FACTORS INFLUENCING UNDERGRADUATE

STUDENTS TO CHEAT ON EXAMINATIONS

Case study: Undergraduate Students in Dongdok Campus, the

National University of Laos (NUOL)

A coursework project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as

a Foreign Language (Master of Arts in TEFL)

THANONGDETH NALISAK

Academic year 2013-2014

FACTORS INFLUENCING UNDERGRADUATE

STUDENTS TO CHEAT ON EXAMINATIONS

Case study: Undergraduate Students in Dongdok Campus, the

National University of Laos (NUOL)

A coursework project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

(Master of Arts in TEFL)

Student’s name: Mr. Thanongdeth NALISAK

Student ID: MFLT0024/11

Supervisor(s): Assoc. Prof. Vongdeuan OSAY

Mrs. Bounnam SOULIYAPHANH

Date: ........................... Date: ...........................

Dean of Faculty of Letters Head of Department of English

Acknowledgement

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor. Mrs.

Bounnam SOULIYAPHANH, who understands in what I am suffering and trying to

discover. I also want to acknowledge her time spending to read my thesis and all the

support to make these pieces of jigsaw becomes an image.

I really need to say thank you very much to Miss. Julia Mitchell for sparking my

ideas and encouraging me to face all my fear. All her attempts in overseeing, editing,

checking from the beginning till the end of this project.

I also would like to take this opportunity to give thanks to all teachers in each

class I administered the questionnaires for all their kindness and all participants who

helped me filling the questionnaire forms with valuable information to make this

research happened.

I deeply would like to say thank you to my family who forever takes care of me

and loves me unconditionally.

I am grateful to thank all the teachers and staff in the National University of Laos,

especially the teachers and staff in the Department of English, Faculty of Letters who

always guided me and transferred their knowledge to me with sincerity and devotion.

I honestly would like to thank my friends and everyone whom I have met since I

was young until now, their life has influenced me to come at this stage.

Abstract

This study was inspired by the researcher’s experience in observing the problem

of cheating during his years as a primary, secondary, high school and the university

student (the National University of Laos). There were many questions raised such as:

“Why do the students do this?” “How many students do this?” “Why is nothing done

about it?” and “How can this problem be solved?” During 2007 to 2010 there were

several articles in the newspaper regarding the cheating problem. In addition, in the

academic year 2012-2013 there were several teachers in the Dongdok campus who

reported that, there were some students caught while taking an exam. Furthermore,

some of the teachers at the department of English, Faculty of Letter also stated that they

used some techniques to prevent their students from cheating on the exams. Thus, the

purpose of this study will be to find out the factors which are affecting students’

decision to cheat on examinations at the National University of Laos, in Dongdok

Campus. The findings claimed that, there were 2 main factors that influence the

students to cheat: 1. Internal factors, and 2. External factors. Cheating was rampant at

the campus. For instance, there is a 96% participation in copying the answers from

friends while there is a 97.9% participation in letting friend(s) copy the answer from

their sheet.

In addition, there were some practical implications such as: 1. Organizing

campaigns, workshops and orientations. And 2. Engaging the students in knowledge

from the lessons rather than scores, grades or certificates. Furthermore, some

recommendations for short and long-term deterrents were also included.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract

Acknowledgement

Chapter I Introduction 1

Contextual Framework 4

Statement of Problem 5

Objectives 7

Research Questions 7

Significance of the study 8

Basic Assumption 8

Chapter II Literature Review 9

Cheating Mechanisms 9

Associated Factors 10

Theoretical Explanation 17

Lack of Integrity Concern 18

Consequences Confirmation 18

Prevention of cheating in the Classroom 20

Chapter III Research Methodology 25

Research Design 25

Ethical Consideration 25

Scope of Sampling 25

Sampling 26

Descriptions of Respondents 27

Population 28

Research Instrument 29

Data Collection 30

Data Analysis 30

Chapter IV Findings 43

External Factors 43

Internal Factors 59

Summary of Open-ended Questions 61

The Pervasiveness of the Cheating Problem 71

Chapter V Conclusion 74

Chapter VI General Opinions and Recommendations 76

Future Research 80

Reference

Questionnaire (English version)

Questionnaire (Lao version)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables

Page

Table 1: Table of random sampling technique 26

Table 2: Populations, Scope and Samples 28

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics 31

Table 4: Total Variance Explained 32

Table 5: KMO and Bartlett's Test 34

Table 6: Rotated Component Matrixa 34

Table 7: Scree Plot 36

Table 8: Component Matrixa 37

Table 9: Communalities 38

Table 10: KMO and Bartlett's Test2 39

Table 11: Communalities2 40

Table 12: Rotated Component Matrixa2 41

Table 13: Variables contributed to explain student’s cheating

behaviors influenced by social value 44

Table 14: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors

influenced by teachers 47

Table 15: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors

influenced by the examination’s difficulty and unfairness 54

Table 16: Variables explaining student’s cheating

behaviors influenced by students’ characteristics 59

Table 17: Variables contributed to explain how pervasive

the cheating problem at the campus is 71

1    

Chapter I

Introduction

In 2007 The Deputy Head of the Committee for University Entrance

Examinations, Saengmany (2007) said that, one of many students from

Vientiane was caught when using his mobile phone to receive answers from his

friend through messages during a chemistry test last week.

Later in 2010 The Ministry of Education claimed that degrees awarded in

education are not transparent enough in Laos, Viphavanh, (2010) Minister of

Education stated on Lao National Assembly. He added, in the future to control

the examination process, the latest technology systems would be used. Vaenkeo

(in 2012) reported from a seminar, which the officials in charge of the

educational and sport across the country came to meet. He reported that, 6

measurements were outlined to prevent use of falsified certificates and fake

diplomas. These were the circumstances regarding the cheating problem and

how it was announced to the public in Laos from the past few years. Cheating

doesn’t only happen with the entrance exams or the way the degree is awarded.

At the same time, cheating also happened in class such as: copying the answers

from friends, smuggling some clip notes into the exam class. This reflects the

researcher’s empirical observation as a Lao student since an early stage during

his studies in secondary school that his classmates and other students always

cheat on exams. It seemed like there was nothing being done about it. There was

no accountability, clear policies, or punishment. The researcher started to

wonder why, if this is our culture, or is cheating acceptable or at least

permissible? The researcher graduated from high school and started as a

freshman at the National University of Laos (NUOL) in 2005. Until now, He has

2    

had 7 years of experience as a student at the NUOL. The researcher still has

never seen any orientation, campaign, codes of honor or clear policies to control

or manage the students who cheat on the exams. On the other hand, it is believed

that cheating is morally wrong. The detections and penalties done are based on

the assumption that cheating is generally a bad behavior. Some of the teachers

have tried to ban students from cheating. The actions from the teachers come in

many forms such as: rearranging the seat order, preparing several versions of the

test, trying to test students orally, keeping eyes on the students all the time and,

proctoring by sitting at the back of the class. The scenarios from several teachers

concerning the cheating circumstances in the campus could be illustrated as

follows. (Khantry, L. personal communication 16 May, 2013) a teacher at the

Department of English, Faculty of Letters, the NUOL has decided to test her

students orally with reading exam for several reasons, and one of them is to

prevent her students from cheating. Furthermore, in 2013 there were several

students caught cheating in classes and kicked out of the exam class in the

university final exams (Souliyaphanh, B. personal communication 20 April,

2013). (Bears, S. personal communication 20 April, 2013), exclaimed that, “last

year (2012) I had year one students and on “most tests about ten students out of

thirty-one were noticeably cheating”. This clearly shows that cheating does exist

and it has become a very serious problem for the campus.

As the country proceeds into the 20th century, the National University of

Laos (NUOL), Dongdok campus is considered as the largest and most

experienced in higher education to have thousands of students graduate and

serve the country in the present era. While the number of students enrolled in the

NUOL has been increasing rapidly in the past decades since the first academic

3    

year 1996-1997 until now. This is a big challenge for the campus to manage

between the balance of quantitative and qualitative education

Mohammad (2012) suggested that,

“The major challenges faced in higher education in Laos are to produce

and provide good quality of human resources meeting the level of

international standard in support to the country’s socio-economic

development goals, reducing poverty and graduating from the least

developed country status by 2020. Also to realize the long-term goals in

turning the country to industrialization and modernization, developed

education is regarded as the means and tools”.

At the campus, the students’ abilities are measured from the certificates

and scores they get, in order to certify the quality in teaching and learning.

According to UNESCO, Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Reporting

2005 (THE QUALITY IMPERATIVE) states, “an assessment is one of the

crucial components mentioned in a framework for understanding education

quality”. To illustrate, the framework has an assessment as a good filter to cut

out and identify the problem in order to implement a standard and specify where

the quality is. Thus, if the assessment does not give an accurate evaluation,

especially when the examination process does not indicate the real level of the

students’ knowledge and ability, this means the assessment fails to do its work in

providing the status of the efficiency of teaching and learning. Then what kinds

of citizenry would the country have to help, serve and develop the social-

economy of the country. As a result, academic dishonesty at the National

University of Laos, especially cheating on the exams has become one of the

serious problems reducing the quality of education. The lack of integrity in

4    

learning may be associated with many aspects such as: large class size, not

enough qualified and professional teachers, lack of supporting materials, lack of

appropriate lecture and academic misconducts managements, lack of good

attitude towards learning, students’ moral, teaching and learning, pressure from

parents, and pressure to get a good job are the presumed root causes urging

students to cheat on the exams.

Contextual Framework

Dongdok campus, the National University of Laos (NUOL) is considered

as the biggest campus in higher education in Lao P.D.R which consists of 8

Faculties, they are: 1. Faculty of Sciences, 2. Faculty of Education, 3. Faculty of

Social Sciences, 4. Faculty of Economics and Business Management, 5. Faculty

of Letters, 6. Faculty of Architecture, 7. Faculty of Environmental Sciences and

8. Faculty of Forestry. In the academic year 2012-2013 there are 25,955 students

in these 8 faculties.

Based on the real situation, which the qualification in academic fields

place a significant amount pressure to challenge Lao students at the campus to

overcome the situation in which the qualification is the first important

impression considered. As a result, cheating on the exams seemed to be a good

way for students to deal with the circumstances. In addition, the concept of

society has forced students with strong desire to receive good scores and grades.

Choi, (2009); Cohen & Brawer (2003); McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino (2006)

as cited in Witherspoon (2012) stated that, students cheat on exams because of

the “degree for future employment, financial security, and personal reasons”.

