extensions.” Another comment was, “I don’t like it when people cheat off of me
or anyone else, but I let them cheat because they need the help.” Even though, it
is said that cheating behavior is acceptable among students. Based on the bad
impacts this behavior creates such as downgrading respects and values in
institutions and society. (Boehm, et al., 2009; Decoo, 2002; Fontana, 2009;
Lipka, 2009; Rosamond, 2002; Wilkerson, 2009 as cited in Witherspoon et al
2012) claimed that, “cheating is an institutional and societal problem and
academic dishonesty is more detrimental to the educational community than
stakeholders realize because it affects the faculty, students, and administration.”
In addition, Fontana (2009) as cited in Witherspoon et al (2012) reported that
“research has positively linked unethical classroom behaviors with unethical
clinical behavior…[and] has suggested students who cheat may go on to
endanger the health and safety of their patients” (para. 4.) Beside that, cheating
has a further impact on society as a whole creating a “down stream” of effects
toward social life of human beings. According to Happel and Jennings (2008) as
24
cited in Taderera et al (n.d), they stated that, “cheating in business starts with
cheating in a test.” Trost (2009) as cited in Taderera et al (n.d), argued that,
“there is a positive relationship between college cheating and the country's
corruption index. Corruption and lack of business ethics impede national
growth.” This may reflect the development of the national growth of Laos,
which is required the educated, competent and honest citizens to help develop
the country rather dishonest students. From this illustration, it is consequently
requested the honest college students or at least the students who see cheating is
unacceptable. Furthermore, Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005) and Williams
and Hosek (2003) as cited in Taderera et al (n.d) had made quite similar
observations to the effect, that students who lack academic ethics will not
respect integrity in their professions as well as in their personal relationships,
these particular personalities and perspectives are in their mindset to see that
cheating is an acceptable social behavior so they will cheat their “employer,
supervisor, spouse, parents and anyone else that they come in contact with”. As
a result, understanding the motives why students decide to be dishonest is very
crucial and beneficial for a university to help establish a community of integrity
in learning rather than a stressful campus which passing an examination is a
mission to enter a compulsory workforce.
25
Chapter III
Research Methodology
Research Design
A survey method of research was employed for this research. This method
involved data collection from samples. Thus the method enabled the researcher
to elicit responses from the carefully designed questionnaire based on External
and Internal factors.
Ethical Considerations
The respect in respondents’ privacy was always considered. The purpose
of the study was only to find out the solution to the problem occurring.
According to Kombo and Tromp (2006) as cited in Ruto (2011) “the researcher
must maintain privacy and confidentiality of the respondent at all time”. In this
case of study the participants were never asked to write their name on
questionnaire, and references to any specific department or faculty were omitted.
Scope of sampling
The population for this research was the undergraduate students from 10
different departments in 4 Faculties in Dongdok campus. The students were
randomly selected from year 2 to year 5 at NUOL. Year 1 students were not
included because they are young and considered to have no experience in
cheating at university before.
26
Sampling
According to Watson Jeff (2001), a table of random sample was used to
random students from the populations at the campus. 394 undergraduate students
were randomly chosen using simple random sampling techniques, the reference
number was shown in the table below:
Table 1: Table of random sampling technique
27
Description of Respondents
The researcher was strictly careful in choosing and administering the
questionnaires. Thus, Lao citizen who originally studied in Lao private and non-
private school were chosen, which the researcher believes to have the same
ethical decision style, moral development, social cultural and previous school
environment. In addition the samples were the students in the same campus,
which were considered to have the same institutional environment such as:
facilities, buildings, supplement and equipment. Furthermore, the students were
all under the same curriculums adopted by the Ministry of Education and Sports
and set by the University.
28
Population
Table 2: Populations, Scope and Samples
Number of populations and scope of sample were demonstrated in the table
below:
Random Sampling Methods Techniques used No of
students % Questionnaires
Census 8 Faculties in campus 25,955 100
Population 4 Faculties (Two-stage random sample) 12,290 100
Representative sample
10 Departments (Clustering) 394 (Watson Jeff, 2001)
+/-5%
Target sample Faculties/ department
Year 2-5 Lao students (Clustering & Stratifying)
Architecture 2,100 22 91
1) Architecture 1,200 57 52
2) Building
900 43 39
Education 1,062 13 55
1) Education management
174 16 9
2) Social Science 316 30 16
3) Foreign language 572 54 30
Environment 1,253 14 59
1) Environmental Management
652 52 31
2) Environmental Science.
601 48 28
Letters 1,524 51 217
1) English 1158 76 161 2) Lao Language & Mass Communications
264 17 36
3) Japanese 102 7 20 Total 12,290 100% 423
29
Research Instruments
The questionnaire was based on a questionnaire developed by Stephen et
al (1975) as cited in Halima (2003). The questionnaire used by the researcher
was very similar to Halima’s. The questionnaire used by Halima was a Likert-
format rate scale of 5 options for instance: 1. Never. 2. Occasionally. 3.
Undecided. 4. Often. 5. Very often. On the other hand, the researcher adapted
the questionnaire to avoid uncertain items for misinterpretation. What is more,
the scales used were clarified clearly by adding number in percentage to avoid
ambiguous items. In order to keep the balance between scale, percentage varies
from 0 – 100 and have been divided into 5 main scales of 0%, 25%, 50 %, 75%,
and 100%.
The questionnaire consisted of 3 parts with both close-ended to obtain
qualitative data and open-ended items to obtain more insight opinions from
participants. The first part was a collecting of demographic information for
gathering information for further research, but this part was hardly answered by
the students. The second part was a collecting of the aspects that contributed to
cheating (also referred to as factors influencing students’ decision to cheat on
exams), and the last part was a collecting of frequency and methods students
used to assist cheating on exams.
The questionnaire was composed in Lao to avoid misinterpretation and
misunderstanding among students at targeted departments. In addition, the
questionnaire was designed carefully and piloted twice. The first time on 3rd,
August 2013, 15 questionnaires were administered to students at the Department
of English. Later on 8th, August 2013, 15 questionnaires were administered to
15 students at the Faculty of Environment, Department of Environmental
30
Sciences. Aiken, (1997) as cited in Zoltan Dornyei (2003) pointed out that,
“Questionnaires can be designed to minimize, but not eliminate, dishonest, and
careless reporting”. Thus, the carefully designed questionnaire was considered
as reliable and valid for the research.
Data Collection
403 questionnaires were given and collected extensively during a period of
3 months. The questionnaires were administered by the researcher to students in
class; the students usually spent about 15-30 minutes answering questions since
there were 3 open-ended questions. At the same time there were only 20
questionnaires administered by a teacher at the Japanese Department, after
collecting the data the researcher could observe no difference in the answers
contour.
Data Analysis
Factor Analysis was employed; the data was collected and analyzed by
using IBM SPSS Statistics.v22.MacOSX to extract the data by components
analysis (PCN). In addition, the researcher obtained the result from examining
Correlation Matrix, KMO and Bartlett's Test, Communalities, Total Valiance
Explained, Scree Plot, Component Matrix and Rotated Component Matrix. The
data will be presented in the form of a table. Furthermore, the frequencies,
percentages, means, mode, standard deviation were calculated to help interpret
the pervasiveness of the problem of cheating. The answers from open-ended
questions were grouped, analyzed and patterned into several themes.
31
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
Q1 3.144 1.3440 360
Q2 2.808 1.0992 360
Q3 3.036 .9270 360
Q4 3.144 .9057 360
Q5 2.781 1.0863 360
Q6 2.522 .9701 360
Q7 2.819 1.2459 360
Q8 2.639 1.1308 360
Q9 2.031 1.1029 360
Q10 2.439 1.1927 360
Q11 3.219 1.1067 360
Q12 3.097 1.1702 360
Q13 3.225 1.2653 360
Q14 3.572 1.2060 360
Q15 3.019 1.0776 360
Q16 2.917 1.2683 360
Q17 3.444 1.1906 360
Q18 2.478 .9871 360
Q19 2.775 1.1156 360
Q20 3.364 1.0936 360
Q21 2.675 1.1083 360
Q22 3.128 1.3662 360
Q23 3.047 1.3745 360
32
Table 3 (cont) : Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
Q24 3.458 1.1699 360
Q25 4.067 1.0847 360
Q26 3.406 1.1975 360
Q27 3.181 1.3049 360
The table above generated from the descriptive statistics shows the
central tendency beneficial for prioritizing the most frequent aspects answered
by the students.
Table 4: Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative % Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1 5.796 21.466 21.466 5.796 21.466 21.466
2 1.736 6.428 27.894 1.736 6.428 27.894
3 1.524 5.643 33.538 1.524 5.643 33.538
4 1.475 5.463 39.001 1.475 5.463 39.001
5 1.177 4.360 43.360 1.177 4.360 43.360
6 1.110 4.110 47.470 1.110 4.110 47.470
7 1.092 4.043 51.513 1.092 4.043 51.513
8 1.017 3.766 55.279 1.017 3.766 55.279
9 .954 3.534 58.813
10 .863 3.196 62.009
11 .844 3.124 65.133
33
Table 4 (cont): Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative % Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
12 .829 3.071 68.204
13 .794 2.940 71.144
14 .755 2.797 73.941
15 .734 2.718 76.659
16 .679 2.516 79.175
17 .669 2.479 81.654
18 .654 2.421 84.075
19 .620 2.294 86.369
20 .571 2.115 88.485
21 .530 1.961 90.446
22 .520 1.928 92.373
23 .472 1.749 94.122
24 .456 1.691 95.812
25 .418 1.549 97.362
26 .386 1.430 98.792
27 .326 1.208 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The table above displayed the data extracted using Principle Component
Analysis. It indicated that, there were 8 variables with the Initial Eigenvalues
above 1. There was the possibility that there were 8 factors that influenced
students’ cheating on exams behaviors. According to KMO and Bartlett's Test
which provided a valid number as greater than 0.50, the value was .839 which
34
considered a good value for claiming a reliable factors. Furthermore, sig. value
below 0.50 pointed out that factor analysis was suitable and appropriate.
