EXAMINATION MALPRACTICES

IN KENYA

BY;

PASCAL MUTHEE KAGETE

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION IN

MEASUREMENTS AND EVALUATION, IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION;

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI.

2008

ii

DECLARATION

This research project is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any

other university.

Sign:___________________________ Date __________________________

PASCAL M. KAGETE

E58/P/8149/2006

This research project has been submitted for examination with my approval as the

University Supervisor.

Sign:___________________________ Date __________________________

Dr. KAREN ODHIAMBO

Supervisor

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education

University of Nairobi

iii

DEDICATION

To my loving wife Mary Wanjiku Muthee; my children Tony Kagete Muthee and Eric

Kamau Muthee. May they live to appreciate and cherish the power of education and find

solace in love for each other. To my ever loving parents Mzee Henry Kagete and Mama

Tabitha Wanjiru Kagete; may they live long to reap the fruits of their hard work in bringing

me up. God bless them abundantly.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to appreciate and acknowledge the following personalities whose input made it possible

for the success of this study.

First, Dr Karen Odhiambo, my supervisor, whose guidance, commitment and patience enabled

me to complete this study.

I wish to convey my gratitude to the University of Nairobi, in particular the Department of

Psychology, Faculty of Education, for offering me the opportunity to pursue this degree and all

the lecturers whose contribution enabled me to successfully go through the requirements of the

course.

My sincere gratitudes are directed to the Kenya National Examinations Council for sponsoring

me for this course and the immense support that enabled me to actualize my long time dream

of achieving this academic level. Special thanks to Mr. Paul Wasanga, Chief Executive -

Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC), for allowing me unlimited access to the

secondary data used in this study, Mr. Paul Waweru of The Kenya National Bureau of

Statistics for the data analysis and software support; my colleague, Ms Margaret Kimanthi, for

continuously proofreading this work and my secretary, Ms Brenda Luchemo for in putting the

data and secretarial support. Finally, I wish to thank my KNEC colleagues namely; Leah Edith

Ngesu, Patrick Muriithi Miano, Mahmud Sheikh Ibrahim and Hassan Suleiman Bundu for their

encouragement. May the almighty bless them all.

Thanks to all the respondents for their honest responses and co-operation in providing me with

the invaluable information that I used to compile this report.

Above all, I thank the Almighty God, without whose grace, wisdom and favour I would not

have accomplished the completion of this piece of work

v

TABLE OF CONTENT

Declaration ............................................................................................................................ II

Dedication ............................................................................................................................ III

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. IV

Table Of Content ................................................................................................................... V

List Of Tables………………………………………………………………………………...viii

List of figures ......................................................................................................................... X

Abbreviations And Acronyms ........................................................................................... XII

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

1.1 background to the study ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 statesment of the problem ................................................................................................... 5

1.3 purpose of the study ........................................................................................................... 6

1.4 specific objectives .............................................................................................................. 6

4.1 research questions .............................................................................................................. 6

4.2 justification of the study ..................................................................................................... 7

4.3 significance of the study ..................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Related Studies ................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Why Students Cheat In Examination .................................................................................. 9

2.3.1 Psychological Characteristics Of Those Who Cheat .............................................. ……10

2.3.2 Demographic And Personal Characteristics Of Those Who Cheat ................................. 11

2.3.3 Situational Factors In The School .................................................................................. 13

2.3.4 Contextual Factors ........................................................................................................ 15

vi

2.3.5 Ethical Factors .............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.6 Reasons Given For Cheating ......................................................................................... 18

2.4 Effects of cheating in examinations .................................................................................. 20

2.4.2 Effects On The Institutions ............................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 21

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................... 21

3.3 The Sample ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Sampling Procedure ......................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................................. 22

3.5.1 Trends Analysis Format:................................................................................................ 22

3.5.2 Questionnaire On Behaviour Characteristics: ................................................................. 23

3.6 Pre-Testing Of Instruments ............................................................................................... 24

3.7 Preparation For Data Collection And Data Collection Procedures ..................................... 25

3.8 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 25

3.8.1 Data Entry Programme .................................................................................................. 25

3.8.2 Data Analysis Programme ............................................................................................. 25

3.8.3 Description Of Analysis ................................................................................................ 26

3.9 Data Presentation ............................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................................. 27

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Legal Instrument And The Policy On Examination Malpractices ...................................... 27

4.2.1 KCSE Registration Requirements .................................................................................. 28

4.2.2 Rules To Ensure Fairness .............................................................................................. 28

4.2.3 KNEC‟s Legal Instrument ............................................................................................. 29

4.3 General Overview Of Personal Data Of Respondents ....................................................... 31

vii

4.4 Demographics As It Relates To Data From KNEC Statistical Bank .................................. 32

4.4 Psychological Characteristics ........................................................................................... 43

4.5 Behavioural Characteristics .............................................................................................. 52

CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH DISCUSSIONS ............................................................... 81

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 81

5.2 Trends In Cheating In Examinations ............................................................................... 81

5.3 Psychological Factors Related To Cheating In Examinations ............................................ 82

5.3.1 Anxiety And Cheating ................................................................................................... 82

5.3.2 Perception Of Cheating ................................................................................................. 83

5.4 Situational Analysis .......................................................................................................... 83

5.5 Ethical Factors And Student Perception ............................................................................ 84

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 87

6.1 Summary Of The Results ................................................................................................. 87

6.2 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 88

6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 89

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 91

APPENDIX I: STUDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................... 95

APPENDIX II: LETTER OF AUTHORITY…………………………………………… 101

APPENDIX III: THE KNEC ACT .................................................................................... 102

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1Trends analysis format of the data collection ........................................................... 23

Table 4.1 (a): Respondent‟s gender and type of school ........................................................... 31

Table 4.2(b): Examination irregularities in KCPE for the period 2002 – 2006, by subject ....... 34

Table 4.2(c): Irregularity cases in KCPE examination for the period 2002 – 2006, by nature .. 35

Table 4.2(d): KCPE irregularities between 2002 – 2006, by Gender ....................................... 36

Table 4.3(a): KCSE candidates during the period, 2002-2006................................................. 38

Table 4.3(b) :KCSE Irregularities during the period 2002-2006, by Gender ............................ 39

Table 4.3(c): KCSE irregularities by subject for the period 2002-2006 ................................... 40

Table 4.3(d): KCSE irregularities by nature for the period, 2002-2006 ................................... 42

Table 4.4(a): Gender and Anxiety Level ................................................................................. 43

Table 4.4(b): Anxiety and School category ............................................................................. 44

Table 4.4(c): I always have visible signs of nervousness such as sweaty palms, shaky hands,

and so on, every time before an examination. ......................................................................... 45

Table 4.4(d): I have „butterflies‟ in my stomach every time before I sit for an examination. ... 46

Table 4.4(e): I read through a test and feel that I do not know any of the answers. .................. 47

Table 4.4(f): I panic before and during an examination ........................................................... 48

Table 4.4(g): My mind goes blank during an examination ...................................................... 49

Table 4.4(h): I make mistakes on easy questions or put answers in the wrong places. ............. 50

Table 4.4(i): I have difficulties in choosing answers. .............................................................. 51

Table 4.5(a): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?..................................... 53

Table 4.5(b): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test? .................................... 54

Table 4.5(c): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?..................................... 56

Table 4.6(a): What type of cheating do you think is the most common in national public

examinations? ........................................................................................................................ 57

Table 4.6(b): What type of cheating do you think is the most common in national .................. 58

public examinations? .............................................................................................................. 58

Table 4.6(c): What type of cheating do you think is the most common in national .................. 59

public examinations? .............................................................................................................. 59

ix

Table 4.7(a): Would you say cheating happens in every test? ................................................. 61

Table 4.7(b): Would you say cheating happens in every test? ................................................. 62

Table 4.7(c): Would you say cheating happens in every test? ................................................. 63

Table 4.7(d): Frequency of cheating and Gender .................................................................... 64

Table 4.7(e-i): School category and cheating engagement ...................................................... 66

Table 4.7(e-ii): Anxiety level and engagement in cheating ..................................................... 67

Table 4.7(f-i): Overall reasons for cheating ............................................................................ 68

Table 4.7(f-ii): Gender and reasons for cheating ..................................................................... 69

Table 4.7(g): School Category and reasons for Cheating ........................................................ 70

Table 4.7(h): Anxiety Level and reasons for cheating ............................................................. 71

Table 4.8(a): Overall reasons for not cheating ........................................................................ 73

Table 4.8(b); Gender and reasons given for not cheating ........................................................ 74

Table 4.8(c): School category and reasons for not cheating .................................................... 75

Table 4.8(d): Anxiety and reasons for not cheating ................................................................. 76

Table 4.9(a): Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examination? ..................... 77

Table 4.9(b): Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public Examinations? ................... 78

Table 4.9(c): School category and perception on cheating ...................................................... 79

Table 4.9(d): Anxiety and perception on cheating................................................................... 80

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Gender and Type of School .................................................................................. 32

Figure 4.2(a): KCPE total candidature, by Gender for the period, 2002 - 2006 ...................... 33

Figure 4.2(b): KCPE irregularities by subject for the period, 2002-2006................................. 34

Figure 4.2(c): KCPE irregularities between 2002 -2006, by nature ......................................... 35

Figure 4.2(d): KCPE irregularities between 2002 and 2006, by Gender. ................................. 37

Figure 4.3(a): KCSE enrolment during the period, 2002-2006. ............................................... 38

Figure 4.3(b): KCSE irregularities for the period 2002-2006, by Gender ................................ 39

Figure 4.3(c): Reported irregularities in KCSE, by subject between 2002 and 2006 ................ 41

Figure 4.4(a): Gender and Anxiety level ................................................................................. 44

Figure 4.4(b): Anxiety level and school category .................................................................... 45

Figure 4.4(c): I always have visible signs of nervousness such as sweaty palms, shaky hands

and so on, every time before an examination .......................................................................... 46

Figure 4.4(d): I have „butterflies‟ in my stomach every time before I sit for an examination ... 47

Figure 4.4(e): I read through a test and feel that I do not know any of the answers.................. 48

Figure 4.4(f): I panic before and during examination .............................................................. 49

Figure 4.4(g): My mind goes blank during an examination ..................................................... 50

Figure 4.4(h): I make mistakes on easy questions or put answers in the wrong places ............. 51

Figure 4.4(i): I have difficulties in choosing answers .............................................................. 52

Figure 4.5 (a-i): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test? ................................ 53

Figure 4.5 (b): Observed cheating frequency and school category .......................................... 55

Figure 4.5 (c): Observed cheating and Anxiety? ..................................................................... 56

Figure 4.6 (a): Types of cheating by Gender response ............................................................ 57

Figure 4.6(b): Views on the type of cheating ......................................................................... 59

Figure 4.6(c): Anxiety and the respondent's views on the type of cheating .............................. 60

Figure 4.7(a-i): Would you say cheating happens in every test? ............................................. 61

Figure 4.7(a-ii): Gender and views on the extent of cheating .................................................. 62

Figure 4.7(b): School category and views on the extent of cheating .................................... 63

xi

Figure 4.7(c): Anxiety level ad views on the extent of cheating .............................................. 64

Figure 4.7(d-i): Overall response to cheating .......................................................................... 65

Figure 4.7(d-ii): Gender and the response to cheating ............................................................ 65

Figure 4.7(e-i): School category and cheating engagement .................................................. 66

Figure 4.7(e-ii): Anxiety level and engagement in cheating .................................................. 67

Figure 4.7(f-i): Overall reasons for cheating ........................................................................... 68

Figure 4.7 (f-ii): Gender and reasons for cheating ................................................................... 69

Figure 4.7g): School Category and reasons for Cheating ........................................................ 71

Figure 4.7(h): Anxiety and reasons for cheating ..................................................................... 72

Figure 4.8(b); Gender and reasons given for not cheating .................................................... 74

Figure 4.8(c): School category and reasons for not cheating ................................................... 75

Figure 4.8(d): Anxiety and reasons for not cheating .............................................................. 76

Figure 4.9(a): Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examination? .................... 77

Figure 4.9(b): Gender and perception to cheating ................................................................... 78

Figure 4.9(c): School category and perception on cheating ..................................................... 79

Figure 4.9(d): Anxiety and perception on cheating ................................................................. 80

xii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

1. CSPro Census and Survey processing system

2. DEO District Education Officer

3. Epsem Equal probability of selection method

4. GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education

5. GPA Grade point average

6. IMF International Monetary Fund

7. KCPE Kenya Certificate of Primary Education

8. KCSE Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education

9. KNEC Kenya National Examinations Council

10. MEO Municipal Education Officer

11. PDE Provincial Director of Education

12. SAP Structural Adjustments Programme

13. SAT Scholastic Assessment Test

14. SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists

15. UK United Kingdom

16. USA United States of America

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The quality of an education system is very important and crucial to the economic

development and social stability of any country. It leads to the acquisition of the

necessary skills and knowledge that are needed for national development. One of the

major indicators of the quality of education is the national public examinations.

The central purpose of national public examinations is to enhance transparency, effectiveness,

and efficiency in making decisions about people, which may have tremendous implications on

their lives. Examinations are generally used to monitor learning and are the most common

measure of student learning achievement. Anderson Ball and Murphy (1975) define an

examination as any series of questions or exercises or other means of measuring the skills,

knowledge, intelligence, capacities or aptitudes of an individual.

Public examinations are legally fortified instruments of the states by Acts of Parliament. They

are meant to enhance accountability to the taxpayers by educators, and therefore levels of

performance are good indicators of how well or badly an education system is functioning. It is

fundamental that examination results should reflect the true effort of the students and teachers.

It is equally important that the selection and placement decisions made on the basis of

examination results are based on a water-tight examination system, and thus the results reflect

the true picture of the abilities of examinees.

In Kenya, examination results are the major determinants of access to the job market and

selection into institutions of higher learning. Given the very stiff competition for places, it is

imperative that objectivity and fairness be the overriding concerns in the allocation of

these places. Any practice that threatens fairness and objectivity in examinations must

be detected and if possible, stamped out.

2

Examination malpractices are clear manifestations of the competitiveness of the examinations,

which induce high anxieties in candidates, declining ethical standards, and erosion of self-

efficacy and confidence among examinees and their guardians. The clear consequence of

examination irregularities is that decisions made on the basis of such results will inadvertently

be wrong to the people being selected for further education or training, or placed in

employment vacancies while, highly deserving and morally upright people get left out because

they did not tamper with the system. The universal sine quo non (the necessary and sufficient)

conditions for good examinations, i.e., validity and reliability get violated, and when

irregularities are discovered, the states incurs horrendous expenses for repeat examinations.

The loss of confidence in public examination systems due to irregularities may lead to social

instabilities and importation of foreign examinations, which further erodes confidence of the

people in the states. The credibility of an education system and its examinations is put in

jeopardy whenever the laid down rules and regulations are not adhered to. The regulations are

intended to provide an environment of fair play, equal opportunity and validity of the

assessment.