Furthermore, students do believe that they will get well paid and earn higher

salaries from future employment if they have got outstanding grades throughout

5    

their periods as a college student (Norton; Tilley; Newstead, & Franklyn-Stokes

2001 as cited in Witherspoon 2012). What is more, grades are important

measurements in society, significantly impacting the lives of students; therefore,

students are under pressure, McCabe et al., (2006); Norton et al., (2001) as cited

in Witherspoon (2012) and are extremely concerned about the grades they

receive (Choi, 2009; McCabe et at. 2006; Wilkerson, 2009 as cited in

Witherspoon 2012).

Statement of Problem

Each year some thousands of students graduate from the campus without

certainty that they can acquire the knowledge needed to be transferred, if it is

compared to the qualification the students are awarded. The campus must adapt

to the changing times and began to understand the root causes of some of the

key educational issues in Laos. In addition, essential to achieving quality in

education is the implementation of educational standards, especially in regards

to holding students accountable for the information and knowledge they are

required to learn. This requests a closer look at the process of assessment,

especially the examination process. It is no secret that students in Laos often rely

on dubious methods to pass their examinations or to get a higher score. The

country will lose human resources when students get higher marks than their

performance deserves because they will be unprepared to enter the workforce

effectively. “Cheating is a serious problem in many countries, the cheater gets

higher marks than deserved, thus reducing the efficiency of a country’s

educational system”, Magnus et al (2002). Furthermore, the research conducted

would be a reference and an initiative to study about the problem of cheating.

Although this topic is often not talked about at higher institutions, developing

6    

the departments, faculties, and the campus educational system requires an

understanding of the reasons behind this serious problem. In addition, Lao

students are under pressure to cheat because of the country’s needs of labor

market, college students feel significant pressure to cheat, McCabe et at (2001).

Since Lao students at Dongdok campus are teenagers and adults, studying

includes the cognitive development for both academic knowledge and ethical

perspective the college years are a critical period for ethical development.

Cheating in college years may lead the students to cheat in their professional

careers. Happel and Jennings (2008) as cited in Taderera et al (n.d), stated that,

“cheating in business starts with cheating in a test.” McCabe et al (2001). When

dishonesty does occur with professional career, and the sense of survival of

human beings from the society and real world supporting the students to have a

role modal in academic misconduct, McCabe et al (2001) college students are

being taught that cheating is acceptable. In addition, “Character development,

moral and ethical development of students is an important mission of higher

education” e.g., Dalton, (1985); Kibler, (1993a); Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, &

Pavela, (1988) as cited in Whitley & Spiegel (2002), “academic dishonesty is

acceptable or at least permissible”. Besides that, students graduating from the

campus are the country future’s leaders, and students who cheat in college

frequently go on to cheat in graduate and professional school and to engage in

unethical business practices (e.g., Baldwin, Daugherty, Rowley, & Schwarz,

1996; Sims 1993 as cited in Whitley and Spiegel 2002) because having

successfully cheated at the undergraduate levels can make it easier to cheat in

one’s professional career. Thus, failure to deal adequately with academic

dishonesty and educate students about the consequences of their behavior

7    

constitutes a disservice not only to the academic community but also to society

in general, Whitley and Spiegel (2002). What is more, if the students at the

campus cheat and can get away with it, the country would actually have human

resource with good qualifications but less potential. McCabe et al (2012)

“today’s college students represent tomorrow’s leaders”, in addition students

who cheat would not learn what they are required to learn. Gehring and Pavela,

(1994) as cited in McCabe et al (2002) states “a university has a mission to

transfer knowledge, students who cheat their way through the higher education

system do not acquire the knowledge to which their degrees are supposed to

attest nor do they engage in the intellectual and moral struggles that foster

personal development”.

Therefore, the objectives of this research are threefold:

Objectives

- To find out what factors are influencing undergraduate students to

cheat on the exams.

- To find out and suggest the pragmatic solutions against cheating on

the exams.

- To provide information for further research in term of qualitative

education.

Research Questions

This research will be focused on 3 main questions:

1. What are the factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on

examinations?

2. How pervasive is the problem of cheating amongst students at

Dongdok campus?

8    

3. What are the practical implications of this research?

Significance of the study

No one has ever conducted research for this issue in Laos before, so

there’s no statistics or supported details about this problem. Therefore, this

research will be the first investigation into the motives and aspects that influence

students’ decision to cheat on exams. Another significance is to provide the first

step to further research related to this topic and find out the ways to prevent,

deter and reduce cheating on the examination in order to create a culture of

academic integrity. Schab (1991) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) said that

studies in other countries show that cheating on examinations has been

recognized as a significant problem on college campuses. Therefore, this

research sought the practical implication for the campus. In addition, the result

gained will be a guideline for Departmental, Faculty and university levels to

cope with academic dishonesty providing insightful instructions for creating a

strong academic honesty environment. Mitchell (personal communication 8,

March 2013) claimed that, although it may seem embarrassing and scandalous to

study about cheating in the short term, in the longer term it will bring a good

result for education in Lao P.D.R.

Basic Assumptions

This study has assumed that cheating is one of the major factors reducing

efficiency and quality in the Educational system of Laos, particular in Dongdok

Campus. In addition, the instances of academic misconducts have not been

managed effectively. Students cheat because of two main factors. 1. Internal

factors and 2. External factors.

9    

Chapter II

Literature Review

There has not been any research done about Academic dishonesty in Laos

before, especially cheating on exams in higher institutions. Thus, it is very hard

to find the documents to support and reflect on such circumstances. As can be

seen, cheating is one of the serious problems in term of qualitative education,

particularly in higher education. It is believed that students’ cheating behaviors

are influenced by many factors. Though it is still a mystery, the actions taken for

cheating such as banning mobile phone, punishing students who are caught

cheating and so on are the strategies to solve the problem in the short-term. On

the contrary, in the longer-term good knowledge and comprehension to cope

with the cheating problem is required. In Laos, such problems have never been

studied. On the other hand, many studies have been done in many higher

education institutions in many parts of the world for example the studies in:

Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, America, Britain, Japan, Sweden, Finland,

Turkey, Iran, and Thailand. The research conducted in these countries has

significantly provided many themes in different focuses such as: ethical,

situational, external, and personal factors. In addition, several studies also aimed

to find out the methods, associated factors, theoretical explanation, integrity

concern, consequences, prevention of cheating, short and long term deterrence

as can be mentioned in this literature review.

Cheating Mechanisms

In the last few decades, there have been numbers of studies related to

cheating on examinations. Students were found using and doing many different

10    

methods to cheat on the examinations such as: smuggling crib notes in to the

class. Cohen and Felson (1979) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) “literature has

established that, using crib notes is a common tactic that students use to cheat in

examinations”. Furthermore, changing seats and sitting in the back row where

students expect to be able to look at someone’s answers is one of many ways

students try to cheat. Schab (1991) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011)

“candidates sit in a zone of maximum surveillance in the proximity of someone

who knows”. In addition, Chinamasa et al (2011) found out in their research’s

findings that, notes are written on some learning equipment, clothing, and parts

of body of the candidates such as: rulers, shirtsleeves, skirt hems, inside the

shades of their caps, thighs, and their hands. Chinamasa et al (2011) also

claimed that, another way of cheating is to peep on the answers of the student

who is sitting beside or next to. Furthermore, their research pointed out that,

some of the candidates hold up the sheet of the test paper in front as if he/she is

revising; meanwhile the position of the sheet is set to allow the one who is

sitting behind to read and copy the answers.

Associated Factors

Student’s cheating behaviors are influenced by many aspects.

Furthermore, there are a number of researchers who classified and defined the

reasons why the students decided to cheat on the exams such as: the

environment in which students are in, pressure for pursuing higher grade, using

multiple choices items in tests, personal beliefs that students will never caught

and punished, there is no initial orientation about the examination room’ rules,

strict invigilators and proctors. Schab (1991) and Cizek (1999) as cited in

11    

Chinamasa et al (2011) claimed that the aspects below are associated with

motivation to students’ decision to cheat on the examination:

- “A competitive academic atmosphere among students, compelling

weak candidates to feel at a loss in an unsupportive learning

environment.

- The high utility value of a passing grade at the world of work, the

selective function of examinations compels students to get the grade

by whatever means.

- Use of multiple choice and short answer questions requiring

responses in point rather than in essay form.

- Students’ perceptions that, those who cheat are not caught or if they

are, they are not punished.

- Lack of supervision when candidates enter the exam room or go into

the toilet during examination as a result of insufficient invigilators.

- Invigilators’ inability to check programmable calculators and cell

phone messages.”

The findings they found recommend that: academic atmosphere, natural

features of examination, high expectation in cheating successfully,

procrastination of invigilator to catch students who cheat and modern technology

misusing are the associated factors.

Davis et at (1992) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) pointed out

the other interesting findings that, “pressures for good grades in higher

education, student stress, ineffective deterrents, teacher attitudes, and an

increasing lack of academic integrity are important determinants of cheating”.

Meanwhile, a study by Singhal (1982) as cited in Björklund & Wenestam (1999)

12    

states a large percent of 68 of the students wished to receive good result as one

reason why they cheat. Another common explanation for cheating is the push to

achieving good grades puts students under pressure, Dalton (1998), Kibler

(1993b), Higbee and Thomas (2002) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s

Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005).

Kibler (1993b) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on

Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) claimed that,

students are more likely to prefer and value achievement much more than

scholarship, giving a view as cheating is “a necessary means to a desirable end”,

Dalton, (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on

Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005). Furthermore,

Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, and Armstead (1995) as cited in Björklund and

Wenestam (1999) found out several reasons why the students cheated including,

wishing to get a better grade dominates 20 %, Followed by 14 % of sympathy to

help friends and 10% goes to laziness. Another study from Maramark and

Maline (1993) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) had seen that, “stress,

competition for jobs, scholarships and admission to post-graduate programs

were important determinants.”

Grade pressure

Grade pressure is one of the stimuli which encourages students to cheat.

Anderman, Griesinger, and Westerdield (1998) as cited in Björklund and

Wenestam (1999) suggested that, “classrooms that emphasize high grades and

test scores may drive the students to cheat.”

13    

Work-load

Besides grade pressure, too much work and too many test items on a test in

which the time is limited could lead students to cheat. Lipson & Macgavern,

(1993) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) said that, student’s workload

is found to be a crucial factor explaining why student decide to cheat. Baird

(1980) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) reported similar findings

that, 35 % of the students explained that they had only little time for studying for

the exam, and 26 percent of the students stated that the test load of test they had

made them feel it necessary to cheat.