Table 5: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .839
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1690.975
df 253
Sig. .000
Table 6: Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Q26 .723 .107
Q25 .715 .115 .114 .103 .150
Q27 .569 .139 .189 .250 -.384
Q17 .525 .112 .442 .225 .263
Q13 .493 .254 .254 .213
Q24 .477 .148 .308 .160 .329
Q12 .460 .126 .346 .156 .124
Q18 .720 -.120 .166 .132 .109
35
Table 6 (cont): Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Q20 .347 .662 .244
Q19 .160 .662 .175 -.169 .200 .157
Q21 .193 .460 .404 .263 -.152 -.173
Q10 .120 .421 .138 .354 .344 -.151
Q5 .626 .235 .197 -.228
Q6 .589 .137 .130 .171 .187
Q16 .383 .550 -.145 .293 -.124 .209 -.182
Q4 .292 .677 .243
Q3 .138 .614 .199
Q2 .158 .321 .578 .275 -.203
Q1 .259 .136 .409 .374 -.202
Q8 .130 .784
Q9 .102 .285 .103 .268 .675 -.154 .118
Q23 .121 .122 .153 .699
Q22 .166 .172 .149 -.127 .668
Q7 .297 .305 .679
Q14 .430 .108 .187 .189 .614
Q15 .108 .393 .132 .170 .151 .398
Q11 .281 .119 .301 .168 .192 .304 -.388
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a a. Rotation converged in 34 iterations.
36
The table above displayed ambiguous factor loadings. Although, the
researcher had rotated the axis by employing the Varimax with Kaiser
Normaliztion method. There were some multi-loadings such as Q11 and Q14.
While several factors had only one or two variables which were not considered
as contributing factors.
Table 7 Scree Plot
37
The numbers in the table of total variance explained (table 6) showed that
there were 8 variables from the analysis. On the other hand, the scree plot above
differently pointed out 4 main factors. According to Field (2005) rerunning the
factor analysis could be done to obtain the better result. Thus the researcher had
rerun the analysis one more time with the fix factors of 4 factors in accordance
with the scree plot as could be seen in the following table
Table 8: Component Matrixa
Component 1 2 3 4
Q25 .629 -.263 -.170 -.244 Q17 .603 -.226 .135 Q20 .593 .246 -.175 Q14 .584 -.211 -.184 Q24 .571 -.198 Q26 .555 -.170 -.234 -.317 Q12 .532 -.182 Q2 .489 .465 -.105 Q10 .486 .287 .166 Q19 .482 .401 .184 Q27 .478 -.277 -.227 -.200 Q21 .471 .305 -.127 .236 Q13 .464 -.260 -.163 -.214 Q8 .395 .361 Q23 .368 -.337 .219 Q18 .377 .634 .133 Q4 .321 -.457 .224 .382 Q7 .368 .441 Q9 .503 .526 Q22 .390 .225 -.479 .182 Q3 .367 -.326 .371 .111 Q5 .223 .652 Q6 .308 .585
a. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a
4 components extracted.
38
Table 8 above displayed most of the variables that loaded on the first factor
and there was no clear-cut result to indicate which variable belonged to which
factor. In accordance with communality table below, which showed many
variables with extraction score lower than .40 should be deleted such as:
question number 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24.
Table 9: Communalities
Extraction
Q1 .163
Q2 .469
Q3 .388
Q4 .463
Q5 .486
Q6 .400
Q7 .321
Q8 .301
Q9 .517
Q10 .370
Q11 .285
Q12 .334
Q13 .341
Q14 .391
Q15 .226
Q16 .271
39
Table 9 (cont): Communalities
Extraction
Q17 .461
Q18 .566
Q19 .417
Q20 .451
Q21 .382
Q22 .442
Q23 .282
Q24 .383
Q25 .542
Q26 .486
Q27 .392
The table above pointed out that there was 14 variables that did not fit
well with the factor solution, and should possibly be deleted from the analysis
due to the extraction score lower than .040.
Table 10: KMO and Bartlett's Test2
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .813
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1073.272
df 105
Sig. .000
40
The table above showed the appropriate KMO measure of .813, which
indicated reliable factors and the Sig. number lower than .50, which is .000,
which showed the factor analysis employed was appropriate.
Table 11: Communalities2
Initial Extraction
Q2 1.000 .608
Q3 1.000 .526
Q4 1.000 .556
Q5 1.000 .542
Q6 1.000 .495
Q9 1.000 .480
Q14 1.000 .485
Q17 1.000 .536
Q18 1.000 .621
Q19 1.000 .487
Q20 1.000 .514
Q21 1.000 .457
Q24 1.000 .431
Q25 1.000 .658
Q26 1.000 .532
41
The extraction from the communalities table showed a better result of
value greater than 0.40, which meant the variables fit well in the factor solution.
As a result, 4 factors were analyzed using SPSS for data reductions and factor
analysis as could be shown in the following table of rotated component matrix:
Table 12: Rotated Component Matrixa2
Component
1 2 3 4
Q25 .799 .109
Q26 .702 .119 .113 -.112
Q14 .659 .194
Q17 .601 .181 .376
Q24 .567 .173 .282
Q18 .787
Q19 .225 .648
Q20 .323 .591 .244
Q21 .134 .542 .379
Q2 .145 .287 .703 -.102
Q3 .153 .692 .123
Q9 .346 .592
Q4 .163 -.182 .553 .437
Q5 .135 .723
Q6 .135 .685
Table 12 above clearly showed variables that loaded on each factor. The
first factor consisted of 5 variables which were Q25, Q26, Q14, Q17 and, Q24.
The second factors contained 4 variable of Q18, Q19, Q20 and, Q21. The third
42
factors had 3 variables of Q2, Q3 and, Q9 and the fourth factors comprised of
Q4, Q5 and Q6. The result and findings are explicitly explained in the next
chapter.
43
Chapter IV
Findings
The purpose of this study was to find out the factors that influence students
to cheat on the examinations. In order to present the findings in a logical
manner, this chapter was organized according to the following order:
1. Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat.
2. The pervasiveness of the cheating problem.
3. The practical implications based on the findings from this study.
Finally, the open-ended questions posed in the questionnaires were deeply
discussed.
The results found were similarly to the findings of McCabe et al (2011).
There were 2 main factors analyzed. Based on the examined result and summary
of the opened-ended questions, three questions set for this study were answered
in this chapter.
Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on the
examinations
Students’ cheating behaviors were influenced by 2 main factors: 1.
External factors and 2. Internal factors. In accordance with the data analyzed, the
findings were logically presented from the External and then the Internal factors.
1. External factors: It clearly seemed that undergraduate students’
cheating behavior was influenced by the external forces which consist of 3 main
external factors: 1. Social value. 2. Teachers (in an examination class also
referred to a proctor), and 3. Examination difficulty as can be shown in the
following tables:
44
Table 13: Variables contributed to explain student’s cheating behaviors
influenced by social value
Items Variables N Mean STD
Q 14 You want to gain high scores to continue your study in higher level or to pursue scholarship
419 3.52
1.23
Q 17 Pressure & expectation to work in a good place 418 3.42
1.16
Q 24 New technologies allow you to cheat, such as: mobile
phone, copy machine 419 3.49
1.18
Q 25 The saying “Study to get knowledge, take an exam to get
the score” 421 4.05
1.06
Q 26 The saying “The saying “Passing the exams dirtily is
better than failing cleanly” 420 3.40
1.18
Social Value was one of the most influential factors, which affected
students’ cheating behavior. Davis (2009) mentioned that one of the students’
reasons to cheat was grade pressure. The finding in this study was similar since
the students were under pressure to get a better grade. On the other hand, a
stronger motivation for students was to pursue higher marks or better scores
because of the society sees the scores and grades as a mean to attend the
university rather than knowledge. To illustrate, it is believed that good grades
are the major way to get a certificate for employment; thus, students are under
pressure to get a certificate and the students consequently cheat. According to
the table, the students were under pressure and expectation to work in a good
place, gain high scores to continue their study in higher level or to pursue
scholarship, the saying “Study to get knowledge, take an exam to get the score”
and The saying “Passing the exams dirtily is better than failing cleanly”. These
sayings were very popular and well-known among the students and they totally
45
affected they students’ cheating behaviors. This reflected how important the
scores and certificates the students would receive are to the society. In addition,
the most influential aspect was the saying “Study to get knowledge, take an
exam to get the score”. The data collected from questionnaire number 27 (The
knowledge taught might not be used in work but the scores will indicate the
future) with the mean score of 3.1881 and standard deviation of 1.30003 also
helped the researcher to draw the finding of how the social value was one of
several factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on the exams.
Furthermore, around 11.84% of students had stated their perspectives of how
social value put them under the pressure:
Open-ended question number 28 asked, “How often do you cheat on
exams because?” The students’ answers were translated into English and quoted
below:
“I want to get good scores”
“I am afraid of studying the same level for another year. And I am nervous
I won’t get the degree.”
“I am afraid of getting low scores”
“I want to get at least the lowest standard scores”
In addition, 18.95% of the students indicated that they cheat because of the
social value. The open-ended question number 29 posed, “What do you think?