Examination malpractice involves various methods employed by candidates to cheat during

examinations; it is an unlawful behaviour or activity engaged by students to have personal

advantage in an examination over their colleagues or mates who are competing in the same

examination (Sahman, et al., 1990). Cheating in examinations is one such practice and can be

defined as claiming or appropriating more than one has a right to achieve in an

examination. This refers to a situation where a candidate tries to gain unfair advantage in the

examination over the other candidates. Different terminologies have been used as indicated by

Harvey Goldstein and Toby Lewis (1999). These include unfair practice, cheating,

dishonesty, misconduct, irregularity and malpractice. These terminologies will be used

interchangeably in this study.

Examination malpractices can be traced in history through thousands of years. Brickman

(1961) reports that during the civil service examinations in ancient China tests were given in

3

individual small rooms (cubicles) to prevent examinees from looking at the test papers of

others; and that examinees were searched for notes before they entered the cubicles; that the

death penalty was in effect for both examinees and examiners if anyone was found guilty of

cheating. This not withstanding cheating still occurred. In modern society, cheating is a

frequent occurrence. Zastrow (1970) provides evidence of a 40% incidence of cheating among

graduate students. In a study by Schab (1969), approximately 24% of the girls and 20% of the

boys admitted that they first began cheating in the first grade, 17% of the girls and 15% of the

boys began in the eighth grade, and 13% of the girls and 9% of the boys began in the seventh

grade.

Currently, examination security is a major governments‟ preoccupation and is not unique in

Kenya. In China, for example, the country is considering enacting a law for examination

security as examination cheating continues unabated. In Britain, the examiners have now

resorted to use high-tech gadgets to curb growing cheating incidents in examinations like the

General Certificate of Secondary Examination, (GCSE) and A-levels. One of the biggest exam

boards in United Kingdom, Edexcel, has claimed that they have made cheating in exams a lot

more difficult by tagging papers with radio transmitters and microscopic identification in order

to make sure that the papers reach the specific school. They are also planning to go for secure

boxes containing papers that could be opened only by codes transmitted from mobile phones;

while in India the Chhattisgarh states assembly recently passed a bill that provides for up to

five years in jail for those found guilty of aiding students to cheat in exams - 'Copying in

Examination (Prevention) Act, 2008'. And in Washington in the United Statess of America,

(USA), bottled water is sometimes banned at students' desks for fear that someone may have

scrawled a formula on the inside of the wrapper, and at the same time, tests with the same

labels are passed out but with questions in a different order, a trick meant to trap would-be

cheats who steal glances at their neighbours. Sometimes even seemingly minor actions, such as

tying a shoelace or looking at the ceiling, are forbidden.

4

It would seem that cheating is widespread in every corner of the globe. Characteristics of

public/national examination systems in Kenya can be described as “fiercely competitive”

(Wasanga & Muiruri, 2002). The very competitive nature of the public examinations has led

the candidates, schoolheads, teachers and other stakeholders to engage in unfair practices to

enhance their scores during public examinations. The high stake placed on examinations is

perhaps the lead influence in the prevalence of examination irregularities in the Kenyan

context.

There are several factors that lure candidates into cheating in examinations. Among the most

common ones include, stiff competition, poor preparation by both, candidates and teachers,

poor invigilation and administration, pressure to pass examination and pass with high grades,

as well as inadequate facilities for examinations. While there are many reasons that could lead

to examination malpractices, focus can also be turned on the learning environment and the

facilities available for implementation of curriculum. It is argued that when curriculum is

delivered in non-conducive environment, the learning objectives can hardly be achieved

(Ndalichako, 2002), yet the examinations are set on the basis of the learning outcomes as

stipulated in the curriculum.

Debt and globalization of the economy have resulted into the increased marginalization of the

African countries in general, and Kenya in particular. As a prerequisite to becoming active

players on the stage of the global market, all African countries had to accept some kind of

socio-economic and political structural adjustment programmes (SAP), prescribed by the

Bretton Wood Institutes – World Bank and International Monetary Fund, (IMF). Since the

implementation of the SAPs, there has been a growing interest in the way in which adjustment

policies affect the poor in African countries, and how these policies could be modified to

provide some protection to the poor. What has emerged is that the implementation of these

policies involved cuts in government spending, devaluation, globalization and liberalization of

the economy and international trade, and to a large extent, the reduction of available funds for

social services including financing education. This resulted into the deterioration of the school

5

system manifested in poor examination results. The demand for the highly qualified candidates

for the present competitive labour market, and the limited places in higher learning institutions

made students deregulate the established norms of orderly examination conduct, which have

often led to increased examination malpractices. It therefore appears like examination

malpractices, curriculum delivery, policy, testing styles, school environment etc. form a

complex web and many questions are bound to arise such as:

Is there any linkage between examination irregularities and what may be described “high

stake examinations”?

Could testing style lend itself prone to examination irregularities particularly in science

practical subjects?

Is there a relationship between curriculum delivery and examination irregularities?

Is there a relationship between major education policies and examination malpractices?

In the absence of concrete research findings, the causal relationship between these subjects and

examination malpractices can only be speculated. The field is open for comprehensive

research, the findings of which would help to invite search for curriculum delivery approaches

which would stem the growing tendency by candidates to seek shortcuts to good grades in their

academic certificates.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Although the examination boards world over have laid down rules on examinations, students

still cheat in their examinations. The students who cheat get marks that they do not deserve.

The efficiency of the country's educational system is reduced, because cheating distorts

competition, diminishes the student's incentive to study, and leads to inaccurate evaluation of

the student's abilities. To design appropriate deterrence mechanisms, more information about

the phenomenon of cheating, especially why and how students cheat, is needed. Research in

these areas has mainly looked into frequencies and type of cheating. This is the situation in

Kenya. There is need to look into cheating in an integrated manner, which brings to bare,

perception and attitude towards cheating. There is also need to bring to bare data from the most

6

affected students and teachers. This study aimed to establish why and how the students cheat

and their attitudes to cheating in national public examinations.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The study sought to establish why students cheat and the most common method used to cheat

in national public examinations. The study also sought to establish the student‟s perception

towards the vice.

1.4 Specific Objectives

The study seeks to establish:

1. What policy exist regarding examination malpractices in examinations in Kenya

2 The situational factors regarding assessment design that influences cheating in national

public examinations.

3 What opportunities arise in administration of examinations that may result in cheating?

4 What type of behavioural characteristics arises regarding students and cheating?

4.1 Research questions

The following research questions were formulated for the study:

1) What factors influence cheating in examinations

2) What are the trends that arise in cheating

3) What is the scale of cheating

4) What is the behaviour that arise as a result of cheating in examinations

7

4.2 Justification of the Study

There has been research done on cheating in examinations in Kenya. However, this has been

based on incidences of cheating and punishment. The area has not been explored to determine

the underlying factors in relation to individual characteristics or gender relationship and

achievement level, neither have the behavioural characteristics and ethics. This research comes

as an opportunity not only to add knowledge in these areas but also to meet the challenge the

education system is facing right now; that is, the continued cheating in national examinations.

4.3 Significance of the Study

The Ministry of Education as it addresses cheating in examination may find this study useful.

Schools may find this study useful in guiding on deterrent measures regarding students and

teachers. Scholars can use the information in this study to carry out further research in

challenging areas

8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In this section, related studies were covered. Also to be addressed was the literature review on

examination irregularities.

2.2 Related Studies

A number of studies have been carried out as found in the literature. Bunn, Caudill, and

Gropper (1992) interviewed some American economics undergraduates and concluded that

many students cheat; that the brighter the student, the less likely it is that he or she has cheated;

and that there is a higher probability attached to having cheated once if the student believes

others to be cheating. Whereas Bunn, et al. covered only the cheating-once case, Mixon (1996)

was interested in habitual cheating. His main conclusion was that the determinants of habitual

cheating are much the same as those that relate to having cheated once.

Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper (1992), on one hand, and Mixon (1996) on the other hand, the

analogy between cheating and crime (especially theft). Kerkvliet (1994), also using U.S. data,

concludes that about one-third of students had cheated on at least one occasion. Nowell and

Laufer (1997) found that non-tenure track faculty, large classes, poor performance in the class,

and being employed all lead to more cheating. Kadane (1999) assessed whether data over

eleven (11) examinations supported an accusation of copying multiple-choice answers. Finally,

Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999) explored the determinants of source-specific cheating

behaviour, including student characteristics and deterrent measures. They concludes that large

alcohol consumption and low grade point average (GPA) increase the probability of cheating.

Interestingly, they found that the further along a student was in his or her academic career, the

more likely he or she was to cheat. The most striking result was the difference in student

cheating between students who were taught by teaching assistants and those taught by faculty;

students taught by teaching assistants were 32 percent more likely to cheat than students taught

by faculty. In response to this problem, a great deal of research has been performed in

education and psychology. Most studies deal with:

9

Demographic and personal characteristics of cheats.

The situational factors involved in a student's decision about whether or not to cheat.

The contextual factors

The ethical factors

The reasons students often give for cheating

These five areas are vitally important in determining why cheating occurs.

2.3 Why Students Cheat in Examination

Rooted in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, and the standard economic model

of rational and selfish human behaviour (i.e., homo economicus) is the belief that people carry

out dishonest acts consciously and deliberatively by trading off the expected external benefits

and costs of the dishonest act (Becker 1968; Allingham & Sandmo 1972). According to this

perspective, people would consider three aspects as they pass a petrol station: the expected

amount of cash they stand to gain from robbing the place, the probability of being caught, and

the magnitude of punishment if caught in this act.

On the basis of these inputs, people reach a decision that maximizes their interests. Thus,

according to this perspective, people are honest or dishonest only to the extent that the planned

trade-off favours a particular action (Hechter 1990; Lewicki 1984). In addition to being central

to economic theory, this external cost-benefit view plays an important role in the theory of

crime and punishment, which forms the basis for most policy measures aimed at preventing

dishonesty and guides punishments against those who exhibit dishonest behaviour.

In summary, this standard external cost-benefit perspective generates three hypotheses as to the

forces that are expected to increase the frequency and magnitude of dishonesty:

The higher magnitude of external rewards,

The lower probability of being caught and

The lower magnitude of punishment.

10

2.3.1 Psychological Characteristics of Those Who Cheat

People are often torn between two competing motivations: gaining from cheating versus

maintaining their positive self-concept as honest individuals (Aronson 1969; Harris, Mussen, &

Rutherford, 1976). If they cheat, they could, for example, gain materially or financially, but at

the expense of an honest self-concept. In contrast, if they take the high road, they might forego

material or financial benefits but maintain their honest self-concept. This seems to be a win–

loose situation; choosing one path involves sacrificing the other.

From a psychological perspective, and in addition to material or financial considerations,

another set of important inputs to the decision of whether to be honest (or not) is based on

internal rewards. Psychologists show that as part of socialization, people internalize the norms

and values of their society (Campbell 1964; Henrich ,et al. 2001), which serve as an internal

benchmark against which a person compares his/her behaviour. Compliance with the internal

values system provides positive rewards, whereas non-compliance leads to negative rewards

(i.e. punishments).

Applied to the context of dishonesty, one major way in which the internal reward system exerts

control over behaviour is by influencing people‟s self-concept, that is, the way individuals

view and perceive themselves (Aronson 1969; Baumeister 1998; Bem 1972). It has been

shown that people typically value honesty (i.e., honesty is part of their internal reward system),

that they have very strong beliefs in their own morality, and that they want to maintain this

aspect of their self-concept (Griffin and Ross 1991; Sanitioso, Kunda, and Fong 1990;

Greenwald 1980; Josephson Institute of Ethics 2004). This means that if a person fails to

comply with her internal standards for honesty, she will have to negatively update her self-

concept, which is aversive. On the other hand, if a person complies with her internal standards,

she avoids such negative updating and maintains her positive self-view in terms of being an

honest person. Interestingly, this perspective suggests that in order to maintain their positive

11

self-concepts, individuals will comply with their internal standards even when doing so

involves investments of effort or sacrificing financial gains

2.3.2 Demographic and Personal Characteristics of Those who Cheat

Extensive studies have found that no personal characteristics correlate well with cheating, that

is, there are no people "born to cheat" (Mcabe & Trevino, 1997). Indeed, one experiment found

that there was no relationship between how a student performed on a morality test and his

likelihood of cheating that is, students at a pre-conventional stage of morality are as likely to

cheat as those at a post-conventional stage (West, Ravenscroft & Shrader, 2004). Demographic

variables are also generally not strongly correlated with cheating, with a few minor exceptions.

While men cheated slightly more often than women in the 1960s, that gap has disappeared in

recent years (Mcabe & Trevino, 1997); they further observe that another demographic variable

that affects cheating behaviour is academic achievement, in that students who perform poorly

tend to cheat more than students who perform well. For instance, low grades and low

Scholastic Assessment Test, (SAT) scores have a correlation with high levels of cheating

(Carroll, 1992) and in the same study it is found that parental education shows a weak but

positive correlation with cheating; students whose parents received college degrees are slightly

more likely to cheat than are students whose parents did not attend college. One of the

strongest demographic correlations with academic misconduct in the United Statess is with

language. Students who speak English as a second language have been shown to commit

academic dishonesty more and are more likely to be caught than native speakers, since they

will often not want to rewrite sources in their own words, fearing that the meaning of the

sentence will be lost through poor paraphrasing skills.

Hartshorne and May (1928) statess that students who associated with cheats were more likely

to cheat than were students who associated with none cheats. Thus, the degree of closeness to

others in the class seems to affect cheating behaviour. Hetherington and Feldman (1964)

inferred that cheats were more neurotic than non-cheats. Brownell (1928) supports their

findings and added that cheats were more extraverted as well. Keehn (1956), statess that

12

cheating should be "more related to either extraversion alone or to extraversion and

neuroticism than to neuroticism alone". His research found more cheating among students

scoring high on both extraversion and neuroticism scales, but he said that it was impossible to

find a relationship between cheating and extraversion alone because most of his subjects who

scored high on the extraversion scale also scored high on the neuroticism scale. In a 1967 study

White, Zielonka, and Gaier reported that cheaters were more "tense, irritable, anxious, and in

turmoil" than none heaters.

Other investigators have concerned themselves with a diversity of other behavioural

characteristics and their relationship to cheating. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) found

cheating more common among students who were less self-sufficient and who exerted little

effort in their studies. Boodish (1962) notes that cheats were often good, but overambitious,

students. Vitro (1971) found that cheats generally had parents who punished them severely or

not at all. Thus, his results suggest that a moderate degree of discipline results in children who

internalize moral values and are thus honest in their school work. Black (1962) states that there

were no significant differences in the cheating behaviour of students who attended class

regularly and those who frequently cut class. Hartshorne and May (1928) found a relationship

between age and cheating with older students cheating slightly more often, although Black

(1962) found no significant differences in various age groups. Drake (1941) published some

findings suggesting that interest in a course content influenced cheating behaviour. In his study

20% of the cheats and 90% of the non-cheats enrolled in further courses in the department in

which they had cheated. He added that lack of success may have also accounted for part of the

difference. Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) found a definite relationship between lack of

meaningfulness of courses and cheating. Zastrow (1970), in contrast to all these findings,

found no significant personal differences in cheating and non-cheating students. In most cases

though, these research studies do suggest that there are differences in the personal and

behavioural characteristics of those who cheat and those who do not cheat.