Internal and External Factors

There have been many studies that indicate 2 major factors: Internal and

External factors related to the explanation of why students dare to cheat on the

examination:

External factors

Baird (1980), Davis et at (1992) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam

(1999) mentioned that, external factors did affect students to cheat. External

factors included, “seating order, importance of the test, level of test-difficulty,

unfair test, scheduling, and supervision, overcrowded, great classes, multiple-

choice questions, economic benefit. Rodolph and Timm (1998) as cited in Vice

Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on

Academic Integrity (2005) said that, students have been allowed to cheat or used

to cheat in high school, and as a result they subsequently cheat in college. The

“reasons may include a weakening of social prohibitions against cheating” they

added. Another interesting point is external influence caused by lack of role

models. Dalton (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on

14    

Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) emphasized that,

the greatest influence of cheating are peers, cheating being condoned among

peers which can be illustrated as “peers don’t report students”. Besides this, Vice

Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on

Academic Integrity (2005) stated that, “when universities don’t set a culture

where academic integrity is valued, then students take their cues from other

students, whose standards are lesser”. In addition to this, the policy is considered

as a good tool to provide role model to students, Cole and Kiss (2000) as cited in

Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on

Academic Integrity (2005) claimed that, “Instances of academic dishonesty are

more common when faculty are considered “weak” in their policies on cheating.

To illustrate, the teachers leave the room during the test or there is no campaign

or orientation regarding the consequences of being dishonest. Hetherington &

Feldman (1964) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999) said that, “difficult

test, lacking supervision, badly organized course” are other external factors.

Hetherington & Feldman (1964) as cited in Björklund and Wenestam (1999)

said that, “To gain social acceptance and liking” is a kind of personal factor.

Moreover, Higbee and Thomas (2002) as cited in Vice Chanceller and

Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity

(2005) explained cheating caused by situational factors. They listed a few factors

for instance: anxiety on test, the environment in the classroom. McCabe and

Pavela (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on

Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) explained about the

uncertainty of “getting caught”, lack of serious and ignoring of severity of

punishment, and levels of awareness of comprehension and understanding of

15    

university policy. Besides that, linking between satisfaction and the course

content should be relevant to the goals of the students in the future. Rudolph and

Timm (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic

Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) indicated that, students are not

actively engaged in learning by activities. In addition to this, several researchers

have stated situational factors for cheating including, “time constraints,

difficulty of the task, and lenient penalties”, Kibler (1993a) as cited in Vice

Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on

Academic Integrity (2005). “large class size”, Nowell and Laufer, (1997) as

cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity,

Research on Academic Integrity (2005). “ready availability of papers and other

ways to cheat that offer temptation”, Capano, (1991), Kibler, (1993a), Wilhoit,

(1994) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic

Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005). “an instructor’s laissez-faire

attitude”, Love and Simmons, (1998) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s

Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005).

Likewise, some researchers have found out links between students who

cheat and the professional status of their instructors. To Illustrate, Kerkvliet &

Sigmund (1999) as cited in Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on

Academic Integrity, Research on Academic Integrity (2005) claimed that, 32%

of cheating was likely to happen when classes were taught by teaching assistants

rather than by professors of the faculty. This circumstance may be illustrated as

when the students do not trust in the teachers’ ability. Thus, the students cheat

by looking at the book to make sure.

16    

Internal factors

Macabe, Trevino, and Butterfied (1999) as cited in Ruto (2011) classified

several internal factors influencing students’ decision to cheat for example:

laziness, lack of responsibility, lack of good character, lack of personal integrity,

lack of clear image & attitude, awareness of the performance of fellow students,

low grades, previously experienced, failure, a certain expectation of success”,

wishing to help a friend and aversion to teacher is personal factors, disposition

of students are also one of the main powerful driven factor.

Intelligence

According to Davis et al (2009) he mentioned that, there was a study in the

seventies which showed that both high school and college students with high

intelligence measured by IQ test scores cheated less than students with lower

intelligence.

Ethically Desirable Traits

Students who have high integrity and honesty as a core value inside them

were more likely to focus on great ideology which could prevent them from

relying on cheating. Schlenker (2008) as cited in McCabe et al (2012) indicated

that integrity, “operationalized as a principled ideology”, was negatively

associated with cheating behavior.

Moral identity was a powerful inner aspect which strengthened students to

be honesty, that meant students who had less moral identity could have easily

decided to cheat. Wowra (2007) as cited in McCabe et al (2012) showed that

students were less likely to cheat when they “placed greater emphasis on their

moral identity and were less sensitive to social evaluation.”

17    

Theoretical Explanations

There are several theoretic explanations defined in the past to explain the

reasons why students decide to cheat on the examination. Desforges (1990) as

cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) proposed that, “students cheat to aid memory,

because test items are really tests of memory for a few facts and procedures

which lack application and divorced from the way the physical world worked.”

Generally this perspective explains that the lessons are sometimes different from

the real use. Thus, the exams are only the memory tester to test how much the

students can remember the lessons. Besides that, one of several theories about

cheating is preparation of one’s self to qualify into the workforce, Beck (1981)

as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) defined the relation between life and

education as he explained, “the purpose of education is life enhancing: it

contributes to the whole quality of life” Chinamasa et all (2011) also stated that,

“One can infer that, the motivating instrumentality function of the world of work

compels candidates to get the grade.” It does seem that this is true as the

allocation of a scholarship is usually considered by the honors, and

qualifications rather than what a candidate could do exactly to study. Another

example is ranging of the socio or even order in work place of hierarchy. People

are often judged by grades or degrees and not by their competency or ability.

Bray and Jones (1992) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) pointed out that,

students cheat because they have expectation and hope to cheat. Basically this

explanation shows that students do not study in class because they expect to

cheat, as a result students are not ready, confident and comfortable to take an

exam. Smith (2000) and Agnew (1985) as cited in Chinamasa et al (2011) tried

to summarize as dishonesties are stimulated by three main factors: firstly, the

18    

honesty is reduced by the failing marks in an exam. Secondly, negative

motivation and pressure from family and pursuing appreciation for loved one.

Lastly, intension to be honest is thwarted by having loss of scholarship or

educational degree qualification.

Lack of Integrity Concern

Integrity is a good disposition of a student to fight against cheating; it is

honesty that most students who cheat are missing in learning. In this part, there

are several researchers who specify and explain the reasons why students should

be concerned about integrity and take it into consideration. According to

Whitley and Keith-spiegel (2002,) as cited in Ruto (2011) teaching and learning

will not reach its potential points since the score of students who cheat raises the

mean score building the assessments process and creating a lack of care towards

poor students or students who do not cheat. If the penalty applied is not strong

then the students who do not cheat lack a belief in honesty creating bad character

development among integrative students

Consequence Confirmation

Cheating on exams can significantly affect the students’ characteristics

which are considered as a basic aspect of good citizen, educator and member of

a society at large. Johnson (n.d) said that, "Integrity without knowledge is

useless and weak, knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful".

Therefore, cheating on exams can cause many serious problems such as:

1. Cheating on exams can indicate the untrue result for evaluation,

since the cheaters raise the average grade of a class. This can lead the examiners

to over estimate the students’ learning progress. Students who cheat may get

higher grades than their progressive level in learning. Bushweller (1999) as cited

19    

in McCabe (2012) claimed that, “grade inflation” could directly change the

average score in class or norm referenced means.

2. Student morale, when honest students see some of their peers cheat

and get away with it, especially if it appears that instructors do not seem to care,

they become frustrated and angry (e.g, Jendrek, 1992 as cited in McCabe 2012)

3. Faculty morale. Faculty can feel personally violated and mistreated

by their students, reacting with feeling of anger and disgust (e.g, Jendrek, 1989;

Johnston, 1996 as cited in McCabe 2012). These negative emotions can be

compounded by perceptions that administrators do not support their efforts to

control academic dishonesty and punish cheaters (e.g, Schneider, 1999; Wilson,

1988 as cited in McCabe 2012)

4. Reputation of the institutions, public confidence in higher education,

McCabe et al (2012).

Dishonesty is considered as a bad habit that can reduce trustfulness, create

poor image of one’s character, damage integrity, support further awful

dishonesty, and lose self-confidence. In addition, the students’ life could be

ruined when they believe cheating is a good way out when they can not do the

exams. Bob Roth (2011) pointed out that, “Cheating in College Can Ruin Your

Life”. He explained that cheating is not worth doing. When students get caught

during an exam and their transcripts are marked. This can stay as a flaw on the

students’ transcripts permanently. What is more, when students get caught and

they get zero from cheating, the zero marks are not admirable for the employers

in any company.

20    

Prevention of Cheating in the Classroom

There have been many studies regarding cheating, both influenced by

external or internal factors (personal). Educational responses derived from

several significant results, which gained from research to research. Thus a

recommendation to minimize cheating problem was established to solve and

prevent cheating, especially in the classroom. For example: teacher and students’

learning agreement.

One of the greatest cures is to solve the problem from its root. Beauchamp

and Murdock (2009) specified that when students surrender their heart to learn,

and focus content rather than receiving a grade, cheating is less likely to happen

through several means as stated below:

1. “teachers should seek student input into content or allow students to

choose specific topics for projects or papers.”

2. “tasks and assignments should be constructed so that they are at

appropriate levels for students.”

3. “teachers should strive to create an atmosphere that is safe for and

encouraging of student curiosity, risk-taking, and improvement.”

Besides this, other attempts have been made by researchers in 1990s

regarding the influences of institutional context on students cheating, Baird

(1980); Eisenberger & Shank, (1985); Perry, Kane, Bernesser, & Spicker,

(1990); Ward, (1986); Ward & Beck, (1990) as cited in McCabe et al (2001)

whose research pointed out that behavior of students such as, “competitive

achievement striving and self-esteem can significantly influence the prevalence

of cheating.” In 1990s, several studies focused on contextual factors such as:

“faculty responses to cheating, sanction threats, social learning, and honor codes

21    

where it has ideally been shown to influence college cheating (e.g., Canning,

1956; Jendrek, 1989; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Tittle Rowe, 1973)”. McCabe et

all (2001) they also added, “Although these studies made important

contributions, most of them had significant limitations. Perhaps of greatest

importance, most of these studies only sampled students at a single institution,

obviously limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions about contextual

influences”.

Bowers (1964) as cited in McCabe et al (2001) said that, “our

distinguishing methodology has been the use of large-scale, multi-campus,

multivariable studies”. Most of the result ended with only a series of studies that

have advantages for their understanding to why college students cheat, provided

administrators and faculty with a broader set of tools that can be used to curb

cheating on college campuses, and helped foster academic integrity in American

colleges and universities (e.g, McCabe, 1992, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993,

1997; McCabe et al., 1996, 1999). McCabe et all (2001) defined that “Although

the center understands there is no one size fits all solution to academic

dishonesty, it does indicate that certain fundamental initiatives can yield positive

results on almost any campus”.