What factors urge you to cheat on exams?” The students’ perspectives were
translated into English and quoted below:
“Because during the exam class everyone needs high score in order to
graduate and to certify that it is easier to get a job”
46
“I am afraid of getting worse scores than my friends, failing the exams,
being complained from my parents, looked down from friends”
“As can be seen, nowadays everyone only wants to get good/high scores,
when he/she graduates he/she will get a job easily”
“I have a feeling that the society has an easy way and why do I have to
work or study hard though there’s easier way. Furthermore the modern
society and the wide public arena develop so fast but we (Lao people) still
stay the same without mental and ethic development.”
“Because taking the exams is a way to get scores for the future and to get
hired or get employed by a good companies or good places”
What is more, 41.11% of the students answered in the way that their
cheating behaviors were influenced by social value. The open-ended question
number 30 asked, “What do you think? Why do the other students cheat on
exams?” The students’ responses were translated into English and quoted below:
“They are afraid to fail the exam”
“They do not want to come and study term 3”
“They want to get good/high scores so that they do not have to come and
study modifying F Grade because it is a waste of money; to guarantee that
they will not have to come to study again, so that they will have future; to
make their parents proud of them; it is easy to apply for a job; to pass to
the next level“.
“They can’t do the exams but they want to get good scores”
“1. To Survive, 2 to get scores, 3, the better scores shown in the scores
sheet attached with the certificate”
47
Discussion:
As can be seen from the answers given by the students. It is normal that
the society requires the students to have some certain points of certification to
get into the work place. On the other hand, this expectation from the society
stimulates students to cheat on the exams. The variables contributing to social
value factors could be seen as a pressure that the grades and score play a crucial
role in the students’ cheating behaviors. In the themes given by students, which
had been investigated carefully showed that the core influential aspect was not
the scores or the grades themselves. On the other hand, it is the society that
placed the value on how the grades and scores indicated the students’ life after
graduation.
Table 14: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors influenced by
teachers
Items Variables N Mean STD
Q18 There is no clarity of sanctions or explicitness of
academic integrity policies but only it is believed that cheating is considered wrong
420 3.06
1.37
Q 19 Teachers leave room during a test 420 2.76
1.10
Q 20 Everyone else seems to be cheating 416 3.37 1.08
Q 21 I am not confident in the teacher whether he is expert
in that field so I cheat
422 2.67
1.10
Another finding was how the teachers played an essential role in students’
cheating behaviors. According to the table above, one reason was because of the
teachers did not always stay in the examination class. As a result this gave
48
students a chance to copy the answers from their peer or from the clip notes. The
table above illustrated that teachers leave the room during the test had a mean
score of 2.7667 which showed the score above the middle score of 2.5 and
standard deviation score of 1.10664 which showed there was no big gap between
the series of data from the mean score. In addition, the students cheated because
they were not sure that the teachers they were studying with were the experts in
the field. It showed in the table that the students agreed, “I am not confident in
the teacher whether he is an expert in that field” with the mean score of 2.6754
and the standard deviation of 1.10551. Some themes given by students indicated
the teachers’ play a part in students’ cheating behaviors as could be quoted
below:
According to the answers from the students, they claimed that they cheated
because of the way the teachers taught them which covered 0.47 %. The open-
ended questions number 28 asked, “How often you cheat on exams?” The
students’ answers were translated into English and quoted below:
“I can not remember the lesson taught, the teacher teaches
incomprehensively”
“The lessons are too hard the teachers teach incomprehensively”
Besides that, there were themes that the students claimed why they cheated
on the exams because of the teachers who were not strict on proctoring enough.
It covered 2.13% as it was translated into English and quoted below:
“We cheat whenever the teachers or proctors don’t complain and allow
cheating”
49
“The teachers left the room to answer the phone or just go out side”
“I notice that my friends cheat and there is not complain from the teachers
or the proctors so I also cheat”
“The teachers/proctors are not strict”
In addition, some of the students claimed the other interesting points
which were influenced by the teachers. The details were translated into English
and quoted below:
“Sometimes I’m not sure with the answers and the teachers don’t see the
importance of answering the questions by comprehension and
understanding”
“The teachers tell me to be exact with the lessons from the book (I can’t
remember)”
“Because there’s pressure from the teachers”
“Because sometimes the questions make me not to understand, when I ask
the teachers to repeat they tend not to explain and they have such a rude
behaviors to the students since I was in year II”
In addition, the open question number 29 posed that “What do you think?
What factors urge you to cheat on exams” There was 2.12 % of the students
complaining about the way the teachers taught that influence them to cheat as
can be translated into English and quoted below:
50
Profession in teaching:
“The class is too noisy, the teachers speak too softly. Thus I do not know
how to prepare for the exams”
“The teachers teach badly (sometimes they only come and teach us 2-3
times and then they hold the exam”
“Some teachers don’t have the right techniques or the appropriate ways to
teach and convey the meanings of the lessons so the students don’t
understand the lessons very well. Furthermore, the teachers don’t even pay
attention and care about the students in class, so the students also don’t
even pay attention or care about the lessons and cheat eventually”
“Sometimes there’s no hand-outs or any books for students while the
teachers don’t explain the lessons”
“The teachers are not good at transferring knowledge”
“Sometimes the ways the teachers teach are not good and clear enough”
“It’s a result that there’s no motivation to study such as: teachers can’t
motivate students to study, to be alert since there’s no activities involved.
Thus this leads to boredom and neglect to pay attention to study and to
have a look at the lessons”
“I’m lazy and neglected and the teachers don’t teach very well so the
students don’t understand”
“Teachers teach too fast and incomprehensively”
“Because the teachers don’t teach very well, they focus on the students
they like and pay more attention to those students, they build only 1 good
students but they do not care about the other students”
“Because the teachers can not control the students for example: there are
51
50 students per 1 teacher. The cheaters get A grade but the students who
study hard get only D or F grades”
Teachers’ ethics:
“Because the teachers do not see the importance of answering the
questions by comprehension and understanding, they do not explain the
lessons clearly, they waste time on plain theories without explaining the
main purposes of the lessons”
“During the class the teachers always talk about something else outside the
lesson”
Teachers were neglected to proctors the class:
“The teachers/proctors are neglectful/procrastinated with the rules to
control the examination room”
“The teachers are neglectful and the students ignore the campaign and
strictness to anti cheating which it is not now our custom”
“Because of the teachers or proctors are not strict, if the teachers or
proctors were strict in the past I should have studied harder to pass the
exams”
“Because the teachers or proctors let students cheat”
“It is because of the teachers who allow students to be familiar with
cheating and to be lazy eventually”
“My friends in class cheat but there is no one (teachers/proctors) trying to
stop”
“There’s a chance allowed from the teachers/proctors”
“Because during the exams I do not cheat but my friends cheat and the
teacher observe that but refuse to act anything or do anything about that.
52
Eventually the results of the cheaters are higher than me so it leads me to
think it would be better to cheat”
There was 5.91% of the students who explained that they cheated because
of the influence from their teachers. The question number 30 which sought to
know “What do you think? Why the other students cheat on exams?” The
students’ explanations were translated into English and quoted below:
Profession in teaching:
“The teachers do not teach explicitly and clearly”
“During the lessons the teachers do not teach very well so the students do
not pay attention to listen and to study”
“Mostly they do not understand the lessons well enough, the teachers do
not have a lessons revisions, they teach hurriedly which causes students
not to understand the lessons”
Teachers were neglected to proctors the class:
“There is much time in the exam class and the teachers/proctors also allow
them to cheat”
“Teachers and proctors do not ban cheating as they have said, so students
cheat on exam”
“The teachers or proctors are not strict enough”
“The teachers and proctors are not strict as foreign teachers do”
“We are sometimes allowed to cheat”
“The rules are not in action, especially the teachers (the teachers are not
53
strict as indicated in the rules”
“The teachers/proctors are not strict to proctor the class”
“Sometimes the teachers/ proctors are kind and let them cheat”
Teachers’ ethics:
“It is not fair when there are some teachers’ relatives in the class who get
higher marks”
“The teachers/proctors are too kind and tolerant”
“Because the teachers are kind, they used to have feeling of being a
student as well.”
“The teachers do not teach and behave on student equally but they train
only some to be good students. Normally, Lao students do not like to show
and act out so they do not dare to complain the teachers. Finally they cheat
on the exams”
Discussion:
To summarize, the students’ cheating behaviors were influenced by their
teachers in three ways: 1. Profession in teaching, the comments given by the
students indicated that the teachers did not teach professionally. Thus, the
students did not understand the lessons and cheat eventually. This required a
further study to investigate the teachers whether the campus had appropriate,
professional, and qualified teachers. 2. Teachers were neglected to proctors the
class. To illustrate, the teachers were not strict enough to seriously punish or
54
observe the problem of cheating. The actions taken by the teachers during the
classroom and the examination class required a closer look at the teachers’
responsibilities as a proctor. In addition, it is strongly shown that in the future a
new technology should be used to proctor the examination class or proctors who
did not teach at NUOL. 3. Teachers’ ethics, Gallant (2011) defined one of the
academic ethics facets. In this case, the teachers failed to fulfill their obligation
to their society (the campus). The campus expected their staffs to teach fulltime;
be honest and fair to the students; treat on the students equally.
Table 15: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors influenced by
the examination’s difficulty and unfairness
Items Variables N Mean STD
Q 4 You think that exams are too hard 418 3.14
.914
Q 5 Exams do not test what you have learnt 417 2.78
1.08
Q6 The test instructions are not clear 420
2.49
.983
The level of examination difficulty influences student’s cheating behaviors
in many ways: First, the students’ perspectives towards the difficulty of the
examinations, the Mean score of 3.1483 indicated that the students thought that
the exams were too hard for them. Second, the students cheated because they
thought that the examinations were not fair as specified by the students that the
exams were not about what they had learnt. Third, the test instructions were not
clear. Some of the interesting ideas from open-ended questions were quoted
logically from open-ended question number 28, 29 and 30.