13

2.3.3 Situational Factors in the School

Several investigators have determined that particular characteristics of a situation have a great

influence on whether or not a student cheats. McQueen (1957) reported that situational factors

were a very important determinant of cheating. Rogosin (1951) interpreted some of the studies

in the area to mean that the situation was more important than behavioural characteristics as a

determinant of whether or not cheating occurred. Other researchers, though, have merely

identified characteristics of a situation that influence cheating without making any judgments

about the relative influence of personal or situational characteristics.

The moral climate of the school influences the amount of cheating. Steiner (1930) indicated

that the moral tone of the school can have a positive effect on the characters of students as well

as on the incidence of cheating in the school. Atkins and Atkins (1936) found that a good

emotional tone in the classroom and instruction about not cheating before taking a test and

great difficulty in cheating led to less cheating. Thus, the tone of the classroom seems to have

an influence. In a related study, Fischer (1970) examined five classroom situations in an

attempt to determine when students would be most likely to cheat. The five conditions were:

A "control" condition in which students were given instructions for the test,

An "informative appeal to honesty" condition in which students were given the instructions

and were also told that their being honest on the test was important in providing results that

could be used in helping the teacher assess her teaching techniques,

A "public affirmation of value" condition in which a pretest discussion was held about

cheating and the students were asked to states why they would not cheat on the upcoming

test,

A "value-relevant threat of punishment" condition in which students were told prior to the

examination that if they were caught cheating they would have to write fifty times a

sentence about cheating and

A "non-value-relevant threat of punishment" condition in which students were told that

their punishment for cheating would be writing numbers repeatedly.

14

Under the first two conditions, Fischer reported that approximately two-thirds of the control

and three-fourths of the informative appeal groups cheated. The incidence of cheating was

lower in the other three situations, but no significant differences in incidence of cheating were

found between the three; these were significantly lower than the second group. Thus,

punishment conditions appear equally as effective as non- punishment conditions in their

influence on cheating behaviour. It would seem that these researchers have shown, in different

ways, that cheating is influenced by the moral climate of the school.

The chances of success in cheating were another situational determinant that some researchers

dealt with. The literature seems to indicate that students are less likely to cheat if the chances

are greater that they may get caught. Vitro and Schoer (1972) found that the highest incidence

of cheating occurred among students who were:

unlikely to do well on the test;

who were unlikely to get caught;

And to whom the particular test was very important.

Ludeman (1938) lent support to the findings of likelihood of success as a determinant when he

reported that one of the two major reasons that students cheated was the fact that they had seen

others get away with it. Atkins and Atkins (1936) reported that "the amount of individual

dishonesty increased with the ease of dishonesty". Uhlig and Howes (1967) found that a large

percentage of college students would cheat even in a no pressure situation, if the opportunity

was present. On the other hand Williams (1969) reported that "cheating does not increase with

the number of opportunities". Nevertheless, the literature indicates the likelihood of success as

an important determinant of cheating behaviour.

Personality and teaching style of the teacher have been found to be other situational

determinants. Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) found that poor teachers produced more

students cheating. Shirk and Hoffman (1961) theorized that a teacher who was very

authoritarian, indicating to the students that he knew all the answers, that they were inferior

15

beings, and that the grades he gave were an adequate and accurate measure of the students'

intelligence frequently led students to cheat more. Weldon (1966) underscored this argument

with her discussion of the relationships between amount of cheating and the democratic or

totalitarian characteristics of teachers. She suggested that students cheated much less

frequently when they were freer to voice their opinions about their work and were not tested by

totalitarian procedures. According to Montor (1971), students felt that negative attitude of

teachers towards inquisitive students was a factor in encouraging some students to cheat. In a

related study, Johnson and Klores (1968) found that a dissatisfying classroom situation was

judged by students as producing a greater amount of cheating. Woods (1957) mentioned

teachers giving work that was too difficult and teachers who were too busy as factors that

might contribute to cheating. Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) suggested the giving of

excessively difficult tests by a teacher as a situation which may increase cheating. Excessively

difficult tests may lead to feelings of hopelessness in students. Finally, the Montor, (1971) and

Whitley (1998) reported that some students saw a teacher's grading on a curve as an

inducement to cheating because under such a grading system poor students would have to

cheat or would be doomed to get a low grade. Thus, there seems to be a relationship between

teaching style and the amount of cheating that occurs.

2.3.4 Contextual Factors

Academic misconduct is more easily traced to the academic and social environment of the

student than to his or her background. These contextual factors can be as broad as the social

milieu at school to as narrow as what instructions a teacher gives before an exam.

Contextual factors that individual teachers can affect, often makes the least difference on

cheating behaviour. A study found that increasing the distance between students taking an

exam has little effect on cheating, and that threatening students before an exam with expulsion

if they cheat actually promotes cheating behaviour (Kerkvliet and Sigmund,1999). Indeed,

increased exam invigilation and other methods of detecting cheating in the classroom are

largely ineffective. As teachers invent more elaborate methods of deterring cheating, students

invent even more elaborate methods of cheating (sometimes even treating it as a game).

16

Increased punishment for academic misconduct also has little correlation with cheating

behaviour. It has been found that students with markedly different perceptions of what the

severity of the punishment for cheating were all equally likely to cheat, probably indicating

that they thought that increased penalties were immaterial since their cheating would never be

discovered (Bunn, Caudill and Gropper, 1992).

Teachers can, however, accidentally promote cheating behaviour. A study found a correlation

between how harsh or unfair a teacher is perceived as and academic misconduct, since students

see cheating as a way of getting back at the teacher ( Bushway and Nash, 1977).

The most important contextual causes of academic misconduct are often out of individual

teachers' hands. One very important factor is time management. One survey reported two-

thirds of teachers believed that poor time management was the principal cause of cheating

(Carroll, 2002).

Another important cause of academic misconduct is the contextual factor of an environment of

peer disapproval of cheating, that is, peer pressure. Psychologists note that all people tend to

follow the norms of their peer group, which would include norms about academic dishonesty

(Power, Higgins and Kohlberg, 1989). Thus, students who believe that their peers disapprove

of cheating are less likely to cheat. Indeed, multiple studies show that the most decisive factor

in a student's decision to cheat is his perception of his peers' relationship with academic

dishonesty (Mcabe and Trevino, 2002). Peer pressure works both ways, as a study found that

there is a 41% increase in the probability of a student cheating if he/she has seen someone else

cheat (Bunn Caudill and Gropper, 1992). However, even if most students strongly disapprove

of cheating, there has to be a community in order for those norms to be enforced via peer

pressure. For instance, larger schools, which usually have much higher cheating rates than

small schools, tend to have a weaker community, being more split up into different peer groups

that exert little social pressure on each other (Bowers, 1964).

17

2.3.5 Ethical Factors

No matter what the demographic or contextual influences are on a student who decides to

engage in cheating behaviour, before he/she can cheat he/she must overcome his/her own

conscience. This depends both on how strongly someone disapproves of academic dishonesty

and what types of justifications the student uses to escape a sense of guilt. For instance,

students who personally do not have a moral problem with academic misconduct can cheat

guilt-free. However, while many students have been taught and have internalized that academic

dishonesty is wrong, it has been shown that on average a third of students who strongly

disapprove of cheating have in fact cheated (Bowers, 1964). People who cheat despite personal

disapproval of cheating engage in something called "neutralization", in which a student

rationalizes the cheating as being acceptable due to certain mitigating circumstances (Bernadi,

et al, 2004). According to psychologists of deviant behaviour, people who engage in

neutralization support the societal norm in question, but "conjure up" reasons why they are

allowed to violate that norm in a particular case (Smith, Davy and Easterling, 2004).

Neutralization is not a simple case of ex-post facto rationalization, but is rather a more

comprehensive affair, occurring before, during, and after the act of cheating (LaBeff, et al.,

1990). Researchers have found four major types of neutralization of academic dishonesty,

which they categorize by type of justification:

Denial of responsibility - that is, the accusation that others are to blame or that

something forced the student to cheat

Condemnation of condemner - that is, that the teachers are hypocrites or brought it on

themselves.

The appeal to higher loyalties - where the student thinks his/her responsibility to some

other entity, usually his/her peers, is more important than doing what he/she knows to

be morally right.

Denial of injury - that nobody is worse off for the cheating.

18

2.3.6 Reasons Given for Cheating

Related to the situational influences as determinants of cheating are the reasons students give

for their dishonesty in the classroom. In the relevant literature, investigators have cited

numerous reasons for cheating. Concern about grades was most frequently mentioned. Drake

(1941), Ludeman (1938), Montor (1971), Schab (1969), Smith, Ryan, and Diggins (1972),

Trabue (1962), and Woods (1957) all states that pressure to get grades to gain admittance to

college or pressure to maintain their existing average caused many students to cheat. Related to

all these studies are the findings of Cornehlsen (1965), whose results showed that any kind of

pressure from administrators, teachers, and/or parents frequently influenced cheating. Boodish

(1962), Montor (1971), Woods (1957), and Uhlig and Howes (1967) reported on the perceived

relationship of morality and cheating. Boodish indicated that one type of cheat could not see

any relationship between cheating and morality. Montor statesd that students cheated because

they did not understand why it was wrong, whereas Woods claimed, on the basis of his

findings, that "a large amount of cheating occurs where students are ignorant of or indifferent

to the immediate and ultimate consequences" of their behaviour. Uhlig and Howes suggest that

some students were confused about what is considered to be dishonest behaviour. Thus, their

research seems to indicate that cheating is more frequent when students do not understand the

relationship of cheating and morality.

Other reasons for cheating reported in the literature are found in the studies of Cornehlsen

(1965), Woods (1957), and Zastrow (1970). Cornehlsen studied 200 high school seniors and

found that "33% of the girls and 55% of the boys felt that cheating was justified when success

or survival was in jeopardy". Woods similarly reported fear of failure as a reason. Zastrow

reported "handicaps," such as extracurricular activities or a job, and being unprepared for a test

as reasons given by some students. It is obvious that there are numerous reasons for cheating, a

fact which may explain why cheating is so widespread.

19

In Kenya, some of the reasons cited by the ministerial committee appointed to investigate the

KCSE irregularities in the year 2000 (Ambassador Kisilu Report) included:

Stiff Competition

This is as a result of too many people chasing too few opportunities either for employment,

higher education or training.

Poor preparation

Teachers who have not done their work well and who fear that their failure will be revealed

by the poor performance of their students may look for opportunities to assist their students

during the examinations. On the other hand, students who have not prepared well for the

examinations may be tempted to cheat in order to perform well during the examinations.

Poor Supervision /Invigilation

The main objective of invigilation during examinations is to prevent cheating. If

invigilation is poor or lax or the people involved lack integrity, then cheating may occur.

Pressure to "Pass" Examinations

An obvious reason why many candidates cheat in examinations is due to the pressure to

perform well in examinations. The pressure could stem from the candidates own desire to

excel, or to please other significant people like parents, guardians, mentors, friends, peers

etc. When this pressure to pass examinations is too high, it generates a consequent desire to

succeed by any means - orthodox or unorthodox.

Inadequate Facilities in Examination Centre

Inadequate facilities, for example: classrooms, laboratories, halls, chairs, desks, working

tables and equipment in some examination centres may enable cheating to occur. Lack of

adequate space in examination rooms leads candidates to sit close to one another which can

easily lead to copying from each other. Situations where candidates sit for their

examination in shifts especially in science practicals can make control and supervision of

candidates very challenging. If supervision of candidates in such situations is lax or

ineffective, examination malpractices can occur.

20

2.4 Effects of Cheating in Examinations

2.4.1 Effects on the Student

Cheating in academia has a host of effects on students, on teachers, on individual schools, and

on the educational system itself. For instance, students who engage in neutralization to justify

cheating, even once, are more likely to engage in cheating in the future, potentially putting

them on a road to a life of dishonesty (Smith, Davy and Easterling, 2004). One study found

that students who are dishonest in class are more likely to engage in fraud and theft on the job

when they enter the workplace (Nonis and Swift, 2001). Students are also negatively affected

by academic dishonesty after graduation. Moreover, a case of cheating often will cause

emotional distress to faculty members, many considering it to be a personal slight against them

or a violation of their trust.

2.4.2 Effects on the Institutions

Academic misconduct can also have an effect on an institution‟s reputation, one of the most

important assets of any school. An institution plagued by cheating scandals may become less

attractive to potential donors and students and especially prospective employers. Alternately,

schools with low levels of academic dishonesty can use their reputation to attract students and

employers. Ultimately, academic dishonesty undermines the academic world. It interferes with

the basic mission of education, the transfer of knowledge, by allowing students to get by

without having to master the knowledge (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 1998).

Furthermore, academic dishonesty creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to the learning

process, which affects honest students as well (Bowers, 1964). When honest students see

cheats escape detection, it can discourage student morale, as they see the rewards for their

work cheapened. Cheating also undermines academia when students steal ideas. Ideas are a

professional author's "capital and identity", and if a person's ideas are stolen, it retards the

pursuit of knowledge (Mallon, 2004).

21

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the research design, sampling methodology and describes analysis done

on the data. It also includes a brief description of the data collection instruments and steps used

to ensure validity and reliability of the instruments.

3.2 Research design

This study used both qualitative and quantitative approaches in investigating the trends in

examination malpractices over a five-year period between the year 2002 and 2006, and gauged

it against behavioural characteristics elicited from a sample of Form Four students. The

quantitative data were obtained from the archives of KNEC and the student‟s responses. The

survey is a non-experimental, descriptive research method.

Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that cross-cuts discipline and subject matters, (Adler,

1987). The researcher‟s aim was to gather an in-depth understanding of the students‟ behaviour

and the reasons guiding those behaviours in examination malpractices. Hence research relied

on reasons behind various aspects of behaviour. Since qualitative research categorizes data into

patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results, the researcher could rely on

any of the four methods for gathering information, that is: (1) participation in the setting, (2)

direct observation, (3) in-depth interviews, and (4) analysis of documents and materials. In this

study the researcher participated in the setting, and administration the instruments as well as

compiling of the analysis report.

Quantitative research is often an iterative process whereby evidence is evaluated, theories and

hypotheses are refined, technical advances are made, and so on. In the social sciences

particularly, quantitative research is often contrasted with qualitative research which is the

examination, analysis and interpretation of observations for the purpose of discovering

underlying meanings and patterns of relationships, including classifications of types of

phenomena and entities, in a manner that does not involve mathematical models. In this study,

22

the researcher relied on the quantitative data from the KNEC archives to analyze the

demographic trends.

3.3 The Sample

The sample comprised two parts, namely:

a. Records from KNEC; these were used in determining cheating trends. They comprised

schools as determined from the KCPE and KCSE irregularity records for the period

between 2002 and 2006, and were categorized into various demographics and attributes of

high achieving, low achieving and other schools; gender, subject areas, types of cheating,

and the documents selected for review to determine policy on examinations, and

specifically cheating; as well as regulations related to cheating.

b. Students; these were the four hundred (400) Form Four students from the selected

Secondary schools who were the respondents for behaviour characteristics. The schools

which had been appearing in the first ten (10) positions in the KCSE examination results

during the last five years were considered as high achievers. The others were lumped

together as low achievers and others.

3.4 Sampling Procedure

The sampling was done purposefully with equal representation on gender; coupled with

specific clusters of high achievers and low achievers/others.