Short-Term deterrence

Steve Davis and his colleagues (2012) indicated that the most preferred

deterrents to discourage cheating in the classroom were (the following are listed

in order of preference):

1. Teachers should use different forms of a test.

2. Teachers should inform the students why they should not cheat.

3. Teachers should arrange the classroom seating so that an empty desk

22    

separates the students during a test.

4. Teachers should walk up and down the rows during a test.

5. Teachers should constantly watch the students during a test.

According to the students’ respondents, the less preferred deterrents included:

1. The teacher simply announcing “do not cheat”

2. Having assigned seats;

3. Having an all-essay exam;

4. Requiring the students to leave their belongings outside the

classroom during the tests;

5. Embarrassing students in front of their classmates.

Although there are many methods to manage with the problems of

cheating in classroom, they are only a short-term deterrence. In the long run, it is

highly required students with permanent dispositions such as: personal integrity,

moral developments and ethics. Davis (2009) stated “the main task of an

institution is not to detect cheaters, but rather create an environment where

academic dishonesty is socially unacceptable”. As a result, the deterrence

requires a long term and steady progress to deter cheating.

Long-Term Deterrence

Moral development could be developed in both individuals and

Institutions. It is believed that “whose” values should be taught is not important.

It is suggested that educational institutions can reduce student cheating and

create an ethical, educated workforce by teaching “universal values, developing

moral reason, and honing ethical decision-making”. Kibler now Vice President

for Students Affairs at Mississippi State University, and colleagues (1988) as

cited in Davis (2009), were the first to suggest attending to student moral

23    

development as a long-term deterrent in student academic misconduct.

In a nutshell, although cheating on an exam is considered as a serious

negative behavior, it is necessary to cheat without any avoidance from various

situations. For instance: “financial stress, family status, scholastic ability, and

feelings of alienation”, Meizlish (2005). A Comment of a student mentioned in

(Excellence and ethic, Winter 2011. Page 3) indicated some surprising themes

about cheating. It is said that, “Some acts of cheating are acceptable”. There are

several interesting comments such as, “cheating is considered wrong, but there

are circumstances when everyone accepts it, such as if you’re going to get a bad

grade because you didn’t have time to study and your teacher doesn’t allow

extensions.” Another comment was, “I don’t like it when people cheat off of me

or anyone else, but I let them cheat because they need the help.” Even though, it

is said that cheating behavior is acceptable among students. Based on the bad

impacts this behavior creates such as downgrading respects and values in

institutions and society. (Boehm, et al., 2009; Decoo, 2002; Fontana, 2009;

Lipka, 2009; Rosamond, 2002; Wilkerson, 2009 as cited in Witherspoon et al

2012) claimed that, “cheating is an institutional and societal problem and

academic dishonesty is more detrimental to the educational community than

stakeholders realize because it affects the faculty, students, and administration.”

In addition, Fontana (2009) as cited in Witherspoon et al (2012) reported that

“research has positively linked unethical classroom behaviors with unethical

clinical behavior…[and] has suggested students who cheat may go on to

endanger the health and safety of their patients” (para. 4.) Beside that, cheating

has a further impact on society as a whole creating a “down stream” of effects

toward social life of human beings. According to Happel and Jennings (2008) as

24    

cited in Taderera et al (n.d), they stated that, “cheating in business starts with

cheating in a test.” Trost (2009) as cited in Taderera et al (n.d), argued that,

“there is a positive relationship between college cheating and the country's

corruption index. Corruption and lack of business ethics impede national

growth.” This may reflect the development of the national growth of Laos,

which is required the educated, competent and honest citizens to help develop

the country rather dishonest students. From this illustration, it is consequently

requested the honest college students or at least the students who see cheating is

unacceptable. Furthermore, Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005) and Williams

and Hosek (2003) as cited in Taderera et al (n.d) had made quite similar

observations to the effect, that students who lack academic ethics will not

respect integrity in their professions as well as in their personal relationships,

these particular personalities and perspectives are in their mindset to see that

cheating is an acceptable social behavior so they will cheat their “employer,

supervisor, spouse, parents and anyone else that they come in contact with”. As

a result, understanding the motives why students decide to be dishonest is very

crucial and beneficial for a university to help establish a community of integrity

in learning rather than a stressful campus which passing an examination is a

mission to enter a compulsory workforce.

25    

Chapter III

Research Methodology

Research Design

A survey method of research was employed for this research. This method

involved data collection from samples. Thus the method enabled the researcher

to elicit responses from the carefully designed questionnaire based on External

and Internal factors.

Ethical Considerations

The respect in respondents’ privacy was always considered. The purpose

of the study was only to find out the solution to the problem occurring.

According to Kombo and Tromp (2006) as cited in Ruto (2011) “the researcher

must maintain privacy and confidentiality of the respondent at all time”. In this

case of study the participants were never asked to write their name on

questionnaire, and references to any specific department or faculty were omitted.

Scope of sampling

The population for this research was the undergraduate students from 10

different departments in 4 Faculties in Dongdok campus. The students were

randomly selected from year 2 to year 5 at NUOL. Year 1 students were not

included because they are young and considered to have no experience in

cheating at university before.

26    

Sampling

According to Watson Jeff (2001), a table of random sample was used to

random students from the populations at the campus. 394 undergraduate students

were randomly chosen using simple random sampling techniques, the reference

number was shown in the table below:

Table 1: Table of random sampling technique

27    

Description of Respondents

The researcher was strictly careful in choosing and administering the

questionnaires. Thus, Lao citizen who originally studied in Lao private and non-

private school were chosen, which the researcher believes to have the same

ethical decision style, moral development, social cultural and previous school

environment. In addition the samples were the students in the same campus,

which were considered to have the same institutional environment such as:

facilities, buildings, supplement and equipment. Furthermore, the students were

all under the same curriculums adopted by the Ministry of Education and Sports

and set by the University.

28    

Population

Table 2: Populations, Scope and Samples

Number of populations and scope of sample were demonstrated in the table

below:

Random Sampling Methods Techniques used No of

students % Questionnaires

Census 8 Faculties in campus 25,955 100

Population 4 Faculties (Two-stage random sample) 12,290 100

Representative sample

10 Departments (Clustering) 394 (Watson Jeff, 2001)

+/-5%

Target sample Faculties/ department

Year 2-5 Lao students (Clustering & Stratifying)

Architecture 2,100 22 91

1) Architecture 1,200 57 52

2) Building

900 43 39

Education 1,062 13 55

1) Education management

174 16 9

2) Social Science 316 30 16

3) Foreign language 572 54 30

Environment 1,253 14 59

1) Environmental Management

652 52 31

2) Environmental Science.

601 48 28

Letters 1,524 51 217

1) English 1158 76 161 2) Lao Language & Mass Communications

264 17 36

3) Japanese 102 7 20 Total 12,290 100% 423

29    

Research Instruments

The questionnaire was based on a questionnaire developed by Stephen et

al (1975) as cited in Halima (2003). The questionnaire used by the researcher

was very similar to Halima’s. The questionnaire used by Halima was a Likert-

format rate scale of 5 options for instance: 1. Never. 2. Occasionally. 3.

Undecided. 4. Often. 5. Very often. On the other hand, the researcher adapted

the questionnaire to avoid uncertain items for misinterpretation. What is more,

the scales used were clarified clearly by adding number in percentage to avoid

ambiguous items. In order to keep the balance between scale, percentage varies

from 0 – 100 and have been divided into 5 main scales of 0%, 25%, 50 %, 75%,

and 100%.

The questionnaire consisted of 3 parts with both close-ended to obtain

qualitative data and open-ended items to obtain more insight opinions from

participants. The first part was a collecting of demographic information for

gathering information for further research, but this part was hardly answered by

the students. The second part was a collecting of the aspects that contributed to

cheating (also referred to as factors influencing students’ decision to cheat on

exams), and the last part was a collecting of frequency and methods students

used to assist cheating on exams.

The questionnaire was composed in Lao to avoid misinterpretation and

misunderstanding among students at targeted departments. In addition, the

questionnaire was designed carefully and piloted twice. The first time on 3rd,

August 2013, 15 questionnaires were administered to students at the Department

of English. Later on 8th, August 2013, 15 questionnaires were administered to

15 students at the Faculty of Environment, Department of Environmental

30    

Sciences. Aiken, (1997) as cited in Zoltan Dornyei (2003) pointed out that,

“Questionnaires can be designed to minimize, but not eliminate, dishonest, and

careless reporting”. Thus, the carefully designed questionnaire was considered

as reliable and valid for the research.

Data Collection

403 questionnaires were given and collected extensively during a period of

3 months. The questionnaires were administered by the researcher to students in

class; the students usually spent about 15-30 minutes answering questions since

there were 3 open-ended questions. At the same time there were only 20

questionnaires administered by a teacher at the Japanese Department, after

collecting the data the researcher could observe no difference in the answers

contour.

Data Analysis

Factor Analysis was employed; the data was collected and analyzed by

using IBM SPSS Statistics.v22.MacOSX to extract the data by components

analysis (PCN). In addition, the researcher obtained the result from examining

Correlation Matrix, KMO and Bartlett's Test, Communalities, Total Valiance

Explained, Scree Plot, Component Matrix and Rotated Component Matrix. The

data will be presented in the form of a table. Furthermore, the frequencies,

percentages, means, mode, standard deviation were calculated to help interpret

the pervasiveness of the problem of cheating. The answers from open-ended

questions were grouped, analyzed and patterned into several themes.

31    

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N

Q1 3.144 1.3440 360

Q2 2.808 1.0992 360

Q3 3.036 .9270 360

Q4 3.144 .9057 360

Q5 2.781 1.0863 360

Q6 2.522 .9701 360

Q7 2.819 1.2459 360

Q8 2.639 1.1308 360

Q9 2.031 1.1029 360

Q10 2.439 1.1927 360

Q11 3.219 1.1067 360

Q12 3.097 1.1702 360

Q13 3.225 1.2653 360

Q14 3.572 1.2060 360

Q15 3.019 1.0776 360

Q16 2.917 1.2683 360

Q17 3.444 1.1906 360

Q18 2.478 .9871 360

Q19 2.775 1.1156 360

Q20 3.364 1.0936 360

Q21 2.675 1.1083 360

Q22 3.128 1.3662 360

Q23 3.047 1.3745 360

32    

Table 3 (cont) : Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N

Q24 3.458 1.1699 360

Q25 4.067 1.0847 360

Q26 3.406 1.1975 360

Q27 3.181 1.3049 360

The table above generated from the descriptive statistics shows the

central tendency beneficial for prioritizing the most frequent aspects answered

by the students.