55
Question number 28 covered 10.42% indicated the examination was too
difficulty in the students’ point of views. The students’ answers were translated
into English and quoted below:
“The exams are too hard”
“I don’t understand the questions asked”
“The answers are too long and they are difficult”
“The teachers prepare a very difficult exam. For example: the open-ended
questions”
“The exams are not included in the revision format”
“The questions are not clear and the teachers could not explain”
“Sometimes the exams are not the same with the example format”
“The exams are outside the lessons”
“Because some items are the same as what exists in the lessons but some
are not”
“Sometimes the exams are not the same as what I have learnt”
“What I have a looked at is not what’s included in the exams so it’s
necessary to copy from the books”
“There is only a short time but the exams are too long and difficult”
Number 29 dominated 16.05% showed the students complaining the
examination difficulty. It posed the question: “What do you think? What factors
urge you to cheat on exams?” The students’ comments were translated into
English and quoted below:
“There is only little time to do exams so I cheat”
“The exams are not what I have memorized“
“The exams are too hard and complicated”
56
“There are too many items (time is not enough), the exams are not
appropriate to the students’ level (the exams are much more difficult than
the lesson taught)”
“I do not understand the instructions given, and I can not translate some
questions”
“The questions are too hard and complicated, the contents of the exams are
not contained in the lesson and the time given is too short, but I need to get
the scores to get A or B grades”
“The exams’ instructions are not clear”
“I do not have confidence, the questions are complicated or I am not
familiar with the vocabularies”
“Because it is so difficult”
“The questions are too difficult and they are ambiguous and long. These
kinds of questions make students confused and answer the questions in
many different ways but those questions are not focused on the questions’
goal. The cause is the unclear questions”
The open-ended question number 30 portions 6.09% of the students
pointed out that the examination were too difficult for them. The students
answered the question that posed: “What do you think? Why the other students
cheat on exams?” The students’ responses were translated into English and
quoted below:
“The exams are too difficult”
“They are not sure, they are afraid not to answer correctly with the points,
they can not really do the exams.”
“The exams are not what they have a look at”
57
“The lessons taught are different from the items on in the exams”
“The exams are too long, so the students are under pressure whether they
have enough time or not and they cheat”
The external forces influenced the students’ cheating behaviors, especially
the difficulty of the exams. As could be seemed from the students’ opinions the
exams were too hard for them. Thus, it requires an investigation deeply into the
suitability of the exam whether the exams were too difficult for the students or it
was because the students were too lazy and they tried to condemn the exams.
The themes given by students indicated that difficulty might be caused from the
students’ laziness for instance: they did not study hard and tried to lean to easier
way such as rote learning as could be shown in the following statements:
“The exams are not what I have memorized”
“Because the exams are too hard and sometimes the exams are not what I
have reviewed”
“There are so many things to have a look at”
“The exams are more difficult than the lessons in class”
“Mostly the teachers see the students as professors because some questions
are considered as very difficult questions or they are not related to the
lessons”
In addition, the students tried to fix their answers to the lessons taught or
contained in the books rather than understanding the concept of the lesson. A lot
of students had given their ideas to support this finding as quoted below:
“The lessons taught are different from the items present on the exams”
“They think the answers will be totally correct or the same with what their
teachers want”
58
“If it is not the same thing taught by the teachers, the teachers would not
give us the scores”
“They want to have their answers responded correctly as the teachers
specified”
“Most of the students might think the same as me (I don’t remember the
lessons, but if I answer based on my understanding with what I have
learned. I am afraid my answers would not be the same thing with the
content contained in the books).”
Furthermore, student’s workload during the examination class is found to
be a crucial aspect to explain why student decide to cheat. The answers given by
the students from the open-ended questions were translated into English and
quoted below:
“I have limited time to do the exams and the time is not exactly specified.
For example: an exam is given 60 minutes period of time. But in the end
the sheets are collected just after 45 or 50 minutes pass. So this puts us
under pressure to cheat”
“There is not enough time but there are too many items on exams, thus
students are under pressure and they finally cheat”
“The exams are too long, so the students are under pressure whether they
have enough time or not so they cheat”
Discussion:
Although the students cheated because of the difficulty of the exams, there
were too many test items and some items were unclear. A deeper investigation is
required to find out whether the examination is fair enough for the students.
Meanwhile, it is more critical to focus on the students’ learning process.
59
Especially the aspects contributed to help students to be logical and active in
learning rather than fixing the answers to what had been taught.
2. Internal factors:
There were several components, which contributed to the internal factors.
The result obtained from the factor analysis was contained in the table below to
show how the inner force played an essential role in the students’ cheating
behaviors
Table 16: Variables explaining students’ cheating behaviors influenced by
students’ characteristics
Items Variables N Mean STD
Q 2 You used to cheat in high school 421 2.80
1.07
Q 3 You are not sure about answers 412 3.04
.924
Q 9 You do not pay attention to study in class since you
know that you can eventually cheat when an exam comes
417 2.03
1.11
The students’ characteristic is the inner force, which plays a crucial role
in students’ behaviors. The explanation to this could be observed from the
variables in the table above. The students’ characteristics consisted of three main
dispositions:
The first disposition was the students’ previous experience. This character
was developed long before they attended the university. The students used to
cheat and learned to be dishonest since they were in high school. The score in
correlation matrix showed the relationship of the behaviors of the students who
used to cheat in their high school to the fellow characters the students are in the
60
campus. To illustrate, the former experience in cheating in high school caused
two characteristics of the students who come to in the university: 1. Unprepared
knowledgeable students, and 2. Lazy student.
1. The students cheated because they were not sure about the answers.
The relationship between the test difficulty and the reason why the
students were not sure was quite high with the score in correlation
matrix of .308. This indicated that the students did not have plenty of
knowledge to be sure to answers the questions since they used to
cheat rather than studying hard. Even though, the exam’s difficulty
could have caused the students to be unsure but it was not important
when the students had have an ethics in deciding which actions to be
taken in any ethical dilemma they face.
2. The students did not pay attention to study since they realized that
they could eventually cheat. This meant the students cheated because
they were lazy, the laziness was developed before they came to the
campus. This required a further understanding from various aspects
why the students realized they could finally cheat such as: the
proctor process, the students’ moralities and so on.
The second variable was the students who were not confident in
themselves. They were not sure in answering the questions which had a mean
score of 3.0437 and the standard deviation score of .92441. As a result, this
clearly showed that the students were influenced by their own characteristics of
being uncertain or trusting in themselves.
61
The third variable, which indicated the internal factor was the students’
lack of attention to study that influenced the students to cheat on the exams. It
had a mean score of 2.0384 and the standard deviation score of 1.11090.
Discussion:
It is obvious that this characteristic was developed from the environment
they used to study in such as: the students’ previous environment in their high
school that affected them to cheat and the current environment which was the
students realized that they could eventually cheated. This meant that the students
were not afraid of getting caught during the exams. On the other hand, it might
be that the students did not have the ethics and morals to resist the distractions
from the outside force and the environment they were in.
Summary of Open-ended Questions
The answers given by the students were not only useful to support the
findings. In addition, the students also claimed some of their own perspectives
towards their decision to cheat which were classified in to many themes. There
were 3 open-ended questions contained in the questionnaires. To illustrate, the
reason why the students cheated were investigated and classified into 11
categories which belongs to Internal and External factors as could be illustrated
below:
Internal factor:
1. Lack of passion to study
One of the truths behind the students’ cheating behaviors was the lack of
passion to study. The students did not have a motivation and there was no
challenge for them to study. However, this requirs a deeper understand why
62
students attend the university but still do not have the willingness to pursue their
education or at least they should have tried their best instead of being dishonest
and cheat on the exams. The illustration were translated into English and
reported below:
“I am lazy, there is little motivation and there is no clear challenge for
study”
“I do not pay attention when the teachers explain”
“They are lazy to study”
“The score is more important than knowledge”
“They do not want to study but they do not want to fail the exams”
2. Lacking of confidence
The students commented that they cheated because they did not have a
confidence and they were not sure with their own answers. The uncertainty
caused the students to cheat; they were not sure while taking an exam. Thus,
they finally cheat on the exams. The students’ opinion regarding this finding
were translated into English and copied below:
“I am not sure with the answers”
“I am not sure”
“I’m not confident in myself”
“I am not confident in myself whether my answers are right or wrong”
“They are not sure with their answers so they want to make sure that their
peer’s answer are the same so they have a look at their peers”
“They are not sure with the answers”
“There must be something to compare”
63
3. Passive learning
The students cheated because they expected their teachers or the
institutional staff to give and help them with everything. Instead of being active
learners who relied on their own attempts, they decided to cheat since their
teachers did not provide them with what they should learn to survive when the
exam came. The students’ answers were translated into English and quoted
below:
“Teachers do not help us to review the lessons”
“The teachers do not help us to review the lesson”
“Because the teachers never review what is similar to the exams”
“They do not know what/where to have a look at the lesson”
“They do not research the lessons by themselves”
4. Cognitive development
There were so many responses indicated that cheating happened because
the students thought they had low level of knowledge, weak memories and
inability in studying. The students’ explanation were translated into English and
recorded below:
“Sometimes when I can not recall the lessons taught”
“I do not get and understand the lessons”
“I am not good at studying so I cheat”
“Because I do not quite pay attention to study, I am not good at study,
sometimes I can not remember”
“Because I don not quite pay attention to study, I am not good at study,
sometimes I can not remember”
64
“I do not understand the lesson clearly”
“I do not get the lessons taught completely”
“I conclude that I do not have enough knowledge”
“I can not remember what have learned, I forget quickly, because I don not
know”
“In my opinion, I think other students cheat because they can not really do
exams even they have tried to review the lesson”
“They lack of knowledge and academic knowledge”
“I am not good at studying so I want to have a look at the good students’
papers”
“They are not good at studying, they do not understand the lesson (because
of the students themselves).”