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

3.5.1 Trends Analysis Format:

Framework

Table I represents the trends analysis format of the data collection.

23

Table 3.1 Trends analysis format of the data collection

TOTAL ANXIETY

CHARACTERISTICS

BEHAVIOURAL

CHARACTERISTICS

PERCEPTION

TO

CHEATING

DEMOGRAPHICS

AS RELATES TO

KNEC DATA

BANK LOW NORMAL HIGH SITUATIONAL ETHICAL

High

Achieving

Schools

Male

Female

Low

Achieving

Schools

and

others

Male

Female

3.5.2 Questionnaire on behaviour characteristics:

The behavioural characteristics were elicited through a questionnaire, which had three

sections; A, B and C. Section A had only two questions seeking the biodata of the respondents

in terms of gender and the type of school the respondents were in. Section B had ten questions

based on Nist and Diehl (1990), which was intended to quantitatively evaluate if a student

experienced a low, mild (normal) or severe (High) case of test anxiety. To determine the

anxiety index, students were asked to read through each of the ten statements and reflect upon

past testing experiences then indicate how often each statement best described the student in a

test situation. The scores on all the statements were added up for each respondent and analyzed

against the Nist and Diehl scale as stated below.

The Nist and Diehl scale, states that; a score of less than 10 points implies absence of test

anxiety (in fact some anxiety is required for such a level). A low score of (10 – 19) points,

(these were considered low in this study), indicates that the student does not suffer from test

anxiety, a score of (20 -35) points, (considered normal in this study), indicates that although

the respondent exhibits some characteristics of test anxiety, the level of stress and tension is

24

probably healthy. A score of over 35 (considered high in this study), suggests that the

respondent is experiencing an unhealthy level of test anxiety.

Section C elicited the behavioural characteristics of the students. The first part of it has two

questions which sought to establish the prevalence and situational setup under which cheating

occurs, while the second part elicited the ethical perception of the respondents on the vice.

3.6 Pre-Testing Of Instruments

According to Onocha & Okpala (1995), a research instrument must be pre-tested so as to

determine its validity and reliability. For this reason, the validity of the instruments used in this

study was determined through pre-testing of the questionnaire in two schools in Nairobi. The

assumption was that the pretest schools, both being in Nairobi, had similar learning

environments and experiences that were bound to provide similar students‟ experience to the

sample. The researcher found it important to do this because the pretest assisted in identifying

ambiguities, useless and inadequate items in the questionnaire. It also aided in determining the

sustainability of the instrument in measuring what it was intended to measure and establishing

clarity of each item in the instrument in terms of language and technical terms used. After the

pretest items were revised, adjusted appropriately and finalized accordingly.

The reliability of the instrument was determined by the use of a test-retest method. Test-retest

procedure entails the administration of the same instrument on two or more occasions to the

same respondents. According to Wiersma (1986), use of test-retest procedure gives a reliability

coefficient of stability-the extent to which the scores on the single administration remains

stable. In this study, the instruments were administered to the respondents on two occasions on

an interval of two weeks. The scores of the two sets of administrations were then correlated

using Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient to determine the reliability estimate.

The items were found to be 0.91, that is 91% reliable.

25

3.7 Preparation for Data Collection and Data Collection Procedures

The researcher sought authority from the Ministry of Higher Education (Appendix II), which

was copied to the principals of secondary schools and the Kenya National Examinations

Council to provide records on past reports regarding examination malpractices.

The researcher wrote letters to the heads of schools requesting permission to collect data from

the selected schools. When permission was granted, the researcher visited the schools on set

out dates when required data were to be collected. The researcher prepared questionnaires and

hand-delivered them to the schoolheads in each of the schools selected on the set dates. The

researcher made his own observation to cross-validate the information provided by the

respondents. Respondents were allowed enough time to fill the questionnaires after which the

researcher collected them for analysis.

3.8 Data analysis

There exists several computer programmes that may be utilized for data management and their

strength and weakness varies.

3.8.1 Data Entry Programme

The Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) Version 3.3 was identified and used as

the computer programme for data capture and management for this research. The software was

developed by U.S Census Bureau and has been extensively used to capture and analyze survey

data in many countries. It was preferred because the programme has in-built controls and

procedures that enable accurate data capture. The accuracy facilitated by double entry, is that it

is possible to convert from different programmes and also performs tabulations. The

programme is freely available from U.S Census Bureau website for public use and is

continuously updated. The programme is a window based and is user friendly.

3.8.2 Data Analysis Programme

Once the data was captured using CSPro and preliminary data cleaning checks were done to

remove duplicate records and then the data was exported to Statistical Package for Social

Scientist (SPSS) for analysis and tabulation. SPSS is a powerful statistical package with

26

extensive features in tabulation and data manipulation. The researcher used Version 12 of

SPSS for this study.

3.8.3 Description of Analysis

The data were analyzed with respect to the research objectives. Frequencies were determined

the different malpractices. These were used to identify presentations made on tables and pie

charts for clarity. This was done with reference to gender and school category.

Qualitative data were also collected and categorized with respect to the above listed attributes.

3.9 Data presentation

The data was presented in:

a) Frequencies, percentages, tables and pie-charts for the demographic information and the

behavioural characteristics.

b) Scale used for the anxiety measure was based on Nist-Diehl as described earlier.

27

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter includes a description of what is arising from the data collection. It is divided into

the following sections:

The legal instruments guiding the policy on dealing with the examinations

malpractices.

The general overview of personal data of the sampled respondents.

The demographics as relate to the data from KNEC statistical data bank.

The anxiety characteristics of the respondents; the psychological and situational

factors relating to cheating in national public examinations and the observed trends.

The students‟ perception on cheating.

The organization of the findings was guided by the research questions of this study.

4.2 Legal instrument and the policy on examination malpractices

The purpose of setting rules and regulations for any examining board, is to have a clear

understanding of what such a board stands for and what it expects from the candidates. The

rules and regulations set unequivocal conditions for the examination so that there is fairness

for all those taking the examination.

The KNEC has put in place rules and regulations to govern the various examinations that are

run by the Council. These rules include, among others, registration of candidates, conduct of

examinations, marking, processing of results and award of grades and certification.

Some of the rules that create a level playing ground for all the candidates include:

28

4.2.1 KCSE Registration Requirements

This states that:

No school can be approved as an examination centre unless it is registered as a

learning institution according to the requirement of the Education Act (1968) Cap 212;

a school can operate as a centre only if it registers a minimum of 15 candidates.

Schools with less than 15 candidates can only submit their entries if they have made

sitting arrangements with a host school; Candidates must enter a minimum of eight

subjects; Candidates must have been bonafide enrolled students studying continuously

during the three ( 3) years preceding registrations and must be presented for the

examination by the Headteachers. Each candidate must submit copies of recently taken

photographs for identification.

4.2.2 Rules to Ensure Fairness

The rules that ensure fairness among candidates taking an examination states that:

The Council reserves the right to withhold results of the examination of any candidate

or group of candidates or examination centres suspected of having been involved in an

examination irregularity or misconduct pending completion of investigations and the

final disposal of any consequent disciplinary action or other proceeding;

If the Council is satisfied that the candidates or schools have been involved in any

irregularity or misconduct, the Council may cancel the results of such candidates or

schools;

The schools whose results are cancelled under this rule may be removed from the roll

of the Council's approved examination centres and depending on degree of

misconduct; the candidates may be barred from entering future Council examinations.

If the Council is satisfied that the examinations at any centre have not been conducted

in accordance with its regulations, or that there has been widespread irregularities at

an examination centre, it may at its sole discretion disqualify all candidates at the'

centre;

29

Schools whose results are withheld or cancelled are informed in writing through their

respective Provincial Director of Education,(PDE), The District Education Officer,

(DEO), , Director City Education MEOs as soon as the examination results are

released. The officers are in turn required to inform their respective candidates.

4.2.3 KNEC’s Legal Instrument

The Council has legal provisions in place to punish those infringing these regulations (see

appendix III); The Council has revised the Act in order to strengthen it and was awaiting its

approval by the Attorney General; The Council has also included a new section on the

appointment of Council agents (PDEs, DEOs, MEOs, Heads and any other field officer in

Government Service) for the purposes of administration of its examinations. The Council's

rules and regulations are not gazetted. The following paragraph outlines the mode of

punishment for any infringement. Any person who;

a) unlawfully obstructs officers and staff appointed under the provisions of this Act from

executing their duties or who does anything which would make the conducting of

examinations difficult, or

b) instigates or incites others to obstruct the conduct of examination, or issues threats to or

intimidates officers and staff who are lawfully executing their duties under this Act with a

view to obstructing the efficient conducting of examinations, or

c) presenting forged certificate, diploma, letter of confirmation of results, or result slip to a

prospective employer, an institution of learning or any other organizations with intent to

gain employment, admission or any other form of assistance shall be guilty of an offence

and liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a

term not exceeding thirty-six months or to both such imprisonment and fine.

d) Any person who;

30

(i) Gains access to examination material and knowingly reveals the contents, whether

orally or in writing, to an unauthorized party, whether a candidate or not; or

(ii) Willfully and maliciously damages examinations materials: or

(iii) Tampers with a candidate's script or certificate with intent to alter results or the

contents of the certificate; or

(iv) Prints or facilitates the printing of examinations material, result slips, letters of

confirmation of results or certificates, without authority; or

(v) Sells, trades in or awards forged certificate, result slips or letters of confirmation;

or.

(vi) With intent to impersonate, presents or attempts to present himself to take the

part of an enrolled candidate; or

(vii) Assists a candidate during an examination with the intent of enabling the candidate

to gain unfair advantage.

Shall be guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand

shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty-six months or to both such

imprisonment and fine.

e) In furtherance to the legal provisions under Sub-Section 15(B) of the Act, the Council or

its Agents shall have authority to enter and inspect any premises, place or equipment

where the Council has cause to suspect that examination or certification is taking place or

the printing, storage and trading in. examination materials is taking place.

f) The equipment used to facilitate examination malpractice under this section shall be liable

31

to confistication and disposal by the Council.

4.3 General Overview of Personal Data of Respondents

Because of the purposive nature in which the sample schools were selected, that is, high

achievers and low achievers/others the respondents‟ background information was restricted to

gender and the type of school. Gender, category of school and the anxiety level, are the

independent variables throughout this chapter.

Information on the respondents‟ gender and whether he/she is from high achiever‟s school or

from the others is presented in table I below. The same is presented in figure 1.

Table 4.I (a): Respondent’s Gender and type of school

SCHOOL CATEGORY

HIGH ACHIEVERS OTHERS

Male 101 (25.25%) 100 (25%)

Female 51 (12.75%) 148 (37 %)

Total 152 (38%) 248 (62%)

32

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Male Female

School Level High achievers

School Level Others

Figure 4.1: Gender and Type of School

On the gender of the respondents, males from high achiever and those from the other schools

were almost equally distributed; 50.25% males and 49.75% females. However, the study

revealed that the number of female respondents from the high achiever schools was lower

(12.75%) than the female respondents from the other schools.

4.4 Demographics as it relates to data from KNEC statistical bank

Secondary data on KCPE and KCSE for the five years period between 2002 and 2006 was

analyzed to determine the trends.

By the time of compiling this data the information on 2007 for both the examinations was

incomplete and therefore the researcher relied on the information on 2002 and 2006. The

report is in two parts. The first part deals with KCPE and the second part deals with KCSE

examination. In both cases the reported irregularities are cross-tabulated with:

Total candidates

Subject

Nature of irregularity

Gender

33

4.4.1 KCPE statistics for the five year period (2002 – 2006)

The Kenya Certificate of Primary Education Examination (KCPE) is designed primarily as a

primary school leaving examination. Candidates are required to sit for the examination after

eight years of schooling. The examination consists of seven papers namely: English Objective,

English Composition, Kiswahili Objective, Kiswahili Insha, Mathematics, Science and Social

Studies and Religious Education (SSRE). The Following is an analysis of the KCPE data for

the five years under review (2002 – 2006).

(a) Total KCPE enrolment (candidature) during the period, 2002-2006.

The general enrolment for KCPE examination for the five-year period under the study is

reported in table II (a), and illustrated in figure 2(a).

Table 4.2(a): Total KCPE candidature for the five year period, (2002 – 2006)

YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Candidature 540,069 587,961 657,747 671,550 666,451

Male 278,641

(51.59%)

303,907

(51.69%)

342,979

(52.14%)

352,826

(52.54%)

352,782

(52.93%)

Female 261,428

(48.41%)

284,054

(48.31%)

314,768

(47.86%)

318,724

(47.46%)

313,669

(47.07%)

Source: KNEC, (2008)

Figure 4.2(a): KCPE total candidature, by Gender for the period, 2002 - 2006

The study revealed that fewer girls than boys have been registering for the KCPE examination

over the last five years.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

year

can

did

ates

Male

Female

34

(b) KCPE Irregularities by subject

Table II (b) shows the reported irregularities, by subject, during the five years under review by

the study. The same is illustrated in figure 2(b).

Table 4.2(b): Examination irregularities in KCPE for the period 2002 – 2006, by subject

SUBJECT 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

English 94 235 177 208 171

Kiswahili 46 121 95 87 78

Mathematics 57 29 2 7 35

Science 240 302 157 89 73

Social Studies (SS)/ __ 46 26 5 2

(GHC & RE)

Source: KNEC, (2008)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

English

Kiswahili

Math

ematic

s

Science

Social S

tudies (S

S)/

(GHC &

RE)

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Figure 4.2(b): KCPE irregularities by subject for the period, 2002-2006

35

The study revealed that:-

(i) The highest number of irregularity cases occurred in year 2003, (0.10%), since then, the

cases went down to 0.05% in year 2006.

(ii) Most cases of examination irregularities are found in Science, English Objective and

Kiswahili Objective.

(c) Irregularities and their nature

Table II(c) shows the reported KCPE irregularities and their nature for the period covered by

the study, (2002-2006). The same is illustrated in figure 2(c).

Table 4.2(c): Irregularity cases in KCPE examination for the period 2002 – 2006, by

nature

YEAR COLLUSION

SMUGGLED

MATERIALS

UNREGISTERED

CANDIDATES

IMPERSONATION TOTAL

2006 302 03 0 01 306

2005 347 01 02 03 353

2004 371 15 0 04 390

2003 579 09 07 0 595

2002 390 0 0 0 390

Source: KNEC, (2008)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

cases

Collusion

Smuggled Materials

Unregistered Candidates

Impersonation

Figure 4.2(c): KCPE irregularities between 2002 -2006, by nature

36

The study revealed that:

i. Most KCPE candidates engage in collusion1 as a form of cheating.

ii. A few candidates also try to smuggle in some unauthorized materials related to

examinations.

iii. Irregularities arising from registration and impersonation are insignificant.

(d) KCPE irregularities and Gender

Table II (d) shows the reported irregularities and Gender, the same is illustrated in figure 2(d).