Table 4: Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative % Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

1 5.796 21.466 21.466 5.796 21.466 21.466

2 1.736 6.428 27.894 1.736 6.428 27.894

3 1.524 5.643 33.538 1.524 5.643 33.538

4 1.475 5.463 39.001 1.475 5.463 39.001

5 1.177 4.360 43.360 1.177 4.360 43.360

6 1.110 4.110 47.470 1.110 4.110 47.470

7 1.092 4.043 51.513 1.092 4.043 51.513

8 1.017 3.766 55.279 1.017 3.766 55.279

9 .954 3.534 58.813

10 .863 3.196 62.009

11 .844 3.124 65.133

33    

Table 4 (cont): Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative % Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

12 .829 3.071 68.204

13 .794 2.940 71.144

14 .755 2.797 73.941

15 .734 2.718 76.659

16 .679 2.516 79.175

17 .669 2.479 81.654

18 .654 2.421 84.075

19 .620 2.294 86.369

20 .571 2.115 88.485

21 .530 1.961 90.446

22 .520 1.928 92.373

23 .472 1.749 94.122

24 .456 1.691 95.812

25 .418 1.549 97.362

26 .386 1.430 98.792

27 .326 1.208 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

The table above displayed the data extracted using Principle Component

Analysis. It indicated that, there were 8 variables with the Initial Eigenvalues

above 1. There was the possibility that there were 8 factors that influenced

students’ cheating on exams behaviors. According to KMO and Bartlett's Test

which provided a valid number as greater than 0.50, the value was .839 which

34    

considered a good value for claiming a reliable factors. Furthermore, sig. value

below 0.50 pointed out that factor analysis was suitable and appropriate.

Table 5: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .839

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1690.975

df 253

Sig. .000

Table 6: Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q26 .723 .107

Q25 .715 .115 .114 .103 .150

Q27 .569 .139 .189 .250 -.384

Q17 .525 .112 .442 .225 .263

Q13 .493 .254 .254 .213

Q24 .477 .148 .308 .160 .329

Q12 .460 .126 .346 .156 .124

Q18 .720 -.120 .166 .132 .109

35    

Table 6 (cont): Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q20 .347 .662 .244

Q19 .160 .662 .175 -.169 .200 .157

Q21 .193 .460 .404 .263 -.152 -.173

Q10 .120 .421 .138 .354 .344 -.151

Q5 .626 .235 .197 -.228

Q6 .589 .137 .130 .171 .187

Q16 .383 .550 -.145 .293 -.124 .209 -.182

Q4 .292 .677 .243

Q3 .138 .614 .199

Q2 .158 .321 .578 .275 -.203

Q1 .259 .136 .409 .374 -.202

Q8 .130 .784

Q9 .102 .285 .103 .268 .675 -.154 .118

Q23 .121 .122 .153 .699

Q22 .166 .172 .149 -.127 .668

Q7 .297 .305 .679

Q14 .430 .108 .187 .189 .614

Q15 .108 .393 .132 .170 .151 .398

Q11 .281 .119 .301 .168 .192 .304 -.388

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a a. Rotation converged in 34 iterations.

36    

The table above displayed ambiguous factor loadings. Although, the

researcher had rotated the axis by employing the Varimax with Kaiser

Normaliztion method. There were some multi-loadings such as Q11 and Q14.

While several factors had only one or two variables which were not considered

as contributing factors.

Table 7 Scree Plot

37    

The numbers in the table of total variance explained (table 6) showed that

there were 8 variables from the analysis. On the other hand, the scree plot above

differently pointed out 4 main factors. According to Field (2005) rerunning the

factor analysis could be done to obtain the better result. Thus the researcher had

rerun the analysis one more time with the fix factors of 4 factors in accordance

with the scree plot as could be seen in the following table

Table 8: Component Matrixa

Component 1 2 3 4

Q25 .629 -.263 -.170 -.244 Q17 .603 -.226 .135 Q20 .593 .246 -.175 Q14 .584 -.211 -.184 Q24 .571 -.198 Q26 .555 -.170 -.234 -.317 Q12 .532 -.182 Q2 .489 .465 -.105 Q10 .486 .287 .166 Q19 .482 .401 .184 Q27 .478 -.277 -.227 -.200 Q21 .471 .305 -.127 .236 Q13 .464 -.260 -.163 -.214 Q8 .395 .361 Q23 .368 -.337 .219 Q18 .377 .634 .133 Q4 .321 -.457 .224 .382 Q7 .368 .441 Q9 .503 .526 Q22 .390 .225 -.479 .182 Q3 .367 -.326 .371 .111 Q5 .223 .652 Q6 .308 .585

a. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a

4 components extracted.

38    

Table 8 above displayed most of the variables that loaded on the first factor

and there was no clear-cut result to indicate which variable belonged to which

factor. In accordance with communality table below, which showed many

variables with extraction score lower than .40 should be deleted such as:

question number 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Table 9: Communalities

Extraction

Q1 .163

Q2 .469

Q3 .388

Q4 .463

Q5 .486

Q6 .400

Q7 .321

Q8 .301

Q9 .517

Q10 .370

Q11 .285

Q12 .334

Q13 .341

Q14 .391

Q15 .226

Q16 .271

39    

Table 9 (cont): Communalities

Extraction

Q17 .461

Q18 .566

Q19 .417

Q20 .451

Q21 .382

Q22 .442

Q23 .282

Q24 .383

Q25 .542

Q26 .486

Q27 .392

The table above pointed out that there was 14 variables that did not fit

well with the factor solution, and should possibly be deleted from the analysis

due to the extraction score lower than .040.

Table 10: KMO and Bartlett's Test2

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .813

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1073.272

df 105

Sig. .000

40    

The table above showed the appropriate KMO measure of .813, which

indicated reliable factors and the Sig. number lower than .50, which is .000,

which showed the factor analysis employed was appropriate.

Table 11: Communalities2

Initial Extraction

Q2 1.000 .608

Q3 1.000 .526

Q4 1.000 .556

Q5 1.000 .542

Q6 1.000 .495

Q9 1.000 .480

Q14 1.000 .485

Q17 1.000 .536

Q18 1.000 .621

Q19 1.000 .487

Q20 1.000 .514

Q21 1.000 .457

Q24 1.000 .431

Q25 1.000 .658

Q26 1.000 .532

41    

The extraction from the communalities table showed a better result of

value greater than 0.40, which meant the variables fit well in the factor solution.

As a result, 4 factors were analyzed using SPSS for data reductions and factor

analysis as could be shown in the following table of rotated component matrix:

Table 12: Rotated Component Matrixa2

Component

1 2 3 4

Q25 .799 .109

Q26 .702 .119 .113 -.112

Q14 .659 .194

Q17 .601 .181 .376

Q24 .567 .173 .282

Q18 .787

Q19 .225 .648

Q20 .323 .591 .244

Q21 .134 .542 .379

Q2 .145 .287 .703 -.102

Q3 .153 .692 .123

Q9 .346 .592

Q4 .163 -.182 .553 .437

Q5 .135 .723

Q6 .135 .685

Table 12 above clearly showed variables that loaded on each factor. The

first factor consisted of 5 variables which were Q25, Q26, Q14, Q17 and, Q24.

The second factors contained 4 variable of Q18, Q19, Q20 and, Q21. The third

42    

factors had 3 variables of Q2, Q3 and, Q9 and the fourth factors comprised of

Q4, Q5 and Q6. The result and findings are explicitly explained in the next

chapter.

43    

Chapter IV

Findings

The purpose of this study was to find out the factors that influence students

to cheat on the examinations. In order to present the findings in a logical

manner, this chapter was organized according to the following order:

1. Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat.

2. The pervasiveness of the cheating problem.

3. The practical implications based on the findings from this study.

Finally, the open-ended questions posed in the questionnaires were deeply

discussed.

The results found were similarly to the findings of McCabe et al (2011).

There were 2 main factors analyzed. Based on the examined result and summary

of the opened-ended questions, three questions set for this study were answered

in this chapter.

Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on the

examinations

Students’ cheating behaviors were influenced by 2 main factors: 1.

External factors and 2. Internal factors. In accordance with the data analyzed, the

findings were logically presented from the External and then the Internal factors.

1. External factors: It clearly seemed that undergraduate students’

cheating behavior was influenced by the external forces which consist of 3 main

external factors: 1. Social value. 2. Teachers (in an examination class also

referred to a proctor), and 3. Examination difficulty as can be shown in the

following tables:

44    

Table 13: Variables contributed to explain student’s cheating behaviors

influenced by social value

Items Variables N Mean STD

Q 14 You want to gain high scores to continue your study in higher level or to pursue scholarship

419 3.52

1.23

Q 17 Pressure & expectation to work in a good place 418 3.42

1.16

Q 24 New technologies allow you to cheat, such as: mobile

phone, copy machine 419 3.49

1.18

Q 25 The saying “Study to get knowledge, take an exam to get

the score” 421 4.05

1.06

Q 26 The saying “The saying “Passing the exams dirtily is

better than failing cleanly” 420 3.40

1.18

Social Value was one of the most influential factors, which affected

students’ cheating behavior. Davis (2009) mentioned that one of the students’

reasons to cheat was grade pressure. The finding in this study was similar since

the students were under pressure to get a better grade. On the other hand, a

stronger motivation for students was to pursue higher marks or better scores

because of the society sees the scores and grades as a mean to attend the

university rather than knowledge. To illustrate, it is believed that good grades

are the major way to get a certificate for employment; thus, students are under

pressure to get a certificate and the students consequently cheat. According to

the table, the students were under pressure and expectation to work in a good

place, gain high scores to continue their study in higher level or to pursue

scholarship, the saying “Study to get knowledge, take an exam to get the score”

and The saying “Passing the exams dirtily is better than failing cleanly”. These

sayings were very popular and well-known among the students and they totally

45    

affected they students’ cheating behaviors. This reflected how important the

scores and certificates the students would receive are to the society. In addition,

the most influential aspect was the saying “Study to get knowledge, take an

exam to get the score”. The data collected from questionnaire number 27 (The

knowledge taught might not be used in work but the scores will indicate the

future) with the mean score of 3.1881 and standard deviation of 1.30003 also

helped the researcher to draw the finding of how the social value was one of

several factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on the exams.

Furthermore, around 11.84% of students had stated their perspectives of how

social value put them under the pressure:

Open-ended question number 28 asked, “How often do you cheat on

exams because?” The students’ answers were translated into English and quoted

below:

“I want to get good scores”

“I am afraid of studying the same level for another year. And I am nervous

I won’t get the degree.”

“I am afraid of getting low scores”

“I want to get at least the lowest standard scores”

In addition, 18.95% of the students indicated that they cheat because of the

social value. The open-ended question number 29 posed, “What do you think?