“They are poor at studying”
5. Rote-learning
There was a relationship between the students’ cheating behaviors and the
student’s learning style. The students did not learn and understand the concept of
the lessons. On the other hand, they come to class without paying attention and
they also had no passion to study. Thus they did not acquire the lessons they
should have learned. As a result when the exams come the students try to recite
or memorize what is supposed to be on the exams. The students informed the
details which were translated into English and quoted below:
“Some items are not what I have recited”
“I always cheat when I do not review the lesson”
“I do not review the lesson or I suddenly forget the answers”
“I can not remember the lesson, I do not memorize it”
65
“The exams contain a lot of theories, and there are to many things to recite
so I do not remember and cheat”
“There are some items I recite but I can not remember while taking the
exam so I cheat”
“They recite the lessons but they forget”
6. Previous experience
The students cheated because they have developed and experienced
cheating habits long before they attended the university. The students shared
their experiences as translated into English and quoted below:
“I used to cheat since high school”
“Because I used to cheat since I was in high school so I become a student
who do not have knowledge and especially in higher education”
“Because cheating on exams is the conventional behavior which everyone
behave from generation to generation long time ago as it become a habit”
“They used to cheat so they become lazy students and they lack of intention”
“I used to cheat and I never get caught so I do again and again because I
think it is easier than studying hard.”
“Because it is their neglect and carelessness and from the past they have
seen the other students cheat and get better scores”
“It has become a custom and a social value, which derive long ago”
“They are addicted to cheating behaviors”
66
External factor:
1. Unfair exam
The students pointed out that they cheated because they felt the exams
were not fair for them. It consisted of both the difficulty of the exam and the
exams which were not about what they had learned. In order to display this
scenario the student’s comments are recorded below:
“The exams are not what I have learned”
“Time allowed for the exams is too short”
“The exams are outside the lessons”
“The exams are too hard and complicated”
“Because sometimes the teachers teach one thing and the exam is another
thing”
“The exams’ instructions are not clear”
“If I do not cheat I will not have a good result (scores) because the scores
from real knowledge acquire from learning will never be as good as the
scores from cheating since cheating tends to be exactly the same answers
from the books.”
“The questions are too difficult and they are ambiguous and long”
2. Social value and future goals
The society has put the students in a difficult situation. The students are
under pressure to cheat because of grades and certificates. In addition, the
students were afraid of failing since the society has a negative view towards the
students who fail. The students told the followings representative idea:
67
“I am afraid of studying the same level for another year. And I am nervous
I will not get the degree”
“I am afraid of getting low scores”
“I want to get high score”
“I do not want to study term III”
“I am afraid of getting F”
“Because during the exam class everyone needs high score in order to
graduate and be certified that it is easier to get a job”
“I am afraid of getting worse scores than my friends, failing the exams,
hearing complaints from my parents, looked down on from friends”
“I want to get high scores because the scores will influence my future’s
career”
“I have a feeling that the society has an easy way and why I have to work
or study hard, though there is an easier way. Furthermore the modern
society and the wide public arena develop so fast but we (Lao people) still
stay the same without mental and ethic development”
“Because taking the exams is a way to get scores for the future. In order to
get hired or get employed by a good company”
“Being awarded the certificate is what all the students want”
“Everyone wants to get high scores and does not want to fail”
3. Peer/parents influence
There is a crucial outside-force from the students’ friends and their parents
that cause the students to cheat as can be seen from the students’ point of views
below:
68
“I am afraid of friends, teachers and parents will complain about me”
“I see so many people cheat so I also cheat”
“Usually, I see my friends cheat so it seems acceptable to cheat”
“Because my peers always cheat, but I am the one who studies hard. And I
finally get lower scores than the cheaters”
“I do not want to be mocked by my friends if I fail”
“I am afraid of making my parents feel bad and disappointed in my
weakness in studying.”
4. Institutional/teachers’ influences
As can be seen, students’ peers and their parents play an essential role in
the students’ cheating behavior. Meanwhile, the institution and the teachers also
play a part in the students’ decision to cheat on the exams. The students have
stated their ideas below:
“We cheat whenever the teachers or proctors do not complain and allow
cheating”
“There are not exact and strict rules to prevent cheating and sometimes the
cheaters get higher marks than the students who study hard. I feel bad with
such unfair issue”
“The cheating management is not done properly so the students are not
afraid of the rules”
“The rules are not in action, especially the teachers (the teachers are not
strict as the rules indicated”
5. Teaching style
The students blamed the way the teachers teach that affected them to
cheat. The students have complained the following quotes:
69
“The lessons are too hard the teachers teach incomprehensively”
“Some teachers do not have the right techniques or the appropriate ways to
teach and convey the meaning of the lessons so the students do not
understand the lessons very well. Furthermore, the teachers do not even
pay attention/care about the students in class, so the students also do not
pay attention or care about the lessons and cheat eventually”
“Sometimes there are no hand-outs or any books for students while the
teachers do not explain the lessons”
“The teachers are not good at transferring knowledge”
“Because 90% of the teachers do not know how to classify and manage
upper/advanced and lower level”
“There is no good teaching and learning”
“During the lessons the teachers do not teach very well so the students do
not pay attention to listen and to study”
Other reasons
The other reasons are smaller still they are quoted below:
“I do not have time to research the lessons”
“I am not ready to take the exams yet”
“I do not have time to study because I have to take many exams for the
other subjects at the same time”
“I have a good memory when I cheat.”
“They do not really know what to do”
“They lack moral support for example: family status, the surrounding
environment”
“It is personal characters”
70
“I want to get something done on the papers/sheet while taking an exam”
“They are studying and working at the same time”
“They know the best way to cheat which the teachers/proctors never
realize/know”
Discussion:
The students were free to answer and inform their own perspectives
regarding the reasons they cheat. There were many different themes which were
grouped into Internal and External factors. To illustrate: Internal factors
consisted of 5 big groups of the ideas: 1. Lack of passion to study, 2. Lacking of
confidence, 3. Passive learning, 4. Cognitive development. 5. Rote-learning, and
6. Previous experience. An understanding to the factors that affected all of these
dispositions is required. Number 1 to 3 is the dispositions that the students can
learn to change from the institution’s support and they can build better
characteristics. On the other hand, the cognitive development requires both
further studies in physical test studies such as: an investigation of locus of
control or genes and practical test studies such as: parents’ education and the
environments the students were in since they were young. Meanwhile, number 6,
the students’ previous experience required the further studies in primary school,
secondary, and high school to investigate why the students learned to cheat from
these early stages before entering to the campus. External factors composed of 6
main groups of the answers and it could be divided into 3 more subgroups such
as: 1. Unfair exam, institutional/teachers’ influences, teaching styles, 2. Social
value and future goals, 3. Peer/parents influences. The 1 subgroup came from
the institutional influence. It is necessary to investigate the test developers who
prepare the test items for the students. At the same time, teachers and the
71
approaches used in teaching are also crucial to have a deeper investigation.
Another subgroup was the social value and future goals. In the questionnaires
there are several items that seeks to know whether the students cheat because
they are under strong pressure that the society put on them. In this section which
is an open-ended questions, the students were free to answer still they claimed
that they needed to get scores in order to get more chances for future
employment and study. The last subgroup is the influences from the students’
peers and parents. The students’ parents expect a good result from their son and
daughter this puts a stress on the students and make them cheat. While the
students observed their peer cheating and follow such behaviors.
The pervasiveness of the cheating problem
Table 17: Variables contributed to explain how pervasive the cheating
problem at the campus was
Items Variables by asking how often
you do these things when taking exam
N Mean STD Participated Non-participated
Q 31 Copy the answers from your friends
419
2.90
.933
96% 4.0%
Q 32 Let your friend(s) copy answers
from your sheet 416 3.27
.949
97.9% 2.1%
Q 33 Use hands gestures or signal to
tell your friends(s) 415 2.53
1.09
81.8% 18.2%
Q 34 Receive the answers from your
friends’ signal or hand gesture 418 2.38
1.05
78.4% 21.6
Q 35 Smuggle clip notes with some
answers to copy 418 2.56
1.08
86.5% 13.5
72
Table 17: Variables contributed to explain how pervasive the cheating
problem at the campus was
Items Variables by asking how often
you do these things when taking exam
N Mean STD Participated Non-participated
Q 36 Use mobile phone to help in cheating such as: looking up for meanings of words, store some pictures, texts
420
2.56
1.19
78.7% 21.3
Q 37 Change your answers since the cheaters said this is right and that is wrong
417
2.58
1.10
82.5% 17.5 %
Q 38 You choose to sit at the back of
the class to avoid the teachers or proctors’ sight
418
2.48
1.14
77.3% 22.7 %
Q 39 Write major points on the table,
wall, learning equipment such as ruler, pen and so on
421
2.22
1.09
71.1% 28.9 %
Q 40 Copy from other students
without them realizing (giraffing)
419
2.54
1.04
85.5% 14.5 %
Q 41 Hurry to copy from friends or
books when the teachers or proctors tell you to hand in the sheets
413
2.71
1.13
85.3% 14.7 %
Q 42 Hurriedly write the answers for your friends
419 2.68
1.07
87.4% 12.6 %
There is a great pressure for the students to cheat. The findings clearly
indicated that there were two factors: Internal and External. In this part, the table
above showed how pervasive the cheating problem was at the Dongdok Campus.