Table 4.2(d): KCPE irregularities between 2002 and 2006, by Gender

YEAR MALE FEMALE TOTAL

CANDIDATES

2006 138 168 306

2005 148 205 353

2004 164 226 390

2003 232 363 595

2002 156 234 390

Source: KNEC, (2008)

1 Collusion takes various forms including; Candidates being assisted by an external agent (third

party) to perform tasks during the examination; Candidates copying from each other or from external

sources; Smuggling question papers out of the examination rooms for other people to workout the

answers and then circulating the same among candidates; Candidates exposing their work intentionally or unintentionally with the resultant effect of other candidates copying the same,

swapping of scripts between candidates for the purpose of assisting each other, teachers exposing

their results obtained from science practical examinations for candidates to copy.

37

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Year

Num

ber

of c

andi

date

s

Male

Female

Figure 4.2(d): KCPE irregularities between 2002 and 2006, by Gender.

The study revealed that:

i. The girls have been cheating more than boys in KCPE examination during all the five-year

period under review.

ii. There was an upsurge of cheating during year 2003 KCPE examination.

iii. Cases of cheating in KCPE have been decreasing between 2004 and 2006.

KCSE statistics for the five year period (2002 – 2006)

The Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examination is offered once each year

to candidates who have completed four years of secondary education. The following is the

analysis of reported irregularities in KCSE examination for the five years period, (2002 to

2006).

(a) Total KCSE enrolment (candidature) during the period, 2002-2006.

The general enrolment for KCSE examination for the five year period under the study is

reported in table III (a), and illustrated in figure 3(a).

38

Table 4.3(a): KCSE candidates during the period, 2002-2006

YEAR TOTAL CANDIDATES MALE FEMALE

2002 198,356 106,164

(53.52%)

92,192

(46.48%)

2003 207,730 111,589

(53.72%)

96,141

(46.28%)

2004

222,676 120,067

(53.92%)

102,609

(46.08%)

2005 260,665 141,256

(54.19%)

119,409

(45.81%)

2006 243,453 129,071

(53.02%)

114,382

(46.98%)

Source: KNEC, (2008)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

can

did

ate

s

Male

Female

Figure 4.3(a): KCSE enrolment during the period, 2002-2006.

The study revealed that:

i. The total number of candidates sitting for the KCSE examination increased steadily

between the years 2002 and 2005, but decreased in the year 2006.

ii. In the five year period under review, there have been more male candidates registered for

the KCSE examination than female candidates.

39

(a) KCSE irregularities by Gender

Table 4.3(b): KCSE Irregularities during the period 2002-2006, by Gender

YEAR MALE FEMALE TOTAL

2006 473 190 646

2005 200 110 310

2004 1225 506 1731

2003 560 462 1022

2002 546 440 986

Source: KNEC, (2008)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Year

Nu

mb

er

invo

lved

in

ch

eati

ng

Male

Female

Figure 4.3(b): KCSE irregularities for the period 2002-2006, by Gender

The study revealed that:

(i) The male respondents have been cheating more than their female counterparts in KCSE

examination for the five year period covered by the study.

(b) KCSE Irregularities by subject.

Table III (b) shows the reported irregularities, by subject, during the five years under review by

the study. The same is illustrated in figure 3 (b).

40

Table 4.3(c): KCSE irregularities by subject for the period 2002-2006

SUBJECT REPORTED CASES OF IRREGULARITIES IN FIVE YEARS

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

English 24 12 25 47 62

Kiswahili 07 10 25 52 85

Mathematics 704 431 470 60 156

Biology 25 69 551 64 199

Physics 113 19 37 11 26

Chemistry 580 493 969 185 313

History & Govt. 13 12 29 41 39

Geography 07 03 22 12 37

CRE 02 16 12 05 25

IRE - - - - 03

SEE - 03 08 16 -

Home Science - - 02 07 02

Art and Design - - - - 01

Agriculture 06 19 35 27 18

Woodwork - - 01 - -

Building Construction - 01 - - -

Power Mechanics - 01 - - -

Computer Studies 26 - 70 34 32

French - - - - 02

Accounting - 01 03 01 -

Commerce 06 37 19 31 -

Economics - - 01 - -

Business Studies - - - - 35

Source: KNEC, (2008)

41

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

English

Kiswahili

Math

ematic

s

Biology

Physics

Chem

istry

Histor

y & G

ovt.

Geography

CRE

Agricultu

re

Compute

r Stu

dies

Accoun

ting

Comm

erce

Business

studies

Subject

Nu

mb

er o

f can

did

ates

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Figure 4.3(c): Reported irregularities in KCSE, by subject between 2002 and 2006

The study revealed that:

i. The paper with the highest number of candidates involved in examination irregularities in

the five-year period is Chemistry. This is followed by Mathematics, Biology and Physics.

ii. Cases of irregularities reported in other subjects are insignificant, with an exception in

languages, Agriculture and Computer studies.

(c) KCSE irregularities by nature

Table III (c) shows the reported irregularities, by their nature, during the five years under. The

same is illustrated in figure 3 (c):

42

Table 4.3(d): KCSE irregularities by nature for the period, 2002-2006

NATURE OF

IRREGULARITY

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Collusion 1,201 908 1,609 183 496

Pre-Prepared Notes 59 101 134 70 119

Impersonation - 06 16 24 15

Different

Handwriting

02 06 02 03 01

Two Script Cases 03 01 02 04 01

Registration Irregularities

- - 08 31 34

Source: KNEC, (2008)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Collusion Pre-Prepared

Notes

Impersonation Different

Handwriting

Two Script

Cases

Registration

Irregularities

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Figure 4.3(d): KCSE irregularities by nature (2002-2006)

The study revealed that:

i. Collusion is the most common type of examination irregularity reported in the five-year

period.

ii. The highest number of candidates involved in collusion and possession of pre-prepared

notes in the examination rooms was recorded in the year 2004, while that involved in

impersonation was recorded in the year 2005.

43

4.4 Psychological Characteristics

To determine the psychological status of the respondents about examinations, an anxiety index

was used to collect information. The respondents were asked to read through a set of the ten

statements and reflect upon their past testing experiences and anxieties while taking

examinations. They were then asked to indicate the statement that best described their situation

(then indicate how often each statement best described them in a test situation). The scores on

all the statements were added up for each respondent. According to Nist and Diehl (1990), a

score of less than 10 points indicates absence of test anxiety. A score of (10 – 19) points

indicates that the respondent does not suffer from test anxiety, while a score of (20 -35) points

indicates that although the respondent exhibits some characteristics of test anxiety, the level of

stress and tension is probably healthy. A score of over 35 suggests that the respondent is

experiencing an unhealthy level of test anxiety.

The results were analyzed in two parts: first by cross-tabulating the anxiety level against the

gender and secondly against the school category. The results were tabulated in table IV (a) and

IV (b) and illustrated with figures 4(a) - (i).

(a) Gender and the general level of Anxiety

Table 4.4 (a): Gender and Anxiety Level

TOTAL

GENDER

MALE FEMALE

Anxiety Level 400 201 199

100% 100% 100%

10 - 19 102 77 25

26% 38% 13%

20 - 35 282 116 166

71% 58% 83%

Over 35 16 8 8

4% 4% 4%

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10_19 20 - 35 Over 35

Anxiety level

Tota

l num

ber

Male

Female

Figure 4.4(a): Gender and Anxiety level

The study revealed that female respondents suffer from examination anxiety more than their

male cohorts. Although majority of male (58%) and female (83%) exhibited some

characteristics of test anxiety (20 – 35) points, the level of tension and stress is probably

healthy at such level according to Nist and Diehl. The study further revealed that 38% of male

and 13% of female respondents do not suffer from low test anxiety, while on the other end of

the scale, only 4% of both male and female respondents suffer from unhealthy(high) level of

test anxiety (above 35 points).

(b) School category and general Anxiety level

Table 4.4 (b): Anxiety and school category

ANXIETY LEVEL

SCHOOL LEVEL

HIGH ACHIEVERS LOW ACHIEVERS/OTHERS

10 - 19 42 60

28% 24%

20 - 35 107 175

70% 71%

Over 35 3 13

2% 5%

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Low Anxiety Normal Anxiety High Anxiety

High achievers

Low Achievers

Figure 4.4(b): Anxiety level and school category

The study revealed that respondents from high achiever schools suffer less examination anxiety

than the rest.

Table 4(c): I always have visible signs of nervousness such as sweaty palms, shaky

hands, and so on, every time before an examination.

GENDER ANXIETY LEVEL SCHOOL CATEGORY

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10-19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20-35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVERS

SCHOOLS

LOW ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS/OTHERS

Never 76 51 60 66 1 48 79

38% 26% 59% 23% 6% 32% 32%

Rarely 47 54 28 73 0 43 58

23% 27% 27% 26% 0% 28% 23%

Sometimes 69 80 12 132 5 55 94

34% 40% 12% 47% 31% 36% 38%

Often 8 12 2 11 7 5 15

4% 6% 2% 4% 44% 3% 6%

Always 1 2 0 0 3 1 2

0% 1% 0% 0% 19% 1% 1%

46

I always have vissible signs of nervousness such as sweaty palms, shaky hands and so on,

every time before an examination

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low Anxiety

Normal Anxiety

High Anxiety

High achievers schools

Others Schools

Figure 4.4(c): I always have visible signs of nervousness such as sweaty palms, shaky

hands and so on, every time before an examination

Table 4.4(d): I have ‘butterflies’ in my stomach every time before I sit for an

examination.

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10 -19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20 -35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS

LOW ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS/OTHERS

Never 70 25 53 42 0 23 72

35% 13% 52% 15% 0% 15% 29%

Rarely 49 37 32 53 1 48 38

24% 19% 31% 19% 6% 32% 15%

Sometimes 60 94 12 138 4 60 94

30% 47% 12% 49% 25% 39% 38%

Often 8 22 3 26 1 13 17

4% 11% 3% 9% 6% 9% 7%

Always 14 21 2 23 10 8 27

7% 11% 2% 8% 63% 5% 11%

47

I have 'butterflies' in my stomach every time before i sit for an examination

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low Anxiety (10 - 19)

Normal Anxiety (20 - 35)

High Anxiety (Over 35)

High achiever Schools

Others Schools

Figure 4.4(d): I have ‘butterflies’ in my stomach every time before I sit for an

examination

Table 4.4(e): I read through a test and feel that I do not know any of the answers.

GENDER ANXIETY LEVEL SCHOOL CATEGORY

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10 -19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20-35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS

LOW

ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS

Never 80 44 71 53 0 54 70

40% 22% 70% 19% 0% 36% 28%

Rarely 37 51 17 71 0 39 49

18% 26% 17% 25% 0% 26% 20%

Sometimes 65 84 14 132 3 54 95

32% 42% 14% 47% 19% 36% 38%

Often 6 13 0 14 5 1 18

3% 7% 0% 5% 31% 1% 7%

Always 13 7 0 12 8 4 16

6% 4% 0% 4% 50% 3% 6%

48

I read through a test and feel that I do not know any of the answers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low Anxiety

Normal Anxiety

High Anxiety

High achiever Schools

Other Schools

Figure 4.4(e): I read through a test and feel that I do not know any of the answers

Table 4.4(f): I panic before and during an examination

GENDER ANXIETY LEVEL SCHOOL CATEGORY

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10–19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20-35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS

LOW ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS/OTHERS

Never 62 26 52 36 0 22 66

31% 13% 51% 13% 0% 14% 27%

Rarely 60 62 38 84 0 59 63

30% 31% 37% 30% 0% 39% 25%

Sometimes 59 77 12 123 1 52 84

29% 39% 12% 44% 6% 34% 34%

Often 7 18 0 23 2 15 10

3% 9% 0% 8% 13% 10% 4%

Always 13 16 0 16 13 4 25

6% 8% 0% 6% 81% 3% 10%

49

I panic before and during examination

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low anxiety

Normal Anxiety

High Anxiety

High achiever Schools

Other Schools

Figure 4.4(f): I panic before and during examination

Table 4.4(g): My mind goes blank during an examination

TOTAL

GENDER ANXIETY LEVEL SCHOOL CATEGORY

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10 -19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20 -35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVERS

LOW ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS/OTHER

Never 132 85 47 71 61 0 48 84

33% 42% 24% 70% 22% 0% 32% 34%

Rarely 86 40 46 19 67 0 44 42

22% 20% 23% 19% 24% 0% 29% 17%

Sometimes 138 51 87 10 125 3 53 85

35% 25% 44% 10% 44% 19% 35% 34%

Often 16 5 11 0 14 2 5 11

4% 2% 6% 0% 5% 13% 3% 4%

Always 28 20 8 2 15 11 2 26

7% 10% 4% 2% 5% 69% 1% 10%

50

My mind goes blank during an examination

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low Anxiety

Normal Anxiety

High Anxiety

High achiever Schools

Other Schools

Figure 4.4(g): My mind goes blank during an examination

Table 4(h): I make mistakes on easy questions or put answers in the wrong places.

GENDER ANXIETY LEVEL SCHOOL CATEGORY

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10-19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20-35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVERS

LOW

ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS

Never 46 18 37 27 0 6 58

23% 9% 36% 10% 0% 4% 23%

Rarely 36 26 25 36 1 23 39

18% 13% 25% 13% 6% 15% 16%

Sometimes 79 104 38 141 4 81 102

39% 52% 37% 50% 25% 53% 41%

Often 23 36 1 54 4 32 27

11% 18% 1% 19% 25% 21% 11%

Always 17 15 1 24 7 10 22

8% 8% 1% 9% 44% 7% 9%

51

I make mistakes on easy questions or put answers in the wrong places

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low Anxiety

Normal Anxiety

High anxiety

High achiever School

Other Schools

Figure 4.4(h): I make mistakes on easy questions or put answers in the wrong places

Table 4.4 (i): I have difficulties in choosing answers.

GENDER ANXIETY LEVEL SCHOOL CATEGORY

MALE FEMALE

LOW

ANXIETY

(10 –19)

NORMAL

ANXIETY

(20-35)

HIGH

ANXIETY

(OVER,35)

HIGH

ACHIEVERS

LOW ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS/OTHERS

Never 53 20 45 28 0 18 55

26% 10% 44% 10% 0% 12% 22%

Rarely 37 41 30 48 0 32 46

18% 21% 29% 17% 0% 21% 19%

Sometimes 81 103 26 150 8 81 103

40% 52% 25% 53% 50% 53% 42%

Often 14 25 1 35 3 19 20

7% 13% 1% 12% 19% 13% 8%

Always 16 10 0 21 5 2 24

8% 5% 0% 7% 31% 1% 10%

52

I have difficulties in choosing answers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Male

Female

Low Anxiety

Normal Anxiety

High Anxiety

High achiever Schools

Other Schools

Figure 4.4(i): I have difficulties in choosing answers

The study revealed that:

(a) The pattern across the seven observations (figures 2d – 2i), in the anxiety test seemingly

takes a normal distribution, with majority of those whose orientation is in the middle of the

five-point anxiety scale being the same ones exhibiting normal (healthy) anxiety

characteristics.

4.5 Behavioural characteristics

One of the objectives of this study is to establish why students cheat in national public

examinations. It was therefore imperative to evaluate how prevalent cheating is in national

public examinations. Why do students cheat and how do they cheat? It was instructive for this

study to explore this question from both student and the school‟s perspectives.

4.5.1 Situational factors

To elicit response to these issues the respondents were at first asked to states whether they have

ever seen other students cheat in any examination. Secondly they were asked to states the

method of cheating which they believe is most commonly used during examinations. Their

responses were cross – tabulated against gender and type of school (to show the demographic

53

pattern), then against the anxiety level (to show the psychological effects). The results are

summarized in Table V (a) - (c).