What factors urge you to cheat on exams?” The students’ perspectives were

translated into English and quoted below:

“Because during the exam class everyone needs high score in order to

graduate and to certify that it is easier to get a job”

46    

“I am afraid of getting worse scores than my friends, failing the exams,

being complained from my parents, looked down from friends”

“As can be seen, nowadays everyone only wants to get good/high scores,

when he/she graduates he/she will get a job easily”

“I have a feeling that the society has an easy way and why do I have to

work or study hard though there’s easier way. Furthermore the modern

society and the wide public arena develop so fast but we (Lao people) still

stay the same without mental and ethic development.”

“Because taking the exams is a way to get scores for the future and to get

hired or get employed by a good companies or good places”

What is more, 41.11% of the students answered in the way that their

cheating behaviors were influenced by social value. The open-ended question

number 30 asked, “What do you think? Why do the other students cheat on

exams?” The students’ responses were translated into English and quoted below:

“They are afraid to fail the exam”

“They do not want to come and study term 3”

“They want to get good/high scores so that they do not have to come and

study modifying F Grade because it is a waste of money; to guarantee that

they will not have to come to study again, so that they will have future; to

make their parents proud of them; it is easy to apply for a job; to pass to

the next level“.

“They can’t do the exams but they want to get good scores”

“1. To Survive, 2 to get scores, 3, the better scores shown in the scores

sheet attached with the certificate”

47    

Discussion:

As can be seen from the answers given by the students. It is normal that

the society requires the students to have some certain points of certification to

get into the work place. On the other hand, this expectation from the society

stimulates students to cheat on the exams. The variables contributing to social

value factors could be seen as a pressure that the grades and score play a crucial

role in the students’ cheating behaviors. In the themes given by students, which

had been investigated carefully showed that the core influential aspect was not

the scores or the grades themselves. On the other hand, it is the society that

placed the value on how the grades and scores indicated the students’ life after

graduation.

Table 14: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors influenced by

teachers

Items Variables N Mean STD

Q18 There is no clarity of sanctions or explicitness of

academic integrity policies but only it is believed that cheating is considered wrong

420 3.06

1.37

Q 19 Teachers leave room during a test 420 2.76

1.10

Q 20 Everyone else seems to be cheating 416 3.37 1.08

Q 21 I am not confident in the teacher whether he is expert

in that field so I cheat

422 2.67

1.10

Another finding was how the teachers played an essential role in students’

cheating behaviors. According to the table above, one reason was because of the

teachers did not always stay in the examination class. As a result this gave

48    

students a chance to copy the answers from their peer or from the clip notes. The

table above illustrated that teachers leave the room during the test had a mean

score of 2.7667 which showed the score above the middle score of 2.5 and

standard deviation score of 1.10664 which showed there was no big gap between

the series of data from the mean score. In addition, the students cheated because

they were not sure that the teachers they were studying with were the experts in

the field. It showed in the table that the students agreed, “I am not confident in

the teacher whether he is an expert in that field” with the mean score of 2.6754

and the standard deviation of 1.10551. Some themes given by students indicated

the teachers’ play a part in students’ cheating behaviors as could be quoted

below:

According to the answers from the students, they claimed that they cheated

because of the way the teachers taught them which covered 0.47 %. The open-

ended questions number 28 asked, “How often you cheat on exams?” The

students’ answers were translated into English and quoted below:

“I can not remember the lesson taught, the teacher teaches

incomprehensively”

“The lessons are too hard the teachers teach incomprehensively”

Besides that, there were themes that the students claimed why they cheated

on the exams because of the teachers who were not strict on proctoring enough.

It covered 2.13% as it was translated into English and quoted below:

“We cheat whenever the teachers or proctors don’t complain and allow

cheating”

49    

“The teachers left the room to answer the phone or just go out side”

“I notice that my friends cheat and there is not complain from the teachers

or the proctors so I also cheat”

“The teachers/proctors are not strict”

In addition, some of the students claimed the other interesting points

which were influenced by the teachers. The details were translated into English

and quoted below:

“Sometimes I’m not sure with the answers and the teachers don’t see the

importance of answering the questions by comprehension and

understanding”

“The teachers tell me to be exact with the lessons from the book (I can’t

remember)”

“Because there’s pressure from the teachers”

“Because sometimes the questions make me not to understand, when I ask

the teachers to repeat they tend not to explain and they have such a rude

behaviors to the students since I was in year II”

In addition, the open question number 29 posed that “What do you think?

What factors urge you to cheat on exams” There was 2.12 % of the students

complaining about the way the teachers taught that influence them to cheat as

can be translated into English and quoted below:

50    

Profession in teaching:

“The class is too noisy, the teachers speak too softly. Thus I do not know

how to prepare for the exams”

“The teachers teach badly (sometimes they only come and teach us 2-3

times and then they hold the exam”

“Some teachers don’t have the right techniques or the appropriate ways to

teach and convey the meanings of the lessons so the students don’t

understand the lessons very well. Furthermore, the teachers don’t even pay

attention and care about the students in class, so the students also don’t

even pay attention or care about the lessons and cheat eventually”

“Sometimes there’s no hand-outs or any books for students while the

teachers don’t explain the lessons”

“The teachers are not good at transferring knowledge”

“Sometimes the ways the teachers teach are not good and clear enough”

“It’s a result that there’s no motivation to study such as: teachers can’t

motivate students to study, to be alert since there’s no activities involved.

Thus this leads to boredom and neglect to pay attention to study and to

have a look at the lessons”

“I’m lazy and neglected and the teachers don’t teach very well so the

students don’t understand”

“Teachers teach too fast and incomprehensively”

“Because the teachers don’t teach very well, they focus on the students

they like and pay more attention to those students, they build only 1 good

students but they do not care about the other students”

“Because the teachers can not control the students for example: there are

51    

50 students per 1 teacher. The cheaters get A grade but the students who

study hard get only D or F grades”

Teachers’ ethics:

“Because the teachers do not see the importance of answering the

questions by comprehension and understanding, they do not explain the

lessons clearly, they waste time on plain theories without explaining the

main purposes of the lessons”

“During the class the teachers always talk about something else outside the

lesson”

Teachers were neglected to proctors the class:

“The teachers/proctors are neglectful/procrastinated with the rules to

control the examination room”

“The teachers are neglectful and the students ignore the campaign and

strictness to anti cheating which it is not now our custom”

“Because of the teachers or proctors are not strict, if the teachers or

proctors were strict in the past I should have studied harder to pass the

exams”

“Because the teachers or proctors let students cheat”

“It is because of the teachers who allow students to be familiar with

cheating and to be lazy eventually”

“My friends in class cheat but there is no one (teachers/proctors) trying to

stop”

“There’s a chance allowed from the teachers/proctors”

“Because during the exams I do not cheat but my friends cheat and the

teacher observe that but refuse to act anything or do anything about that.

52    

Eventually the results of the cheaters are higher than me so it leads me to

think it would be better to cheat”

There was 5.91% of the students who explained that they cheated because

of the influence from their teachers. The question number 30 which sought to

know “What do you think? Why the other students cheat on exams?” The

students’ explanations were translated into English and quoted below:

Profession in teaching:

“The teachers do not teach explicitly and clearly”

“During the lessons the teachers do not teach very well so the students do

not pay attention to listen and to study”

“Mostly they do not understand the lessons well enough, the teachers do

not have a lessons revisions, they teach hurriedly which causes students

not to understand the lessons”

Teachers were neglected to proctors the class:

“There is much time in the exam class and the teachers/proctors also allow

them to cheat”

“Teachers and proctors do not ban cheating as they have said, so students

cheat on exam”

“The teachers or proctors are not strict enough”

“The teachers and proctors are not strict as foreign teachers do”

“We are sometimes allowed to cheat”

“The rules are not in action, especially the teachers (the teachers are not

53    

strict as indicated in the rules”

“The teachers/proctors are not strict to proctor the class”

“Sometimes the teachers/ proctors are kind and let them cheat”

Teachers’ ethics:

“It is not fair when there are some teachers’ relatives in the class who get

higher marks”

“The teachers/proctors are too kind and tolerant”

“Because the teachers are kind, they used to have feeling of being a

student as well.”

“The teachers do not teach and behave on student equally but they train

only some to be good students. Normally, Lao students do not like to show

and act out so they do not dare to complain the teachers. Finally they cheat

on the exams”

Discussion:

To summarize, the students’ cheating behaviors were influenced by their

teachers in three ways: 1. Profession in teaching, the comments given by the

students indicated that the teachers did not teach professionally. Thus, the

students did not understand the lessons and cheat eventually. This required a

further study to investigate the teachers whether the campus had appropriate,

professional, and qualified teachers. 2. Teachers were neglected to proctors the

class. To illustrate, the teachers were not strict enough to seriously punish or

54    

observe the problem of cheating. The actions taken by the teachers during the

classroom and the examination class required a closer look at the teachers’

responsibilities as a proctor. In addition, it is strongly shown that in the future a

new technology should be used to proctor the examination class or proctors who

did not teach at NUOL. 3. Teachers’ ethics, Gallant (2011) defined one of the

academic ethics facets. In this case, the teachers failed to fulfill their obligation

to their society (the campus). The campus expected their staffs to teach fulltime;

be honest and fair to the students; treat on the students equally.

Table 15: Variables explaining student’s cheating behaviors influenced by

the examination’s difficulty and unfairness

Items Variables N Mean STD

Q 4 You think that exams are too hard 418 3.14

.914

Q 5 Exams do not test what you have learnt 417 2.78

1.08

Q6 The test instructions are not clear 420

2.49

.983

The level of examination difficulty influences student’s cheating behaviors

in many ways: First, the students’ perspectives towards the difficulty of the

examinations, the Mean score of 3.1483 indicated that the students thought that

the exams were too hard for them. Second, the students cheated because they

thought that the examinations were not fair as specified by the students that the

exams were not about what they had learnt. Third, the test instructions were not

clear. Some of the interesting ideas from open-ended questions were quoted

logically from open-ended question number 28, 29 and 30.