To illustrate, the students cheated by smuggling the clip not into the examination
class with the mean score of 2.56 and standard deviation of 1.089, it covered
86.5% of participants. In addition, the students also wrote or marked some major
points on the table, wall and their learning equipment, which had a mean score
73
of 2.22 and the standard deviation of 1.092, with 71.1% of the students saying
that they had done this. Furthermore, there was a participation in various form of
cheating which showed how widespread the cheating problem is that occurs
across the Campus such as: 81.8% of the students participated in using hands
gestures or signal to tell your friends(s); 78.4% of the students participated in
receiving the answers from your friends’ signal or hand gesture; 78.7% of the
students participated in using mobile phone to help in cheating such as: looking
up for meanings of words, storing some pictures, texts; 82.5% of the students
participated in changing their answers since the cheaters said this was right and
that was wrong; 85.5% of the students participated in copying from other
students without them realizing (giraffing); 85.3% of the students participated in
coping from friends or books hurriedly when the teachers or proctors told them
to hand in the sheets; 87.4% of the students participated in writing the answers
for their friends hurriedly. There was a 96% participation in copying the
answers from their friends while there was a 97.9% participation in letting their
friend(s) copy the answer from their sheet. According to the number of the
students who participated in any form of cheating, the researcher has drawn a
conclusion that the cheating problem in the Dongdok Campus is rampant, it has
reached the point where the institution is in a distressing and uncomfortable
situation. The participation score indicated the percent over 78% in every form
of cheating showing that it spreads across the Campus.
74
Chapter V
Conclusion
To summarize, the interpretation has lead the researcher to draw a
conclusion into 3 parts: 1. Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat
on the exams, 2. The pervasiveness of the problem of cheating and 3. The
practical implication from this study.
1. Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on the exams
The external factors that influence the students to cheat on the exams
consists of 3 sub-external factor such as: 1. student’s cheating behaviors
influenced by social values 2. student’s cheating behaviors influenced by
teachers, and 3. student’s cheating behaviors influenced by the examination’s
difficulty and unfairness. In addition, there are some themes from open-ended
questions to support this external factor such as:
1) Peer/parents’ influence
2) Institutional/teachers’ influence
3) Teaching style
Another factor that influences the students to cheat on the exams is an
Internal factor, which are the students’ characteristics. The factors analysis
indicated three main characteristics: 1. students’ previous experience, 2. Lacking
of confidence and 3. Lacking of attention to study. To illustrate, there are 6
characteristics from the students’ answers in open-ended questions to support
this finding.
75
1) Unethical decision style
2) Passive learning
3) Cognitive development
4) Rote-learning
2. The pervasiveness of the cheating problem
This finding has indicated that it is urgent and necessary to solve the
cheating problem since it is spread across the campus. The students participated
in every forms of cheating provided in the questionnaires.
3. The practical implication from this study
There is no clear-cut implication to solve the cheating problem
immediately. Every single variable that influences the students to cheat need a
deeper understanding from the continuous study. However, The results gain
pointed out that there were no rules, orientations and campaign to manage the
cheating problems in the Campus. Thus the first practical implication is the need
for orientation, workshop and campaign. Another great impact from society’s
pressure is the social value. Meanwhile the suggestion from McCabe et al (2012)
regarding the changing social value is to start from the integrated stakeholders
such as the students’ family, teachers, administrators, policy makers and society.
Nevertheless, one of the most important elements in social value is the pressure
to get scores. Thus, the second implication is to engage the students in the
pursuit of lessons rather than scores, grades or certificate.
76
Chapter VI
General opinions & Recommendations
This study was only a very small step toward looking into and solving the
problem of cheating at the Dongdok Campus. There were many significant
points, which were not investigated in detail yet such as: the further
investigation of the level of the tests’ difficulty, how do the peers and parents
play an essential role in the students’ cheating behaviors, ethics in the teachers’
conducts, the factors influence the students to cheat on exams before they attend
the university, what are the teaching methods that influence in students’ decision
to cheat, why do the students have no passions to learn that make them cheat,
why do the students lack of confidence while taking exams, the reasons why the
students rely on rote and passive learning which cause the students to cheat, and
how can cognitive development influence the students to cheat. However, the
results have given the researcher a very strong and concrete background for the
next project. This chapter has been divided into 2 main points such as: general
opinions towards this project and recommendations for the next project.
1. General opinions
Although the number of the students who admitted that they cheat was
over 78% in every forms of cheating provided in the questionnaires. But if 100%
of the students cheated, then what kind of result should be reported for this
problem? The researcher still believes that the cheating problem is more serious
and pervasive than the results have indicated. It is not consistent that the same
number of the students yielded a different result. For example: the number of the
students who copied the answers from their peers with mean score of 2.90 and
the standard deviation of .933, and the number of participants was 419 students.
77
While, the number of participants of 416 students who let the other students
copy had the mean score of 3.27 and the standard deviation of 0.949. The
standard deviation score indicated no big deviation from the mean score. As a
result this showed that there was less number of the cheaters than the number of
the person who let others copy.
2. Recommendations
Because this study was the first one to investigate about cheating, it was
considered as a strange and scandalous project for both the students and the
teachers at the targeted classrooms during the time the researcher administrated
the questionnaires. It is recommended that the next project should have a
workshop for both the students and teachers regarding the consequences of
cheating on exams. As the researcher did a short orientation around 5 minutes to
explain the projects before administering the questionnaires, it was found to be
very useful for the students and the teachers to give a good participation.
According to the findings from the interpretation, the others very crucial
and beneficial recommendations are the methods to manage the cheating
problems. It is believed that there are two stages to cope with such problems: 1.
Short-term deterrent, and 2. Long-term deterrent.
Short-term deterrents
The findings indicated that the students engaged in every forms of
cheating with more 78% of the participations for each. At the same time, the
teachers have played a part in the students’ cheating behaviors such as: neglect
to detect cheating. In addition, the students claimed that there were not clear
policies, rules. Thus, in the short term it is required punishment, penalties, strict
78
rules, detections, and the proctors who are not the current teachers or who is in
charge of any other careers.
Long-term deterrent
The short-term deterrents can be implemented within the campus and there
is no need to take much time and budget. On the other hand, because the
students’ cheating behaviors in the Dongdok Campus were influenced by both
internal and external factors. This meant the cheating problems dominated a
huge area from inside and outside the campus. To illustrate, the variables in each
factor lie in a wide area of personnel in charge of the students’ cheating
behaviors such as: the personnel in society, the family and the campus. In the
long run, it is required the sustainable solutions which involve all stakeholders in
the campus and the society to deter the cheating problems. The illustrations are
mentioned below:
Davis (2009) stated that the main task of the institutions to solve the
problem of cheating is not to detect cheaters but to create a culture of integrity
and an environment where cheating is socially unacceptable. The students at
Dongdok campus did not have the ethics and morals since they have not been
taught to have a good moral judgment and academics ethics. This can be
illustrated from the students’ characteristics in seeing the importance of scores
and grades to get ahead in the workforce and also the social value rather than the
knowledge in their fields for profession. In addition, the number of the students
who decide to cheat is very high (more than 78% in every form of cheating) this
means they do not have a strong inner force which morality-judgment and
ethical-decision styles to fight against outside forces and distractions. Thus in
the long run the institution needs to engage students in morality and ethics.
79
Davis (2009) suggests that, despite teaching and developing students’ ability in
judging morally, establishing moral intent, and engaging in moral behavior, the
institution can excellently change the social conceptions that many academic
behaviors which are only considered as morally disagreeable to morally
reprehensible.
Moreover, Goodchild (n.d) as cited in Gallant (2011: 135) suggested
systems to empowering change and creating the ethical academy: 1. Enhancing
individual responsibility in higher education (embracing ethical theory in
professional decision-making frameworks). Adrianna J. et al (n.d) as cited in
Gallant (2011: 153) recommended an enacting transcendental leadership
(creating and supporting a more ethical campus). Keller (n.d) as cited in Gallant
(2011: 169) suggested a systems to empowering change and creating the ethical
academy. It is integrating ethics education across the education system.
Furthermore, one of the very important and potential influences on the ethical
academy is from Drinan (n.d) as cited in Gallant (2011: 183) he proposes that to
support the systems. It is necessary to expand the radius of trust to external
stakeholders (value infusions for a more ethical academy).
What is more, McCabe et at (2012) suggested a sustainable solution which
is an implementation of a culture of integrity. In this way the culture will grow a
common ideas, customs, and social behaviors for the campus at large. In
addition, he also specified that even though the culture can have a significant
impact on academic integrity but what makes the difference is to encourage the
institutions’ environment to develop and maintenance an ethical community that
is called a culture of academic integrity. This suggestion is very beneficial to the
circumstances at the Dongdok Campus. However, in order to create a culture
80
which has various steps beyond an implementation of a traditional honor code
environment. It is required several questions such as: Are the students and
institution’s staff open to change? What are their attitudes toward cheating
problems? And what can be changed to improve the existing culture?
Further research
The future research needs to focus on the students’ morality and ethics,
which are considered as the inside power to stop cheating. In addition, it also
requires an investigation into the ethics of the teachers as they play a crucial role
in the students’ cheating behaviors. The other future studies should examine
closer to the suitability of the level of difficulty of the exams, the factors
affecting students to have no passions in studying because this is considered as
one reason that influences the students to cheat, the reason why the students
have no confidence which causes the students to cheat as well, and how
academic dishonesty is managed. Especially, managing the problems of cheating
on exams at the campus.