(a) Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?

(i). Observations with respect to Gender

Table 4.5(a): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?

RESPONSE TOTAL

GENDER

MALE FEMALE

yes, many times

90 40 50

23% 20% 25%

yes, a few times 143 80 63

36% 40% 32%

yes, once 49 23 26

12% 11% 13%

no I have never 118 58 60

30% 29% 30%

Have you ever seen other students cheating in any

test?

Yes, many

times

22%

Yes, a few times

36%

Yes, once

12%

No, I have never

30%

Figure 4.5 (a-i): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?

54

The study revealed that 71% of the respondents have witnessed cheating in examination at

least once, with female respondents having have observed more frequent cheating incidences.

Only 30% of the respondents reposted that they have never witnessed cheating in exams and

there is no significant difference in gender for this observation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

yes, many times yes, a few times yes, once no I have never

Fig. 5(a-ii): Observed frequency of cheating by Gender

Male

Female

Figure 4.5(a-ii): Observed frequency of cheating by Gender

(ii) Observations with respect to School categorization

Table 4.5(b): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?

HIGH

ACHIEVERS

LOW ACHIEVER

SCHOOLS/OTHERS

Yes, many times 23 67

15% 27%

yes, a few times 67 76

44% 31%

Yes, once 18 31

12% 13%

no I have never 44 74

29% 30%

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes, many

times

yes, a few

times

Yes, once no I have

never

Observations

Fre

qu

en

cy

High achievers

Others

Figure 4.5 (b): Observed cheating frequency and school category

The study revealed that the respondents from high achiever schools have witnessed less

incidences of cheating in examination situations than those from other schools. Of the

respondents who have witnessed cheating many times, the former recorded 15% incidences

while the later recorded 27% incidences.

56

(iii) Observations against Anxiety level

Table 4.5(c): Have you ever seen other students cheating in any test?

FREQUENCY OF CHEATING

WITNESSED

ANXIETY LEVELS

10 - 19 20 - 35 OVER 35

Yes, many times 15 70 5

15% 25% 31%

yes, a few times 44 94 5

43% 33% 31%

Yes, once 15 33 1

15% 12% 6%

no I have never 28 85 5

27% 30% 31%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yes, many

times

yes, a few

times

yes, once no I have

never

Observations

Fre

qu

ency Low Anxiety Respondents

Normal Anxiety Respondents

High anxiety Respondents

Figure 4.5 (c): Observed cheating and Anxiety?

The study revealed that the respondents with a normal anxiety level (20–35) points, are the

ones who have witnessed most of cheating, than those whose anxiety levels are either too low

or too high.

57

(b)How do students cheat in examination?

When asked to states the type of cheating that they think take place in national public

examinations, their responses were again cross-tabulated against Gender, School category and

Anxiety. The results are summarized in tables VI (a) – (d).

(i) Observations by Gender

Table 4.6(a): What type of cheating do you think is the most common in national

public examinations?

GENDER

MALE FEMALE

copying from one another 33 22

16% 11%

using signal to communicate answers 28 10

14% 5%

getting access to question papers before the day of the exam 91 155

45% 78%

copying from notes or papers which are sneaked into the

exam 28 9

14% 5%

No response 24 3

12% 2%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

copying from one

another

using signal to

communicate

answers

getting access to

question papers

before the day of

the exam

copying from

notes or papers

which are

sneaked into the

exam

No response

Observations

Fre

qu

en

cy

Male Respondents

Female Respondents

Figure 4.6 (a): Types of cheating by Gender response

58

The study revealed that most respondents believe that getting access to the question papers

before the actual date of the examination is the most common type of cheating technique

employed by students. On the contrary the data obtained from the KNEC, [see table III(c)]

seems to contradict these observations. According to the data from KNEC, the most common

form of examination malpractice involves collusion, closely followed by use of pre-prepared

notes (cribs).

iii. Observations by School category

Table 4.6(b): What type of cheating do you think is the most common in national

public examinations?

RESPONDENTS VIEW HIGH ACHIEVERS OTHERS

copying from one another 12 43

8% 17%

using signal to communicate answers 11 27

7% 11%

getting access to question papers before the day

of the exam

115 131

76% 53%

copying from notes or papers which are

sneaked into the exam

14 23

9% 9%

No response 3 24

2% 10%

59

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

copy

ing

from

one

anot

her

usin

g si

gnal

to

com

mun

icat

e

gett

ing

acce

ss t

o

ques

tion

copy

ing

from

note

s or

pape

rs w

hich

No

resp

onse

Views

Fre

qu

ency

High achievers

Others

Figure 4.6(b): Views on the type of cheating

The study revealed that respondents from the high achiever schools believe less in every nature

of examination irregularity than their peers in the other schools.

(iii) Observations by Anxiety levels

Table 4.6(c): What type of cheating do you think is the most common in national Public

examinations?

ANXIETY LEVEL

LOW

(10-19)

NORMAL

(20-35)

HIGH

(OVER

35)

copying from one another 21 30 4

21% 11% 25%

using signal to communicate answers 11 25 2

11% 9% 13%

getting access to question papers before the day

of the exam

50 190 6

49% 67% 38%

copying from notes or papers which are

sneaked into the exam

14 23 0

14% 8% 0%

No response 8 15 4

8% 5% 25%

60

0

20

40

60

80

100120

140

160

180

200

copying from

one another

using signal to

communicate

answers

getting access

to question

papers before

the day of the

exam

copying from

notes or papers

which are

sneaked into

the exam

No response

Views

Fre

qu

en

cy

Low Anxiety Respondents

Normal Anxiety Resondents

High Anxiety Respondenrs

Figure 4.6(c): Anxiety and the respondent's views on the type of cheating

The study revealed that respondents who are suffering from very high anxiety levels (over 35)

points on one hand and those exhibiting very low anxiety levels (10 – 19) points on the other

hand were very indifferent to this question. Majority of those who responded in this item are

those in the normally level, (20 – 35) points.

4.6.2 Ethical factors and Students Perception on Cheating

In the last part of the study, ethical issues and respondent‟s perception on cheating were

raised. First the respondents were asked to states whether cheating happens in every other

examination they are aware of, secondly they were asked if they have ever cheated in any test

situation and why. Finally the respondents were asked to states if it is wrong to cheat in

national public examinations. The results are summarized in tables VII(a) – (h).

61

(a) Would you say cheating happens in every test?

i. Views based on Gender

Table 4.7(a): Would you say cheating happens in every test?

TOTAL

GENDER

MALE FEMALE

Yes 154 63 91

39% 31% 46%

No 229 123 106

57% 61% 53%

No response 17 15 2

4% 7% 1%

Would you say cheating happens in every test?

Yes

39%

No

57%

No response

4%

Figure 4.7(a-i): Would you say cheating happens in every test?

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes No No response

Male

Female

Figure 4.7(a-ii): Gender and views on the extent of cheating

The study revealed that 46% of the female respondents believe that cheating happens in every

test, while only 31% of their male counterparts agree with this notion. On the contrary, 61% of

the male and 53% of female respondents do not believe that cheating happens in every test.

ii. Views based on School categorization

Table 4.7(b): Would you say cheating happens in every test?

HIGH ACHIEVERS OTHERS

Yes 54 100

36% 40%

No 92 137

61% 55%

No response 6 11

4% 4%

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes No No response

High achievers

Others

Figure 4.7(b): School category and views on the extent of cheating

The study revealed that the respondents from high achiever school believe less in the in the

suggestion that cheating happens in every other test than their peers from other schools.

(iii) Views based on the Anxiety Levels

Table 4.7(c): Would you say cheating happens in every test?

ANXIETY LEVEL

10 - 19 20 - 35 OVER 35

Yes 38 110 6

37% 39% 38%

No 61 160 8

60% 57% 50%

No response 3 12 2

3% 4% 13%

64

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Low Anxiety Normal Anxiety High Anxiety

Yes

No

No response

Figure 4.7(c): Anxiety level ad views on the extent of cheating

Again the study reveals the lukewarm response from the respondents on the extreme ends of

the anxiety scale. The reasons for these observations have been suggested elsewhere in this

study. However, 57% of the respondents within the limit of healthy anxiety do not believe with

the suggestion that cheating happens in every test situation, while 39% believes it happens.

(c) Have you ever cheated in any examination?

(i) Observations based on gender

Table 4.7(d): Frequency of cheating and Gender

TOTAL

GENDER

MALE FEMALE

Yes 165 72 93

41% 36% 47%

No 235 129 106

59% 64% 53%

65

Have you ever cheated in any examination?

Yes

41%

No

59%

Figure 4.7(d-i): Overall response to cheating

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes No

Male

Female

Figure 4.7(d-ii): Gender and the response to cheating

The study revealed that:

At least 41% of the respondents have cheated in a test situation in the past.

66

Out of this lot, females have been cheating more, (47%), than males, (36%).

(ii) Observation based on school categorization

Table 4.7(e-i): School category and cheating engagement

HIGH ACHIEVERS OTHERS

Yes 59 106

39% 43%

No 93 142

61% 57%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Yes No

High achievers

Others

Figure 4.7(e-i): School category and cheating engagement

The study revealed that of the 165 respondents who confessed to having had engaged in exam

cheating in the past, 59 of them (39%), came from high achiever schools, while 106 of them

(43%) comes from other schools.

67

(iii) Observation based on Anxiety level

Table 4.7(e-ii): Anxiety level and engagement in cheating

ANXIETY LEVEL

10 - 19 20 - 35 OVER 35

Yes 36 122 7

35% 43% 44%

No 66 160 9

65% 57% 56%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Low Anxiety Normal Anxiety High Anxiety

Yes

No

Figure 4.7(e-ii): Anxiety level and engagement in cheating

The study revealed that those respondents who exhibits high level of anxiety (20 – 35) points

and above, confessed to having had cheated in examination more than those of low anxiety

level. 43% of those with anxiety level of (20 -35) points had cheated in the past, while 44% of

those with very high anxiety (over 35) points had cheated in the past exams. This is as opposed

to only 36% 0f the respondents with low anxiety level (below 20) points who confessed to

having had cheated.

68

4.6.3 Reasons for Cheating

(i) Overall reasons

Table 4.7(f-i): Overall reasons for cheating

REASONS GIVEN

TOTAL NUMBER OF

RESPONDENTS

The examination was difficult 40

24%

I had not prepared myself well for the examination 43

26%

There was no teacher or supervisor around 3

2%

I have seen others cheat and escape unpunished 14

8%

Pressure to get high marks 60

36%

I was nervous 5

3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

The examination

was difficult

I had not

prepared myself

well for the

examination

There was no

teacher or

supervisor

around

I have seen

others cheat and

escape

unpunished

Pressure to get

high marks

I was nervous

Reasons for cheating

Fre

qu

en

cy

Figure 4.7(f-i): Overall reasons for cheating

69

(ii) Reasons for cheating by Gender

Table 4.7(f-ii): Gender and reasons for cheating

Reasons given

Gender

Male Female

The examination was difficult 16 24

22% 26%

I had not prepared myself well for the examination 23 20

32% 22%

There was no teacher or supervisor around 2 1

3% 1%

I have seen others cheat and escape unpunished 2 12

3% 13%

Pressure to get high marks 28 32

39% 34%

I was nervous 1 4

1% 4%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The

examination

was difficult

I had not

prepared

myself well for

the

examination

There was no

teacher or

supervisor

around

I have seen

others cheat

and escape

unpunished

Pressure to

get high marks

I was nervous

Reasons

Fre

qu

ency

Male

Female

Figure 4.7 (f-ii): Gender and reasons for cheating

70

The study revealed the following as the major reasons given by the respondents for engaging in

cheating:

36% of the respondents cited pressure to get high marks as the main reason; of this lot,

39% were males and 34% were females.

26% felt that not being well prepared for the examination was the second major reason;

of which 32% males and 22% females concurred respectively.

The examination being difficult was another reason given by 24% of the respondents

and of these, 22% were males and 26% were females.

The study also revealed that 8% of the respondents have witnessed their peers cheat in

examination and get away with it. Female respondents, at (13%) have witnessed this

kind of situation more than their male counterparts (3%).

(iii) By School category

Table 4.7(g): School Category and reasons for Cheating

REASONS FOR CHEATING

SCHOOL CATEGORY

HIGH ACHIEVERS OTHERS

The examination was difficult

8 32

14% 30%

I had not prepared myself well for the

examination

24 19

41% 18%

There was no teacher or supervisor

around

1 2

2% 2%

I have seen others cheat and escape

unpunished

1 13

2% 12%

Pressure to get high marks

23 37

39% 35%

I was nervous

2 3

3% 3%

71

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The

examination

was difficult

I had not

prepared

myself well for

the

examination

There was no

teacher or

supervisor

around

I have seen

others cheat

and escape

unpunished

Pressure to

get high

marks

I was nervous

Reasons

Fre

qu

en

cy

High achievers Schools

Other Schools

Figure 4.7g): School Category and reasons for Cheating

(iv) Anxiety and reasons for cheating

Table 4.7(h): Anxiety Level and reasons for cheating

REASONS FOR CHEATING

ANXIETY LEVEL

10 - 19 20 - 35 OVER 35

The examination was difficult

7 31 2

19% 25% 29%

I had not prepared myself well for the examination

10 31 2

28% 25% 29%

There was no teacher or supervisor around

2 1 0

6% 1% 0%

I have seen others cheat and escape unpunished

4 9 1

11% 7% 14%

Pressure to get high marks

11 47 2

31% 39% 29%

I was nervous

2 3 0

6% 2% 0%

72

05

101520253035404550

The

examination

was difficult

I had not

prepared

myself well for

the

examination

There was no

teacher or

supervisor

around

I have seen

others cheat

and escape

unpunished

Pressure to

get high marks

I was nervous

Reasons

Fre

qu

en

cy

Low Anxiety Respondents

Normal Anxiety Respondents

High Anxiety Respondents

Figure 4.7(h): Anxiety and reasons for cheating

The study revealed that pressure to get high marks, was the major reason identified as the cause

of cheating took the highest toll on the respondents who have a healthy anxiety level, 39%. As

for those respondents with low anxiety level, only 31% cited pressure to get high marks as a

reason for cheating, while those with high anxiety level, only 29% gave the same reason,

giving credence to Yerkes-Dodson law2. The study also revealed that, the respondents who

cited not being well prepared as the reason for engaging in cheating, the majority (28% and

29% respectively) were those who suffer from low and high anxiety as opposed to the normal

ones (25%).

4.6.4 Reasons given for not Cheating

Those respondents who indicated that they have never cheated in any test were asked to give

reasons as to why they chose that path. The results are summed up in tables 8(a) – (d).

2 Yerkes-Dodson law (1908) (first observed by Robert M. Yerkes and John D. Dodson, The Relation of Strength

of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit-Formation; Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, It predicts an

inverted U-shaped function between arousal and performance. A certain amount of arousal can be a motivator

toward change (with change in this discussion being learning). Too much or too little change will certainly work

against the learner. There should be some mid-level of arousal to provide the motivation to change (learn). Too

little arousal has an inert affect on the learner, while too much has a hyperactive affect.