55    

Question number 28 covered 10.42% indicated the examination was too

difficulty in the students’ point of views. The students’ answers were translated

into English and quoted below:

“The exams are too hard”

“I don’t understand the questions asked”

“The answers are too long and they are difficult”

“The teachers prepare a very difficult exam. For example: the open-ended

questions”

“The exams are not included in the revision format”

“The questions are not clear and the teachers could not explain”

“Sometimes the exams are not the same with the example format”

“The exams are outside the lessons”

“Because some items are the same as what exists in the lessons but some

are not”

“Sometimes the exams are not the same as what I have learnt”

“What I have a looked at is not what’s included in the exams so it’s

necessary to copy from the books”

“There is only a short time but the exams are too long and difficult”

Number 29 dominated 16.05% showed the students complaining the

examination difficulty. It posed the question: “What do you think? What factors

urge you to cheat on exams?” The students’ comments were translated into

English and quoted below:

“There is only little time to do exams so I cheat”

“The exams are not what I have memorized“

“The exams are too hard and complicated”

56    

“There are too many items (time is not enough), the exams are not

appropriate to the students’ level (the exams are much more difficult than

the lesson taught)”

“I do not understand the instructions given, and I can not translate some

questions”

“The questions are too hard and complicated, the contents of the exams are

not contained in the lesson and the time given is too short, but I need to get

the scores to get A or B grades”

“The exams’ instructions are not clear”

“I do not have confidence, the questions are complicated or I am not

familiar with the vocabularies”

“Because it is so difficult”

“The questions are too difficult and they are ambiguous and long. These

kinds of questions make students confused and answer the questions in

many different ways but those questions are not focused on the questions’

goal. The cause is the unclear questions”

The open-ended question number 30 portions 6.09% of the students

pointed out that the examination were too difficult for them. The students

answered the question that posed: “What do you think? Why the other students

cheat on exams?” The students’ responses were translated into English and

quoted below:

“The exams are too difficult”

“They are not sure, they are afraid not to answer correctly with the points,

they can not really do the exams.”

“The exams are not what they have a look at”

57    

“The lessons taught are different from the items on in the exams”

“The exams are too long, so the students are under pressure whether they

have enough time or not and they cheat”

The external forces influenced the students’ cheating behaviors, especially

the difficulty of the exams. As could be seemed from the students’ opinions the

exams were too hard for them. Thus, it requires an investigation deeply into the

suitability of the exam whether the exams were too difficult for the students or it

was because the students were too lazy and they tried to condemn the exams.

The themes given by students indicated that difficulty might be caused from the

students’ laziness for instance: they did not study hard and tried to lean to easier

way such as rote learning as could be shown in the following statements:

“The exams are not what I have memorized”

“Because the exams are too hard and sometimes the exams are not what I

have reviewed”

“There are so many things to have a look at”

“The exams are more difficult than the lessons in class”

“Mostly the teachers see the students as professors because some questions

are considered as very difficult questions or they are not related to the

lessons”

In addition, the students tried to fix their answers to the lessons taught or

contained in the books rather than understanding the concept of the lesson. A lot

of students had given their ideas to support this finding as quoted below:

“The lessons taught are different from the items present on the exams”

“They think the answers will be totally correct or the same with what their

teachers want”

58    

“If it is not the same thing taught by the teachers, the teachers would not

give us the scores”

“They want to have their answers responded correctly as the teachers

specified”

“Most of the students might think the same as me (I don’t remember the

lessons, but if I answer based on my understanding with what I have

learned. I am afraid my answers would not be the same thing with the

content contained in the books).”

Furthermore, student’s workload during the examination class is found to

be a crucial aspect to explain why student decide to cheat. The answers given by

the students from the open-ended questions were translated into English and

quoted below:

“I have limited time to do the exams and the time is not exactly specified.

For example: an exam is given 60 minutes period of time. But in the end

the sheets are collected just after 45 or 50 minutes pass. So this puts us

under pressure to cheat”

“There is not enough time but there are too many items on exams, thus

students are under pressure and they finally cheat”

“The exams are too long, so the students are under pressure whether they

have enough time or not so they cheat”

Discussion:

Although the students cheated because of the difficulty of the exams, there

were too many test items and some items were unclear. A deeper investigation is

required to find out whether the examination is fair enough for the students.

Meanwhile, it is more critical to focus on the students’ learning process.

59    

Especially the aspects contributed to help students to be logical and active in

learning rather than fixing the answers to what had been taught.

2. Internal factors:

There were several components, which contributed to the internal factors.

The result obtained from the factor analysis was contained in the table below to

show how the inner force played an essential role in the students’ cheating

behaviors

Table 16: Variables explaining students’ cheating behaviors influenced by

students’ characteristics

Items Variables N Mean STD

Q 2 You used to cheat in high school 421 2.80

1.07

Q 3 You are not sure about answers 412 3.04

.924

Q 9 You do not pay attention to study in class since you

know that you can eventually cheat when an exam comes

417 2.03

1.11

The students’ characteristic is the inner force, which plays a crucial role

in students’ behaviors. The explanation to this could be observed from the

variables in the table above. The students’ characteristics consisted of three main

dispositions:

The first disposition was the students’ previous experience. This character

was developed long before they attended the university. The students used to

cheat and learned to be dishonest since they were in high school. The score in

correlation matrix showed the relationship of the behaviors of the students who

used to cheat in their high school to the fellow characters the students are in the

60    

campus. To illustrate, the former experience in cheating in high school caused

two characteristics of the students who come to in the university: 1. Unprepared

knowledgeable students, and 2. Lazy student.

1. The students cheated because they were not sure about the answers.

The relationship between the test difficulty and the reason why the

students were not sure was quite high with the score in correlation

matrix of .308. This indicated that the students did not have plenty of

knowledge to be sure to answers the questions since they used to

cheat rather than studying hard. Even though, the exam’s difficulty

could have caused the students to be unsure but it was not important

when the students had have an ethics in deciding which actions to be

taken in any ethical dilemma they face.

2. The students did not pay attention to study since they realized that

they could eventually cheat. This meant the students cheated because

they were lazy, the laziness was developed before they came to the

campus. This required a further understanding from various aspects

why the students realized they could finally cheat such as: the

proctor process, the students’ moralities and so on.

The second variable was the students who were not confident in

themselves. They were not sure in answering the questions which had a mean

score of 3.0437 and the standard deviation score of .92441. As a result, this

clearly showed that the students were influenced by their own characteristics of

being uncertain or trusting in themselves.

61    

The third variable, which indicated the internal factor was the students’

lack of attention to study that influenced the students to cheat on the exams. It

had a mean score of 2.0384 and the standard deviation score of 1.11090.

Discussion:

It is obvious that this characteristic was developed from the environment

they used to study in such as: the students’ previous environment in their high

school that affected them to cheat and the current environment which was the

students realized that they could eventually cheated. This meant that the students

were not afraid of getting caught during the exams. On the other hand, it might

be that the students did not have the ethics and morals to resist the distractions

from the outside force and the environment they were in.

Summary of Open-ended Questions

The answers given by the students were not only useful to support the

findings. In addition, the students also claimed some of their own perspectives

towards their decision to cheat which were classified in to many themes. There

were 3 open-ended questions contained in the questionnaires. To illustrate, the

reason why the students cheated were investigated and classified into 11

categories which belongs to Internal and External factors as could be illustrated

below:

Internal factor:

1. Lack of passion to study

One of the truths behind the students’ cheating behaviors was the lack of

passion to study. The students did not have a motivation and there was no

challenge for them to study. However, this requirs a deeper understand why

62    

students attend the university but still do not have the willingness to pursue their

education or at least they should have tried their best instead of being dishonest

and cheat on the exams. The illustration were translated into English and

reported below:

“I am lazy, there is little motivation and there is no clear challenge for

study”

“I do not pay attention when the teachers explain”

“They are lazy to study”

“The score is more important than knowledge”

“They do not want to study but they do not want to fail the exams”

2. Lacking of confidence

The students commented that they cheated because they did not have a

confidence and they were not sure with their own answers. The uncertainty

caused the students to cheat; they were not sure while taking an exam. Thus,

they finally cheat on the exams. The students’ opinion regarding this finding

were translated into English and copied below:

“I am not sure with the answers”

“I am not sure”

“I’m not confident in myself”

“I am not confident in myself whether my answers are right or wrong”

“They are not sure with their answers so they want to make sure that their

peer’s answer are the same so they have a look at their peers”

“They are not sure with the answers”

“There must be something to compare”

63    

3. Passive learning

The students cheated because they expected their teachers or the

institutional staff to give and help them with everything. Instead of being active

learners who relied on their own attempts, they decided to cheat since their

teachers did not provide them with what they should learn to survive when the

exam came. The students’ answers were translated into English and quoted

below:

“Teachers do not help us to review the lessons”

“The teachers do not help us to review the lesson”

“Because the teachers never review what is similar to the exams”

“They do not know what/where to have a look at the lesson”

“They do not research the lessons by themselves”

4. Cognitive development

There were so many responses indicated that cheating happened because

the students thought they had low level of knowledge, weak memories and

inability in studying. The students’ explanation were translated into English and

recorded below:

“Sometimes when I can not recall the lessons taught”

“I do not get and understand the lessons”

“I am not good at studying so I cheat”

“Because I do not quite pay attention to study, I am not good at study,

sometimes I can not remember”

“Because I don not quite pay attention to study, I am not good at study,

sometimes I can not remember”

64    

“I do not understand the lesson clearly”

“I do not get the lessons taught completely”

“I conclude that I do not have enough knowledge”

“I can not remember what have learned, I forget quickly, because I don not

know”

“In my opinion, I think other students cheat because they can not really do

exams even they have tried to review the lesson”

“They lack of knowledge and academic knowledge”

“I am not good at studying so I want to have a look at the good students’

papers”

“They are not good at studying, they do not understand the lesson (because

of the students themselves).”

“They are poor at studying”

5. Rote-learning

There was a relationship between the students’ cheating behaviors and the

student’s learning style. The students did not learn and understand the concept of

the lessons. On the other hand, they come to class without paying attention and

they also had no passion to study. Thus they did not acquire the lessons they

should have learned. As a result when the exams come the students try to recite

or memorize what is supposed to be on the exams. The students informed the

details which were translated into English and quoted below:

“Some items are not what I have recited”

“I always cheat when I do not review the lesson”

“I do not review the lesson or I suddenly forget the answers”

“I can not remember the lesson, I do not memorize it”

65    

“The exams contain a lot of theories, and there are to many things to recite

so I do not remember and cheat”

“There are some items I recite but I can not remember while taking the

exam so I cheat”

“They recite the lessons but they forget”

6. Previous experience

The students cheated because they have developed and experienced

cheating habits long before they attended the university. The students shared

their experiences as translated into English and quoted below:

“I used to cheat since high school”

“Because I used to cheat since I was in high school so I become a student

who do not have knowledge and especially in higher education”

“Because cheating on exams is the conventional behavior which everyone

behave from generation to generation long time ago as it become a habit”

“They used to cheat so they become lazy students and they lack of intention”

“I used to cheat and I never get caught so I do again and again because I

think it is easier than studying hard.”