1
Reference:
Beauchamp, A., & Murdock, T. (2009) Cheating. 25, June 2013 retrieved from the
WORLD WIDE WEB: http://www.education.com/reference/article/cheating/
Björklund, M. & Wenestam, C. (1999) Academic Cheating: frequency, methods, and
causes (Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,
Lahti, Finland 22-25 September.) Åbo Akademi University Department of
Teacher Education, Vasa, Finland. Retrieved 21, July 2013 from the WORLD
WIDE WEB: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001364.htm
Chinamasa, E., Mavaru, L., Maphosa, C., & Tarambawamwe, P. (2011). Examinations
cheating: Exploring strategies and contributing factors in five Universities in
Zimbabwe (pp. 86-101). Journal of Innovative Research in Education 1(1), April
2011. Retrieved 12, June 2013 from: www.grpjournal.org
Davis, F. S., Drinan, F. P., & Gallant, B. T. (2009) Cheating in School: What We Know
and What We Can Do. WILEY-BLACKWELL, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
Publication
Dornyei Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research, Construction,
Administration, and Processing. LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES,
PUBLISHERS. Mahwa, New Jersey
2
Excellence and ethic. (Winter 2011. p3) The Education Letter of the Smart & Good
Schools Initiative. Retrieved 3, August 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://www2.cortland.edu/dotAsset/317302.pdf
Field, A. (2005) Factor Analysis Using SPSS, Retrieved 10, April 2014 from the
WORLD WIDE WEB: http://www.statisticshell.com/docs/factor.pdf
Gallant, T. B. (2011) Creating the Ethical Academy, A System Approach to
Understanding Misconducted and Empowering Change in Higher Education.
Routledge, Milton Park, the United Kingdom
Halima, D. (2003). A Study of Some Socio-psychological Factors of Cheating in
Examination AMONY Students of KADUNA Polytechnic. Unpublished Master
Thesis, Ahmadu Bello university, Nigeria
Jonhson, S. (n.d) Academic Integrity. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from the WORLD WIDE
WEB: http://www.ue.ucsc.edu/academic_integrity
Magnus, J. R., Polterovich, V. M., Danilove, D. L., & Savvateev, A. V. (2002).
Tolerance of Cheating: An Analysis Across Countries. Retrieved 17, June 2013
from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220480209596462#.UfUdnmT0-
Fc
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001) Cheating in Academic
Institutions: A Decade of Research, Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219-232. Retrieved 4,
June 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
3
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/257513/original/Decade_of_Research.pd
f
McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (2002). Honesty and Honor Codes. Academic, 99, 37-41.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2012) Cheating in College: Why
Students Do It and What Educators Can Do About It. Johns Hopkins University
Press. the United States of America
Meizlish, D. (2005). Promoting academic integrity in the classroom. CRLT Occasional
Paper No. 20. Retrieved from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource_files/CRLT_no20.pdf
Mohammade, Y. N. (2012). Special Lecture: Challenges in Education Towards the
Realization of ASEAN Community 2015. Retrieved 13, June 2013 from the
WORLD WIDE WEB: www.site.rmutt.ac.th/cpscworkshop/materials/sp.pdf
National University of Laos (NUOL) Website, (2013) retrieved from the WORLD
WIDE WEB: http://fol.edu.la/en/about/history.html
Roth, B. (2011) Cheating in College Can Ruin Your Life. Retrieved 3, July 2013 from
the WORLD WIDE WEB: http://collegesuccess.blog.com/2011/03/02/cheating-
in-college-can-ruin-your-life/
Ruto, K. D., Kipkoech, C. L. & Rambaei, D. K. (2001). Moi University, Eldoret,
Kenya. Problem of Management in the 21th Century, 2. 173-181. Retrieved on
4
23, June 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pmc/files/pdf/Ruto_Vol.2.pdf
Saengmany, K. (2007). Student Cheat Caught Using Mobile Phone, University
Entrance Exam Committee Says Entrance Tests Fairer This Year. Vientiane
Times Newspaper. p3, July 18, 2007
Taderera, E., Nyikahadzoi, L., Matamande, W., & Mandimika, E. (n.d). Exploring
Management Strategies to Reduce Cheating in Written Examinations: Case Study
of Midlands State University. Journal of Case Studies in Education. Retrieved 17,
June 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131528.pdf
UNESCO, Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Reporting 2005 (THE
QUALITY IMPERATIVE), Retrieved 17, June 2013 from the WORDL WIDE
WEB: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf
VaenKeo, S. (2012) Measures Outlined to Prevent Use of Fake Diplomas. Vientiane
Time Newspaper. Wednesday JUNE 20, 2012. ISSUE 141
Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on
Academic Integrity (2005), Research findings. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University. Retrieved 25, July 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://its.syr.edu/admin-sys/est/miscdocs/ResearchReport.pdf
5
Viphavanh, P. (2010). Lao Ministry Admits to Fraud, Cheating in Education. Vientiane
Times Newspaper. Monday JUNE 21, 2010. ISSUE 144
Watson, J. (2001). How to Determine a Sample Size: Tipsheet#60, University Park,
PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension. Retrieve 21, July 2013 from the WORLD
WIDE WEB: http://www.extension.psu.edu/evaluation/pdf/TS60.pdf
Whitley, E. B., Jr. Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002) Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s
Guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. the United States of America.
Witherspoon, M., Maldonado. N., & Lacey C. H. (2012) Undergraduates and
Academic Dishonesty, International Journal of Business and Social Sciences. 3.
76-86. Retrieved 10, August 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:
http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_1_January_2012/9.pdf
1
Appendix 1 Questionnaire in English Version
Dear Students, this questionnaire is written to gain information for a thesis submitted to the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master in TEFL. In addition the research is dedicated to help improve our education, especially in term of qualitative education. You can be a part of helping our department and our country to improve by answering the following questions.
Part I Personal information: Age: 17-18 � /19-20 �/ 21-22 �/23-24 �/ <25 �
Sex: Male �/Female � Nationality: Lao� other…………
Part II Factors influencing students to cheat on exams
Put a tick (ü) to rate the scales, which are true for you No You cheat on the exam because 5.
Always (100%)
4. Often (75%)
3. Sometimes
(50%)
2. Seldom (25%)
1. Never (0%)
1 I don’t want to study term III (Modify F)
2 You used to cheat in high school
3 You are not sure about answers
4 You think that exams are too hard
5 Exams do not test what you have learnt
6 The test instructions are not clear
7 Low severe of punishment
8 You do not prepare well before exams
9 You do not pay attention to study in class since you know that you can eventually cheat when an exam comes
10 You think that even teachers or proctors see you cheat they will never complain because they used to be a student as well
11 The lesson revision is not done in class only the teacher asks you to revise the lesson by yourself at home
12 Too little and limited time available to study in class and you don’t know how to study by yourself at home
13 To pass the exam is more important than gaining the knowledge
2
No How often you cheat on the exam because
5. Always (100%)
4. Often (75%)
3. Sometimes
(50%)
2. Seldom (25%)
1. Never (0%)
14 You want to create a standard scores to continue your study in higher level or to pursue scholarship
15 Your friends help and you feel obligated to help them back when they can’t do the exams
16 Pressure & expectation from your family
17 Pressure & expectation to work in a good place
18 Teachers or proctors allow or give chances to cheat since you can’t answer any thing
19 Teachers leave room during a test
20 Everyone else seems to be cheating
21 I am not confident in the teacher whether he is expert in that field so I cheat
22 There is no campaign or orientation about being an honest student
23 There is no clarity of sanctions or explicitness of academic integrity policies but only it is believed that cheating is considered wrong
24 New technologies allow you to cheat, such as: mobile phone, copy machine
25 The saying “Study to get knowledge, take exams to get scores”
26 The saying “Passing the exams dirtily is better than failing cleanly”
28 How often you cheat on exams
because…………………………………
…………………………………………
…………………………………………
…………………………………………
3
29 What do you think? What factors urge you to cheat on exams?.....................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
30 What do you think the other students cheat on exams because?.......................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………....................................................................................................................
4
Part III Frequency and methods students use to assist cheating on the exams Put a tick (ü) to rate the scales, which are true for you
No How often you do these things when
taking exam 5.
Always (100%)
4. Often (75%)
3. Sometimes
(50%)
2. Seldom (25%)
1. Never (0%)
31 Copy the answers from your friends
32 Let your friend(s) copy answers from your sheet
33 Use hands gestures or signal to tell your friend(s) the
34 Receive the answers from your friends’ signal or hand gestures
35 Smuggle clip notes with some answers to copy
36 Use mobile phone to help in cheating such as: looking up for meanings of words, store some pictures, texts.
37
Change your answers since the cheaters said this is right that is wrong.
38
You choose to sit at the back of the class to avoid the teachers or proctor’s sight
39
Write major points on the table, wall, learning equipment’s such as ruler, pen and so on
40
Copy from other students without them realizing (Giraffing)
41
Hurry to copy from friends or books when the teachers or proctors tell you to hand in the sheets
42
Hurriedly write the answers for your friends.
Thank you so much for your time spending on the questionnaire.
If you have any question about the questionnaire or any unclear questions
Please don’t hesitate to contact Mr. Thanongdeth Nalisak
Tel: 020 95329701 Email: Thanongdeth.nalisak@Gmai.com
1
ແບບສອບຖາມ
ຽຊຄຌກຘກຘາກໂໞາຌໃຉບຍຍຍຘບຍຊາຓ, ຍຍຘບຍຊາຓຘະຍຍຌໄຓຈຎະຘຄ ຽຑໃບຂຂໄຓຌເຌກາຌຽປຈຍຈໄຌທໟາຍຆໄຌຎະຖຌງາ ຖະ ຽຑໃບຆໞທງຎຍຎຄ ຖະ ຑຈະຌາຖະຍຍກາຌຘກຘາ ຈງຘະຽຑາະຓຌດ ທະງາຽຂຈຈຄຈງ (ຓະນາແຖນຄຆາຈ). ໞາຌຘາຓາຈຽຎຌຘໞທຌໜໃຄເຌກາຌຆໞທງຑຈະຌາກາຌຘກຘາຂບຄຖາທຽປາຑຄຉຽຖບກຉບຍາຊາຓຖຓຌໄ:
ຑາກ 1 ຂໄຓຌຘໞທຌຉທ: ບາງ: 17-18/19-20/21-22/23-24/>25. ຽຑຈ: ຆາງ/ງຄ ຘຌຆາຈ ຖາທ ບໃຌໂ............................