73

i. Overall Observation

Table 4.8(a): Overall reasons for not cheating

REASON GIVEN TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS

Cheating makes me feel guilty

90

38%

I always have confidence of myself

63

27%

I fear being caught cheating

43

18%

No response

39

17%

Why have you never cheated in an examination?

Cheating makes me

feel guilty

38%

I alw ays have

confidence of myself

27%

I fear being caught

cheating

18%

No response

17%

Figure 4.8(a): Reasons for not cheating by both males and females

The study revealed that 38% of the respondents who have never cheated in any examination

cited guilt as the major reason that keeps them away from the vice. 27% do not cheat because

they have confidence in themselves and 18% avoid cheating because of fear of being caught.

17% gave no reasons.

74

ii. Observations by Gender

Table 4.8(b); Gender and reasons given for not cheating

MALE FEMALE

Cheating makes me feel guilty 39 51

30% 48%

I always have confidence of myself 42 21

33% 20%

I fear being caught cheating 17 26

13% 25%

No response 31 8

24% 8%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cheating makes

me feel guilty

I always have

confidence of

myself

I fear being caught

cheating

No response

Reasons

Fre

qu

en

cy

Male Respondents

Female Respondents

Figure 4.8(b); Gender and reasons given for not cheating

The study revealed that female respondents, 48%, are less are conscious of cheating than their

male counterparts, (30%). Male respondents who have not engaged in cheating because of

confidence were 33%, while female respondents were 20%. The study also revealed that more

female respondents avoid cheating for fear of being caught (25%), than their male peers (13%).

Quite a sizeable number of male respondents, 24%, did not give reasons for not cheating.

75

iii. Observation by School category

Table 4.8(c): School category and reasons for not cheating

HIGH ACHIEVERS OTHERS

Cheating makes me feel guilty 42 48

45% 34%

I always have confidence of myself 19 44

20% 31%

I fear being caught cheating 20 23

22% 16%

No response 12 27

13% 19%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cheating makes

me feel guilty

I always have

confidence of

myself

I fear being caught

cheating

No response

Reasons

Fre

qu

en

cy

High achiever Schools

Other Schools

Figure 4.8(c): School category and reasons for not cheating

The study revealed that respondents from the high achiever schools are more guilt conscious

than their peers from the other schools. The high achiever school respondents showed more

fear of being caught (22%) than their other counterparts (16%).

76

iv. Observation by anxiety

Table 4.8(d): Anxiety and reasons for not cheating

REASONS

ANXIETY LEVEL

10 - 19 20 - 35 OVER 35

Cheating makes me feel guilty 28 60 2

42% 38% 22%

I always have confidence of myself 26 36 1

39% 23% 11%

I fear being caught cheating 4 39 0

6% 24% 0%

No response 8 25 6

12% 16% 67%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cheating makes

me feel guilty

I always have

confidence of

myself

I fear being

caught cheating

No response

Reasons

Fre

qu

ency Low Anxiety Respondents

Normal Anxiety Respondents

High Anxiety Respondents

Figure 4.8(d): Anxiety and reasons for not cheating

The study revealed that those respondents suffering from high anxiety gave this item a

lukewarm response, 67% of them gave no response. The respondents who exhibit low anxiety

felt that cheating makes them guilty (42%).

77

4.6.5 Perception on Cheating in Examinations

Lastly, the respondents were asked to states whether it they found it wrong to cheat in national

public examinations. The results are summed up in tables IX (a) – (d)

i. Overall observations

Table 4.9(a): Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examination?

TOTAL

Yes 302

76%

No 77

19%

No response 21

5%

Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examinations?

Yes

76%

No

19%

No response

5%

Figure 4.9(a): Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examination?

The study revealed that seventy six percent of the respondents found it wrong to cheat in

national public examinations. Nineteen percent found nothing wrong with cheating in national

examinations.

78

i. Observations by Gender

Table 4.9(b): Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public Examinations?

GENDER

MALE FEMALE

Yes 144 158

72% 79%

No 36 41

18% 21%

No response 21 0

10% 0%

Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examinations?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Yes No No response

Response

Fre

qu

en

cy

Male

Female

Figure 4.9(b): Gender and perception to cheating

The study revealed that 79% of female and 72% of male respondents believe it is wrong to

cheat in national public examinations.

79

ii. Observations by School category

Table 4.9(c): School category and perception on cheating

School Category

High achievers Low Achievers/Others

Yes 136 166

89% 67%

No 15 62

10% 25%

No response 1 20

1% 8%

Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examinations?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Yes No No response

Response

Fre

qu

en

cy

High achiever Scools

Other Scools

Figure 4.9(c): School category and perception on cheating

The study revealed that 89% of high achiever schools believe it wrong to with cheat in national

public examinations. 67% of respondents from other category of schools also believe it is

wrong with cheating in national examinations.

80

v. Observations by anxiety levels

Table 4.9(d): Anxiety and perception on cheating

ANXIETY LEVEL

10 - 19 20 - 35 OVER 35

Yes 83 211 8

81% 75% 50%

No 12 61 4

12% 22% 25%

No response 7 10 4

7% 4% 25%

Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public

examinations?

0

50

100

150

200

250

Yes No No response

Response

Fre

qu

en

cy

Low Anxiety Respondents

Normal Anxiety Respondents

High anxiety Respondents

Figure 4.9(d): Anxiety and perception on cheating

The study revealed that 83% of the respondents in the lower side of the anxiety scale (below 20

points); 75% of those in the normal range of the scale (20 – 35 points) and 50% of those on

upper end of the scale (above 35 points) do not agree with cheating in national examinations.

81

CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Introduction

The discussion was guided by the objectives set out in the research. The research was set out to

provide knowledge on cheating and has come up with various trends and behaviour

characteristics. This has been articulated in chapter four and will be discussed in the following

section. Consequences and implications have also been addressed regarding cheating in

examinations. Generally, there are problems that are administrative and on site while taking

examinations. The discussions will cover the following:

Trends in cheating in examinations

Psychological aspects of cheating in examinations

Situational factors related to cheating in examinations

Ethical principles regarding cheating in examinations

5.2 Trends in cheating in examinations

Trends in cheating do not take any particular pattern. However, it was noticed that, at KCPE

level, there is more cheating in English (171), followed by Kiswahili (78) and mathematics

(35). At KCSE, the worst case over time was a case in 2004 in mathematics (704) and

chemistry (580). These have since reduced in the year 2006 and 2007 (243:453 respectively).

At primary school level girls seem to cheat more than boys while at secondary school the

reverse is the case. The practical subjects rated high that is, chemistry and biology, as well as

mathematics. In terms of the nature of cheating, collusion rates highest at both primary and

secondary schools. The subjects where cheating occurs least at secondary level is in Social

Education and Ethics (2), Home Science (2) and French (2). Though Business Studies has had

no incidences of cheating previously, but this has since started appearing and rates (35).

There should be further exploration to determine why and how these areas attract most

cheating. The researcher also realizes the nature of the subject, more so, the practical subjects

82

where the preparations begin before examinations have reported higher cheating. Perhaps it is

possible to predict what will be tested. The case of mathematics also needs to be explored as

well as languages. Is it the nature of setting or drilling that occurs? It would also be interesting

to determine if what is considered to be cheating is actually cheating.

Maybe the testing is suffering from the issue of test wise whereby over time marks go up.

There could also be the issue of drill teaching that occurs whereby teachers who have taught

for long, and also those who mark examinations, have developed skills that they have passed

on to their students through their teaching. Whatever the case, cheating in examinations still

occurs and that no matter what KNEC does, there seems to be no end to the cheating. It would

also be interesting to determine why there are few incidences of cheating in some specific

subjects and establish if there is anything unique in these subjects which make them not

venerable to cheating. This is may be one way to go if the examination system is to be

reviewed.

5.3 Psychological factors related to cheating in examinations

5.3.1 Anxiety and cheating

It seems there is a relationship between anxiety and cheating. This has also a bearing on certain

behaviour characteristics, especially when considering why students cheat. Low achievers are

more likely to cheat compared to the high achievers. Girls have a tendency to be more anxious.

Anxiety is usually triggered by a situation that involves a decision or judgment. Examinations

become common precursors of anxiety in educational settings. Anxiety has been shown to

impair performance in a wide range of cognitive functions including attention, memory,

concept formation and problem solving (e.g., Sieber, et al., 1977; Spielberger, 1966). The high

achiever schools seemed to suffer less from test anxiety than the other schools. Several causes

of test anxiety may also be related to internal aspects of students, including self – image,

motivation and attitudes. Specifically, students may experience test anxiety if they have

83

negative self – images and lack confidence in their abilities or if they have histories of poor

performance on examinations in general. Anxiety can be an inhibiting factor in learning, hence

creating pressure for cheating in the examination.

5.3.2 Perception of Cheating

Despite what drives students to cheat and the rampant cheating realized in Kenya, the results

show that students do feel guilty about cheating and do attest to this more often than not.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of those responding admitted to feeling guilty about cheating and

admitted that cheating was wrong. There are some who did not think cheating was wrong

however. More girls felt guilty about cheating compared to the boys. A substantive number of

boys (24%) did not respond to the issue of guilt. Anxiety was an interesting factor. High

achievers were more confident and so did not find reason to cheat as much as low achievers.

Fear of being caught was a factor that affected girls‟ more than boys. The more anxious group

did also respond to this item, 67% of them. This shows a level of indifference that is generally

referred to in the literature. It may appear that cheating is not much of an issue to the students

as quite a number do states that it does occur and further many cases go undetected.

It was established that students still had a moral sense to cheating. Seventy six percent (76%)

attested to cheating being wrong. Up to nineteen percent (19%) felt that there was nothing

wrong with cheating. This could be as a result of what is arising or the scope of cheating.

Further still students do get away with cheating many more times. A good number of students

within the category of high and low achievers thought it was wrong to cheat. Punishment being

severe and the fact that it results in cancellation of one‟s overall results, it did not deter

cheating. This is a problem as this may lead to undermining the processes of examinations.

5.4 Situational Analysis

In both high and low achievers, cheating in examination does occur. It appears it is not possible

to identify all cases where cheating occurs. Cases that come up are fewer than those found in

84

the administrative records of KNEC. This reflects the frustration that is experienced by

students who felt cheating is wrong but are driven by need for high scores. There is less traits

cheating among high achievers compared to the low achievers.

The point to note is the need for high scores which is a key driving factor for cheating in

exams. This means, there may be need to review the focus of examinations that is mainly

oriented towards high stakes testing. Further in Kenya, to get admitted into university and be

awarded a scholarship one has to have passed amongst the top 10% of those who sit the

examination at the secondary school level. This seems to be the departure point regarding

policy and should be given attention. There may be need to open up a debate on the form of

testing which inherently results in a high anxiety leading to higher chances of cheating. The

challenge is to reduce anxiety that arises from using examinations for placement, a factor of an

individuals social standing.

Of interest was the levels of anxiety and the way in which it affects or influences cheating. The

less anxious resulted in few cases of cheating compared to the more anxious students.

Accessing examination papers before the actual examination was a predominant observation

recorded by many respondents. It means that the low achievers who are also more likely to

cheat, who are the largest number of students taking the examinations feels that getting access

to the examination papers in advance is the most likely possible malpractice. Is this true or

their thinking is misplaced? There is need to have a clearly defined distinction between such

serious irregularities like leakage and other lesser malpractices which candidates may

misconstrue to mean leakage.

5.5 Ethical Factors and Student Perception

This element brought in some interesting relationships. More girls than boys thought cheating

happens in every test (46% of girls and 31% of boys). At the same time, high achievers did not

think cheating happens as much as low achievers. High achieving amongst girls‟ shared a

similar view. This is not an established empirical link and may need further research to

determine the strength. However, ethical factor seems to be an issue that should be addressed.

85

There is need to determine how ethical needs can be brought to bear so as to come up with

ways in which it can be dealt with. The researcher here summarizes what arose regarding

students responses regarding ethical factors.

Students at all levels of anxiety do cheat more than those who confess to having cheated.

However, the least anxious are less likely to cheat. This may be because of their high

Intelligent Quotient (IQ) as they are assured of high scores. It seems once the driving factor

that is, the need to achieve high scores is attained, then, the drive to cheat is reduced. This

would also mean that if the system was restructured away from the high stakes model then

cheating would be reduced or even eliminated. It therefore, seems that if what is driving

students to cheat and the anxiety created by the thought of examinations is addressed, then

cheating can be addressed appropriately.

It also seems clear that administrative measures are not the most critical. Literature shows that

increased punishment or even teachings on why cheating is not good does not stop cheating in

examinations. This is captured at length in the literature review.

The issue of lack of preparedness also rated high. About forty-one percent (41%) of those who

responded to the questionnaire attested to the fact that they cheated out of ill preparedness.

Preparedness has to do with a lot of factors. Learning styles and time allowed for revising. The

value people put in education also motivates learning. The idea of examinations can create

situations that results in anxiety as explored already even if one is prepared.

In Kenya, questions have been raised as to the nature of preparing students for examinations

that leads to tutoring, or commonly „tuitions.‟ There could be a problem in that the teacher

takes over students‟ preparations style. In which case the student is not in control of their own

learning, thus preparation. There is need to look into this issue and determine if the learning

design and style as perceived and applied in learning is appropriate or if this is what leads to

lack of preparedness. There is need to explore this issue and determine the democratic space

86

provided for students during their learning period and the extent to which they are able to

manage their learning. This is important as the Kenyan system is one of rigour with tuitions

whereby students‟ progammes are defined within a tight learning schedule with a lot of

homework.

This is an important revelation that needs to be considered by the education system policy

makers. Is there another way? The question to ask is if the education system can still

accomplish the task of academic excellence that is competitive locally and globally and yet still

meet the need for selection from one level of learning to the other. This is a challenge. It is

stated in the literature that Testing is not the best way to determine if learning has been

achieved or not but it is the best method that exists so far. However, there are many forms of

testing that have been used across the world that does not lead to high stakes testing. This is not

a simple decision and would require review of the education system as a whole.

87

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary of the Results

The researcher set out to determine cheating within the context of Kenyan education system. It

may seem that the situation arising concerning the environment of the student seems to be

more of contextual behavioural characteristics as to whether or not cheating will occur. The

social environmental context affects more than a student‟s family background and

circumstance. Two factors that arise are the achievement level and gender. Overtime there has

been teacher talk against cheating, increased vigil on examinations to deter teaching and

increased punitive measures through policy. These have not been as effective as envisaged.

This can be seen from the results that show that cheating is not only happening but many more

cases of cheating go undetected.

The competitive nature of the national examination like KCSE, does lead to cheating even

more. Students are driven by the need to be placed in higher learning institutions, and more

still, better job positions. This situation is aggregated by the way in which examinations are

handled in that results nationally are presented through best performance whereby there is

more of who has done better than the other, as well as ranking by schools, school types,

districts and provinces. (There is some comparison of subject discipline area mainly sciences,

however, not enough. Focus is still the best in terms of grades).

Time management seemed to be a key contributor too. This is reflected in our education

system of learning where there is no flexibility for teachers whereby the time-table for learning

is set out by the school without much break. It does not also take into consideration the

learning levels of learners. Further, students‟ learning is basically controlled whereby after

class is either taken up doing homework or teachers desired activity. Learning goes on into the

school holidays including weekends without any rest. The system also does not allow students

to develop their own learning styles.

88

Peer pressure common at this age is high. The influence put upon student to cheat simply

because others are cheating is great. The problem results in a peer perceived view of cheating

whereby there is no guilt when cheating has occurred as attested by many of the respondents.

Almost all of those who were interviewed consented to having cheated or had seen someone

cheat at least once. There was also the concern that cheating may then become an occurrence

that did not result in guilt in most cases, this is a problem. An internal aspect of students

becomes an indicator of measure and has a bearing on cheating. The result is that issues of

anxiety creating becomes a concern and should be dealt with. Low achievers and motivation to

cheat is related. Issues of attitude, self-image and confidence become a problem. This is

coupled with a history of poor performance. The result of this is:

1. Effect on institutions repulsion on an important asset, academic performance and

excellence

2. A system of education not being attractive to outsiders

3. Undermining of a countries academic world through interference of basic mission of

education, transfer of knowledge resulting in non-transference

4. Atmosphere not conducive to learning due to it‟s effects on honest students since the

reward of their work is cheapened

5. Identity of a learner is eventually questioned regarding their pursuit of knowledge

6. Tendency for a „road to life‟ of dishonesty

7. Emotional distress on those who do not cheat

6.2 Conclusion

The relations that arise create interesting multi-dimensional aspects of cheating in

examinations that need to be explored further. Most studies carried out in cheating have mainly

looked at occurrences and not the underlying psychological and situational causes. There is

need to explore these attributes that arise further in order to make more conclusions on the

causes cheating and to provide information that would give scholarly guidance. It is then that

cheating in examinations can be comprehensively addressed. There is also need to see how

89

other countries have dealt with these issues to provide a broad dimension on the aspect of

cheating in examinations that is so broad.

The authenticity of the examinations done in Kenya can be questioned. The sense of the

fairness of the examinations to the individual and the system of education becomes an issue.

How do we maintain the status quo, while the systems and structures in place have not resulted

in elimination of cheating altogether? One questions the extent to which policy will introduce

legislation over cheating while in fact dimensions that arise in cheating is embedded in a

psychological manifestations. This calls for an integrated approach with the administrative

solutions requiring government legislation while and education psychologists review the

system of testing, test preparedness beyond administration and resources, to needs of the

learners that form various categories of high and low achievers, gender, and discipline specific.

Lately in Kenya, a need to address the challenge of cheating in national examinations more so

in secondary schools has risen and is even greater. The issue has been high on the agenda on

media, educators, legislators, educationalists and test specialists. There is a need to urgently

address the challenge of cheating in examinations since this has implications of the integrity of

the examination process and the education system as a whole. It is not easy to restructure the

system to do away with public national examinations much as it is seems the best solution so

far. The problem is that one has to come up with a system that will not be riddled with the

same problems as the current one. However, something must be done.

6.3 Recommendations

There is need to review the preferred mode of examinations, that is, public national

examinations with a view of moving on to a system that does not create such anxiety and

competition. This basically calls for moving away from „High-stakes Testing.‟ This

requires debates on the issue as well as studies to determine the most appropriate

examination system considering the selection into higher learning levels that rely on these

examinations.

90

The Kenya education system should review the process that creates controls in the learning

process so that there is more time created for individual learning styles and ways of

learning away from the lecturer/tutor method and learning without breaking for seven days

in a week and during the school holidays.

There is need to explore through empirical research behaviour characteristics that lead to

dishonesty and dealing with anxiety so as to come up with measures that can help reduce

elements of these, more so, student groups prone to cheating such as the lower achievers.

Worse still these take on a regional dimension.

There is need to focus on the social environmental factors that affect cheating beyond

incidences of cheating and punitive measures. These include demand for high scores by

students themselves, teachers, and parents. It is important to come up with guidelines and

knowledge on these and how to deter such effects.

The realization that there is need to harmonize the process of punishment so that this does

not only take on a punitive approach towards a compromise that requires the student to

repeat the paper that student failed in; or ring-fencing the course a student has cheated in

rather than withholding the whole certificate. This is because these measures have not

worked over time as cheating still continues.

The process of examination that include it‟s management and administration from the time

it is developed, printed, up to the time it is presented to students should be audited to

determine the points of vulnerability. This is to deal with what arose from the respondents

feeling is that most cheating results form access to examination papers before an

examination

91

References

Aronson, E. (1969), “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective,” in

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4, Leonard Berkowitz, ed.

New York: Academic Press, 1-34.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2006). “ACFE Report to the Nation on

Occupational Fraud & Abuse,”

[Available http://www.acfe.com/documents/2006rttn.pdf].

Atkin,B E and Atkin R E ,Study of honesty of prospective teachers –Elementary

Bateson, Melissa, Daniel, and Roberts (2006), “Cues of Being Watched Enhance

Cooperation in a Real-World Setting,” Biology Letters, 2 (June), 412-414. Baumeister,

Roy F. (1998), “The Self,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, Daniel T. Gilbert,

Bernardi, R A, Rene L, Metzger, Ryann G, Bruno S, Marisa A. Hoogkamp W, Reyes L E, and

Barnaby G H, "Examining the Decision Process of Students' Cheating Behaviour:

An Empirical Study" Journal of Business Ethics 50, no. 1, (2004),

Black, D. B. The falsification of reported examination marks in a senior university education

course. Journal of Educational Sociology, 1962.

Boodish, H. M. The teacher's page: School vs. life. The Social Studies,1962

Bowers W, Student Dishonesty and its Control in Colleges (New York: Bureau of

Applied Social Research, Columbia University, 1964),

Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York:Bureau

of Applied Social Research. Columbia University.

Brickman, W. W. Ethics, examinations and education, School and Society, 1961.

Brownell, H. C. Mental test traits of college cribbers. School and Society, 1928,

Bunn, D N. Caudill, S B and Gropper, D M. "Crime in the Classroom: An Economic

Analysis of Undergraduate Student Cheating Behaviour", The Journal of Economic

Education 23, no. 3, (Summer 1992),

Bushway A and Nash W, "School Cheating Behaviour", Review of Educational Research 47,

no. 4 (Autumn 1977),

Carlsmith, J M. (1962), “Performance Expectancy as a Determinant of Actual Performance,”

92

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65 (3), 178-182.

Carroll J, A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education (Oxford: The Oxford

Centre for Staff and Learning Development, 2002),

Cornehlsen, V. H. Cheating attitudes and practices in a suburban high school.Journal of

the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1965.

Drake, C. A. Why students cheat. Journal of Higher Education, 1941

Fischer, C. T. Levels of cheating under conditions of informative appeal to honesty,

public affirmation of value and threats of punishment. Journal of Educational

Research, 1970. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. Studies in deceit. New York:

Macmillan, 1928.

Fiske, T S and Lindzey G, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 680-740. Becker, Gary S.

(1968), “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” Journal of Political Economy,

76 (2), 169-217

Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. College cheating as a function of subject and

situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964.

Johnson, R. E., & Klores, M. S. Attitudes toward cheating as a function of classroom

dissatisfaction and peer norms. Journal of Educational Research,1968.

Keehn, J. D. Unrealistic reporting as a function of extraverted neuroses. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 1956.

Kerkvliet,J and. Sigmund,C. L. "Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom?", The Journal of

Economic Education 30, no. 4, (Autumn, 1999),

LaBeff E, et al., "Situational Ethics and College Student Cheating", Sociological Inquiry 60,

no. 2 (May 1990),

Ludeman, W. W. A study of cheating in public schools. American School Board Journal, 1938.

McCabe D and Trevino L, "Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual

Influences", The Journal of Higher Education 64, no. 5, (September-October 1993),

McCabe D and Trevino L, "Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A

Multicampus Investigation", Research in Higher Education 38, no. 2, (1997),

McCabe D, Trevino L, and. Butterfield D, "Honor Code and Other Contextual Influences on

93

Academic Integrity: A Replication and Extension to Modified Honor Code Settings"

Research in Higher Education 43, no. 3, (June 2002),

McQueen, R. Examination deception as a function of residual background and immediate

stimulus factors. Journal of Personality, 1957.

Mixon, F. Crime in the classroom. Journal of Economic Education 27 (Summer,1996.)

Montor, K. Cheating in high school. School and Society, 1971.

Nonis, S and Swift, C O. "An Examination of the Relationship between Academic Dishonesty

and Workplace Dishonesty", Journal of Business Education 77, no. 2, (November-

December 2001),

Power, F C, Higgins, A and Kohlberg, L. Lawrence Kohlberg's Approach to Moral Education

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1989),

Rogosin, H. What about "cheating" on examinations and honesty? School and Society, 1951.

Schab, F. Cheating in high school: Differences between the sexes. Journal of the National

Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1969.

Shirk, E., & Hoffman, R. W. The academic setting of the dishonest student. Improving College

and University Teaching, 1961.

Smith K, Davy J, and Easterling D, "An Examination of Cheating and its Antecedents Among

Marketing and Management Majors", The Journal of Business Ethics 50, no. 1, (March 2004),

Smith, C. P., Ryan, E. R., & Diggins, D. R. Moral decision making: Cheating on

examinations. Journal of Personality, 1972.

Steiner, M. A. Does the school strengthen or weaken the tendency to cheat? Journal of

Educational Research, 1930.

Steininger, M., Johnson, R. E., & Kirts, D. K. Cheating on college examinations as a function

of situationally aroused anxiety and hostility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964.

Trabue, A. Classroom cheating-An isolated phenomenon? Educational Record,1962.

Uhlig, G. E., & Howes, B. Attitude toward cheating and opportunistic behaviour. Journal of

Educational Research, 1967. .

Vitro, F. T. The relationship of classroom dishonesty to perceived parental discipline. Journal

of College Student Personnel, 1971.

94

Vitro, F. T., & Schoer, L. A. The effects of probability of test success, test importance, and risk

of detection on the incidence of cheating. Journal of School Psychology, 1972.

West T, Ravenscroft S, and Shrader C, "Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College

Classroom: A Natural Experiment", Journal of Business Ethics 54, no. 2, (October

2004),

White. W. F. Zielonka. A. W. & Gaier,E L. Personality correlates of cheating 'among college

women under stress of independent opportunistic behaviour. Journal of Educational

Research, 1967.

Whitley, B E. "Factors Associated with Cheating Among College Students: A Review",

Research in Higher Education 39, no. 3, (June, 1998).

Williams, F. N. Cheating in the classroom. Improving College and University Teaching, 1969.

Woods, R. C. Factors affecting cheating and their control. West Virginia Academy of Science

Proceedings, 1957.

Zastrow, C. H. Cheating among college graduate students. Journal of Educational Research,

1970

95

APPENDIX I

STUDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

This is a survey to gather information and students opinion on cheating in national public

examinations, so as to make suitable recommendations on how to eliminate the elements

of cheating.

(i) All your responses will be treated as confidential.

(j) Do not write your name in the questionnaire but please give your most honest

independent answers.

(k) Your responses to the questions will be used for research purposes only.

DIRECTIONS

Please answer all the items in the questionnaire by ticking appropriately (or writing your

answer in the spaces provided to some specific questions).

SECTION A:

PERSONAL DETAILS

1. What is your gender?

i. Male [ ]

ii. Female [ ]

2. Please describe the type of school which you are attending?

National [ ] Provincial [ ]

District [ ] Private [ ]

96

SECTION B:

ANXIETY CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST TAKERS

For each of the following questions tick only one response.

3. I always have visible signs of nervousness such as sweaty palms, shaky hands, and so on,

every time before an examination.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

4. I have „butterflies‟ in my stomach every time before I sit for an examination.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

5. I feel nauseated every time before taking an examination.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

97

6. I read through a test and feel that I do not know any of the answers.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

7. I panic before and during an examination.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

8. My mind goes blank during an examination.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

9. I remember the information that I blanked on once I get out of the examination Situation.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

98

10. I have trouble sleeping the night before a test.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

11. I make mistakes on easy questions or put answers in the wrong places.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

12. I have difficulties in choosing answers.

a) Never [ ]

b) Rarely [ ]

c) Sometimes [ ]

d) Often [ ]

e) Always [ ]

SECTION C:

BEHAVIOURAL CHARACTERISTIC OF TEST TAKERS

(I) Situational Characteristics

13. Have you ever seen other students cheat in any examination?

vi. yes, many times [ ]

vii. yes, a few times [ ]

99

viii. yes, once [ ]

ix. no I have never [ ]

14. What type of cheating do you think is most common in national public examinations?

a) copying from one another [ ]

b) using signal to communicate answers [ ]

c) getting access to question papers before

the day of the examination [ ]

d) copying from notes or papers which are

sneaked into the examination room [ ]

f) other methods (please specify) ________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

(II) Ethical characteristics

15. Would you say that cheating happens in every test?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

16. Have you ever cheated in any examination?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

17. If you cheated, what caused you to do it?

a) The examination was difficult [ ]

b) I had not prepared myself well for the examination [ ]

c) There was no teacher or supervisor around [ ]

d) I have seen others cheat and escape unpunished [ ]

e) Pressure to get high marks [ ]

f) I was nervous [ ]

100

Others (please specify) _________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________

18. If you have never cheated, what makes you not to do it?

a) Cheating makes me feel guilty [ ]

b) I always have confidence of myself [ ]

c) I fear being caught cheating [ ]

Others (please specify) ___________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________

19. Do you think it is wrong to cheat in national public examination?

a) Yes [ ]

b) No [ ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR RESPONSES.

101

102

APPENDIX III

Kenya Subsidiary Legislation, 1998 21

LEGAL NOTICE NO. 18

THE KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS

COUNCIL ACT

(Cap. 225A) In EXERCISE of the powers conferred by the section 10 of the Kenya National Examinations Council Act, the Kenya National Examinations Council makes the following Rules:

THE KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL

(KENYA CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

EXAMINATION) RULES, 1998

1. These Rules may be cited as the Kenya National Examinations Council (Kenya Certificate of Secondary

Education Examination) Rules. 1998, and shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st January, 1989. (citation)

2. In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires - “Council” means the Kenya National Examinations

Council; (interpretation)

“examination” means the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education‟ “secondary school” means a school recognized by the Council as eligible to present candidates for the examination; “headteacher” means the headteacher of a secondary school.

3. (1) The Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination shall be open to all bona-fide residents of Kenya who meet the Examination entry requirements specified in these Rules. (condition for eligibility).

(2) The examination shall be administered to eligible candidates within Kenya by District Education Officers on behalf of the Council and in conformity with the Council‟s regulations for the conduct of public examination.

(3) The examination shall be conducted once every year in the month of November.

4. (1) Candidates shall be accepted by the Council as school candidates if they have been attending a secondary school continuously during the three years immediately preceeding registration for the examination. (Entry requirements for candidates)

(2) Private candidates shall be registered for the examination at the District Education Offices by agents appointed by the Council in the month of March of the year of the examination, and shall possess the

following qualifications.:

(a) they shall be holders of the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education or the Kenya Certificate of Education or the East African Certificate of Education with a minimum of Division 1v; Or (b) they shall provide to the Council proof of having sat for the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education at least three years before the year in which they apply to sit for the examination; or