ຑາກ 2 ຎຈເໃຓຏຌກະຍຽປຈເນຌກປຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄ
ຉໃຓຽໃບຄໝາງຊກ () ຽຑໃບຉບຍາຊາຓໃໞາຌຈທໞາຊກກຍຉໞາຌຽບຄໃຘຈ.
ຖ/ຈ ໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະທໞາ 5. ກໂຽໃບ (100%)
4. ຽຖໄບງໂ (75%)
3. ຍາຄຽໃບ (50%)
2. ຈຌໂຽໃບ (25%)
1. ຍໃຽງຽຖງ
(0%)
1 ຍໃດາກຓາປຌຽຓ 3 (ກF) 2 ຽງກໞາງຓາຉໄຄຉຉບຌປຌຓຎາງຖທ 3 ໞາຌຍໃຌເເຌາຉບຍ 4 ໞາຌຈທໞາຍຈຽຘຄຌໄຌງາກຑຈ 5 ຍຈຽຘຄຍໃແຈບບກຉາຓຍຈປຌໃແຈປຌຓາ 6 ນທຍຈຘບຍຽຘຄຍໃະຄ, າຊາຓຍໃະຄ
(ຍໃຽຂໄາເາຊາຓ)
7 ກາຌຖຄຈຍໃໜກຽໃາໃທຌ 8 ໞາຌຍໃແຈຽຍໃຄຍຈປຌຽຑໃບກຓຽຘຄ 9 ໞາຌຍໃແຈຉໄຄເປຌເຌນໟບຄຽຑາະຈທໞາປບຈຓໄ
ຽຘຄກະກໞາງຽບາ
10 ໞາຌຈທໞາຽຊຄະຽນຌທໞາກໞາງຽຑໃຌກະຍໃທໞານງຄຽຑາະຽຑໃຌກຽງຽຎຌຌກປຌກຌໜໟາະຽຂໄາເ
11 ບາາຌຍໃຑາທຌຌຍຈປຌກໞບຌຽຘຄຓຉຍບກຍຈປຌເນ,ຖທແຎໄຌທໟາຽບາຽບຄດຍໟາຌ
12 ຽທຖາເຌກາຌປຌເຌນໟບຄຓໜໟບງກຍຍໟາຌແຎກຍໃປທໞາະປຌຈໟທງຉຽບຄໃຄເຈ
13 ກາຌຽຘຄແຈຘາຌນາງກທໞາກາຌປຌຽບາທາຓປ
14 ຘໟາຄຓາຈຉະຊາຌະຌຌແທຽຑໃບດຌປຌຉໃ ນຂຌປຌຉໞາຄໂ
15 ຓໝຍບກ, ຽຑາະຽປາຽບຄກຽງຆໞທງໝເຌຽທຖາຽຂາຽໄາຍໃຘາຓາຈຽຘຄແຈເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄ
2
ຖ/ຈ ໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະທໞາ 5. ກໂຽໃບ (100%)
4. ຽຖໄບງໂ (75%)
3. ຍາຄຽໃບ (50%)
2. ຈຌໂຽໃບ (25%)
1. ຍໃຽງຽຖງ
(0%)
16 ທາຓກຈຈຌ ຖະ ທາຓາຈນທຄາກບຍທ
17 ທາຓກຈຈຌ ຖະ ທາຓາຈນທຄໃະແຈຽປຈທກຈໂ
18 ບາາຌ ນ ຏຽຐໄານໟບຄຽຘຄຽນຌເຽຑາະທໞາຍໃແຈນງຄຽຖງຎບງເນກໞາງຌ
19 ບາາຌ ນ ຏຽຐໄານໟບຄຽຘຄບບກາກນໟບຄຽຘຄ 20 ຽຍໃຄທໞາຓຌເຏກໃກໞາງກຌໝຈ 21 ຍໃໝໄຌເເຌຉບາາຌຘບຌກຍຘໃຄໃຽຑໃຌຘບຌ
(ບາາຌໃຘບຌຽຍໃຄຍໃຆໞທຆາຌເຌຍຈປຌໃຽຑໃຌກາຖຄຘບຌດ) ຽຑໃບເນຌເທໞາຉບຍຊກຉໟບຄກໞາງຎໄຓ
22 ປຄປຌຍໃຓກາຌເນທາຓປນງຄກໞທກຍຏຌຈຂບຄກາຌຽຎຌຌກປຌໃຆໃຘຈ (ຍໃກໞາງ)
23 ປຄປຌຍໃຓຂໄນໟາຓໃະຄຍໃຓກຈ ນ ຌະງຍາງໃຽຎຌປຍຎະາ, ຓຉທາຓຽຆໃບຉໃໂກຌຓາທໞາກາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຎຌກາຌກະາໃຍໃຈ
24 ຽຉກຌຖຆໄໃຌຘະແໝຽຆໃຌ: ຖະຘຍຓຊ, ບຌຽຉຽຌຈ, ຎຕຌຽຉ ຖະ ກກບຍຎໄຉໞາຄໂ
25 າຽທໄາໃທໞາ “ຽທຖາປຌ, ປຌຽບາທາຓປ ຽທຖາຽຘຄ, ຽຘຄຽບາະຌຌ”
26 ປຌຍຍຆໃຘຈນາງກະຉາງຑໟບຓຘະຖກຌ “ແຈຍຍຘກກະຎກຈກທໞາຉກຍຍຂໞາທຘະບາຈ”
27 ທາຓປບາຈຍໃແຈເຆເຌທກຉຄຉະຌຌະຽຎຌຉຆໄຍບກບະຌາຈແຈ
28 ຽຖໄບງໂຆໃາເຈໃໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະ..... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... .....................................................
3
29 ໞາຌຈທໞາງໟບຌຘາຽນຈບຌເຈໃຽປຈເນໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄ........................................ ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
30 ໞາຌຈທໞາຌກປຌຘໞທຌນາງຖທກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະທໞາ:......................................... .......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................
4
ຑາກ 3 ຎຌນາເຌກາຌກໞາງຓທາຓປໟາງປຄຆໃາເຈ
ຉໃຓຽໃບຄໝາງຊກ () ຽຑໃບຉບຍາຊາຓໃໞາຌຈທໞາຊກກຍຉໞາຌຽບຄໃຘຈ.
ຖ/ຈ ໞາຌຽປຈຘໃຄຽນໃາຌໄເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຖໄບງໂຆໃາເຈ? 5. ກໂຽໃບ (100%)
4. ຽຖໄບງໂ (75%)
3. ຍາຄຽໃບ (50%)
2. ຈຌໂຽໃບ (25%)
1. ຍໃຽງຽຖງ
(0%)
31 ກໞາງາຉບຍາກໝ 32 ເນໝກໞາງາຉບຍາກຽປາ 33 ເຆຓ ນ ໞາາຄຉໞາຄໂຽຎຌຘຌງາຖກຽຑໃບຍບກ
າຉບຍເນໝ
34 ເນໝຍບກາຉບຍຈງເຆຓຽຎຌຘຌງາຖກໞາາຄຉໞາຄໂ
35 ຽບາຽງຌໟບງຽຂໄາແຎກໞາງ 36 ເຆຖະຘຍຓຊຽຑໃບຽຍໃຄາຘຍ, ຽຍໃຄປຍຑາຍໃ
ຓາຉບຍ, ຑຓາຉບຍແທເຌບຌຍບກ; ຌຈ, ຘໃຄຂໄທາຓຊາຓ ນ ຍບກໝ
37 ຎຌາຉບຍຽຑາະໝໃກໞາງທໞາຉຌໄຌຉຌໄຊກ 38 ຽຖບກຌໃຄາຄນຄນໟບຄຽຑໃບດແກຘາງຉາຂບຄ
ບາາຌຽຐໄານໟບຄ
39 ຂຌຍຈປຌໃໜໟາະບບກຽຘຄແທໜໟາຉະ, ຐານໟບຄ, ຂຌ, ຂາ, ຐາຓ, ແຓຍຌຈ ຖະ ບຎະກບຌຽໃບຄປຌບໃຌໂ
40 ຖກບຍຽຍໃຄາຉບຍາກຽງຽຘຄຂບຄໝ 41 ຒາທກໞາງາຉບຍາກໝ ນ ຎໄຓ ເຌຉບຌໃ
ບາາຌຍບກຘໃຄຽງ
42 ຂຌາຉບຍເນໝຉບຌຽທຖາເກະໝຈ
ຂຂບຍເກໂໞາຌໃຘະນະຽທຖາບຌຓໞາຉບຍຍຍຘບຍຊາຓ
ຊໟາໞາຌຓາຊາຓກໞທກຍຍຍຘບຍຊາຓ ຓາຊາຓໃຍໃະຄ ນ ຓາຌະຌາກໞທກຍນທຂໄກາຌໄຌທໟາຌໄ
ຉຈຉໃ ໟາທ. ະຌຄຽຈຈ ຌາຖຘກ 020 95329701. ບໃຽຓຖ Thanongdeth.nalisak@Gmail.com