“Because it is their neglect and carelessness and from the past they have

seen the other students cheat and get better scores”

“It has become a custom and a social value, which derive long ago”

“They are addicted to cheating behaviors”

66    

External factor:

1. Unfair exam

The students pointed out that they cheated because they felt the exams

were not fair for them. It consisted of both the difficulty of the exam and the

exams which were not about what they had learned. In order to display this

scenario the student’s comments are recorded below:

“The exams are not what I have learned”

“Time allowed for the exams is too short”

“The exams are outside the lessons”

“The exams are too hard and complicated”

“Because sometimes the teachers teach one thing and the exam is another

thing”

“The exams’ instructions are not clear”

“If I do not cheat I will not have a good result (scores) because the scores

from real knowledge acquire from learning will never be as good as the

scores from cheating since cheating tends to be exactly the same answers

from the books.”

“The questions are too difficult and they are ambiguous and long”

2. Social value and future goals

The society has put the students in a difficult situation. The students are

under pressure to cheat because of grades and certificates. In addition, the

students were afraid of failing since the society has a negative view towards the

students who fail. The students told the followings representative idea:

67    

“I am afraid of studying the same level for another year. And I am nervous

I will not get the degree”

“I am afraid of getting low scores”

“I want to get high score”

“I do not want to study term III”

“I am afraid of getting F”

“Because during the exam class everyone needs high score in order to

graduate and be certified that it is easier to get a job”

“I am afraid of getting worse scores than my friends, failing the exams,

hearing complaints from my parents, looked down on from friends”

“I want to get high scores because the scores will influence my future’s

career”

“I have a feeling that the society has an easy way and why I have to work

or study hard, though there is an easier way. Furthermore the modern

society and the wide public arena develop so fast but we (Lao people) still

stay the same without mental and ethic development”

“Because taking the exams is a way to get scores for the future. In order to

get hired or get employed by a good company”

“Being awarded the certificate is what all the students want”

“Everyone wants to get high scores and does not want to fail”

3. Peer/parents influence

There is a crucial outside-force from the students’ friends and their parents

that cause the students to cheat as can be seen from the students’ point of views

below:

68    

“I am afraid of friends, teachers and parents will complain about me”

“I see so many people cheat so I also cheat”

“Usually, I see my friends cheat so it seems acceptable to cheat”

“Because my peers always cheat, but I am the one who studies hard. And I

finally get lower scores than the cheaters”

“I do not want to be mocked by my friends if I fail”

“I am afraid of making my parents feel bad and disappointed in my

weakness in studying.”

4. Institutional/teachers’ influences

As can be seen, students’ peers and their parents play an essential role in

the students’ cheating behavior. Meanwhile, the institution and the teachers also

play a part in the students’ decision to cheat on the exams. The students have

stated their ideas below:

“We cheat whenever the teachers or proctors do not complain and allow

cheating”

“There are not exact and strict rules to prevent cheating and sometimes the

cheaters get higher marks than the students who study hard. I feel bad with

such unfair issue”

“The cheating management is not done properly so the students are not

afraid of the rules”

“The rules are not in action, especially the teachers (the teachers are not

strict as the rules indicated”

5. Teaching style

The students blamed the way the teachers teach that affected them to

cheat. The students have complained the following quotes:

69    

“The lessons are too hard the teachers teach incomprehensively”

“Some teachers do not have the right techniques or the appropriate ways to

teach and convey the meaning of the lessons so the students do not

understand the lessons very well. Furthermore, the teachers do not even

pay attention/care about the students in class, so the students also do not

pay attention or care about the lessons and cheat eventually”

“Sometimes there are no hand-outs or any books for students while the

teachers do not explain the lessons”

“The teachers are not good at transferring knowledge”

“Because 90% of the teachers do not know how to classify and manage

upper/advanced and lower level”

“There is no good teaching and learning”

“During the lessons the teachers do not teach very well so the students do

not pay attention to listen and to study”

Other reasons

The other reasons are smaller still they are quoted below:

“I do not have time to research the lessons”

“I am not ready to take the exams yet”

“I do not have time to study because I have to take many exams for the

other subjects at the same time”

“I have a good memory when I cheat.”

“They do not really know what to do”

“They lack moral support for example: family status, the surrounding

environment”

“It is personal characters”

70    

“I want to get something done on the papers/sheet while taking an exam”

“They are studying and working at the same time”

“They know the best way to cheat which the teachers/proctors never

realize/know”

Discussion:

The students were free to answer and inform their own perspectives

regarding the reasons they cheat. There were many different themes which were

grouped into Internal and External factors. To illustrate: Internal factors

consisted of 5 big groups of the ideas: 1. Lack of passion to study, 2. Lacking of

confidence, 3. Passive learning, 4. Cognitive development. 5. Rote-learning, and

6. Previous experience. An understanding to the factors that affected all of these

dispositions is required. Number 1 to 3 is the dispositions that the students can

learn to change from the institution’s support and they can build better

characteristics. On the other hand, the cognitive development requires both

further studies in physical test studies such as: an investigation of locus of

control or genes and practical test studies such as: parents’ education and the

environments the students were in since they were young. Meanwhile, number 6,

the students’ previous experience required the further studies in primary school,

secondary, and high school to investigate why the students learned to cheat from

these early stages before entering to the campus. External factors composed of 6

main groups of the answers and it could be divided into 3 more subgroups such

as: 1. Unfair exam, institutional/teachers’ influences, teaching styles, 2. Social

value and future goals, 3. Peer/parents influences. The 1 subgroup came from

the institutional influence. It is necessary to investigate the test developers who

prepare the test items for the students. At the same time, teachers and the

71    

approaches used in teaching are also crucial to have a deeper investigation.

Another subgroup was the social value and future goals. In the questionnaires

there are several items that seeks to know whether the students cheat because

they are under strong pressure that the society put on them. In this section which

is an open-ended questions, the students were free to answer still they claimed

that they needed to get scores in order to get more chances for future

employment and study. The last subgroup is the influences from the students’

peers and parents. The students’ parents expect a good result from their son and

daughter this puts a stress on the students and make them cheat. While the

students observed their peer cheating and follow such behaviors.

The pervasiveness of the cheating problem

Table 17: Variables contributed to explain how pervasive the cheating

problem at the campus was

Items Variables by asking how often

you do these things when taking exam

N Mean STD Participated Non-participated

Q 31 Copy the answers from your friends

419

2.90

.933

96% 4.0%

Q 32 Let your friend(s) copy answers

from your sheet 416 3.27

.949

97.9% 2.1%

Q 33 Use hands gestures or signal to

tell your friends(s) 415 2.53

1.09

81.8% 18.2%

Q 34 Receive the answers from your

friends’ signal or hand gesture 418 2.38

1.05

78.4% 21.6

Q 35 Smuggle clip notes with some

answers to copy 418 2.56

1.08

86.5% 13.5

72    

Table 17: Variables contributed to explain how pervasive the cheating

problem at the campus was

Items Variables by asking how often

you do these things when taking exam

N Mean STD Participated Non-participated

Q 36 Use mobile phone to help in cheating such as: looking up for meanings of words, store some pictures, texts

420

2.56

1.19

78.7% 21.3

Q 37 Change your answers since the cheaters said this is right and that is wrong

417

2.58

1.10

82.5% 17.5 %

Q 38 You choose to sit at the back of

the class to avoid the teachers or proctors’ sight

418

2.48

1.14

77.3% 22.7 %

Q 39 Write major points on the table,

wall, learning equipment such as ruler, pen and so on

421

2.22

1.09

71.1% 28.9 %

Q 40 Copy from other students

without them realizing (giraffing)

419

2.54

1.04

85.5% 14.5 %

Q 41 Hurry to copy from friends or

books when the teachers or proctors tell you to hand in the sheets

413

2.71

1.13

85.3% 14.7 %

Q 42 Hurriedly write the answers for your friends

419 2.68

1.07

87.4% 12.6 %

There is a great pressure for the students to cheat. The findings clearly

indicated that there were two factors: Internal and External. In this part, the table

above showed how pervasive the cheating problem was at the Dongdok Campus.

To illustrate, the students cheated by smuggling the clip not into the examination

class with the mean score of 2.56 and standard deviation of 1.089, it covered

86.5% of participants. In addition, the students also wrote or marked some major

points on the table, wall and their learning equipment, which had a mean score

73    

of 2.22 and the standard deviation of 1.092, with 71.1% of the students saying

that they had done this. Furthermore, there was a participation in various form of

cheating which showed how widespread the cheating problem is that occurs

across the Campus such as: 81.8% of the students participated in using hands

gestures or signal to tell your friends(s); 78.4% of the students participated in

receiving the answers from your friends’ signal or hand gesture; 78.7% of the

students participated in using mobile phone to help in cheating such as: looking

up for meanings of words, storing some pictures, texts; 82.5% of the students

participated in changing their answers since the cheaters said this was right and

that was wrong; 85.5% of the students participated in copying from other

students without them realizing (giraffing); 85.3% of the students participated in

coping from friends or books hurriedly when the teachers or proctors told them

to hand in the sheets; 87.4% of the students participated in writing the answers

for their friends hurriedly. There was a 96% participation in copying the

answers from their friends while there was a 97.9% participation in letting their

friend(s) copy the answer from their sheet. According to the number of the

students who participated in any form of cheating, the researcher has drawn a

conclusion that the cheating problem in the Dongdok Campus is rampant, it has

reached the point where the institution is in a distressing and uncomfortable

situation. The participation score indicated the percent over 78% in every form

of cheating showing that it spreads across the Campus.

74    

Chapter V

Conclusion

To summarize, the interpretation has lead the researcher to draw a

conclusion into 3 parts: 1. Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat

on the exams, 2. The pervasiveness of the problem of cheating and 3. The

practical implication from this study.

1. Factors influencing undergraduate students to cheat on the exams

The external factors that influence the students to cheat on the exams

consists of 3 sub-external factor such as: 1. student’s cheating behaviors

influenced by social values 2. student’s cheating behaviors influenced by

teachers, and 3. student’s cheating behaviors influenced by the examination’s

difficulty and unfairness. In addition, there are some themes from open-ended

questions to support this external factor such as:

1) Peer/parents’ influence

2) Institutional/teachers’ influence

3) Teaching style

Another factor that influences the students to cheat on the exams is an

Internal factor, which are the students’ characteristics. The factors analysis

indicated three main characteristics: 1. students’ previous experience, 2. Lacking

of confidence and 3. Lacking of attention to study. To illustrate, there are 6

characteristics from the students’ answers in open-ended questions to support

this finding.

75    

1) Unethical decision style

2) Passive learning

3) Cognitive development

4) Rote-learning

2. The pervasiveness of the cheating problem

This finding has indicated that it is urgent and necessary to solve the

cheating problem since it is spread across the campus. The students participated

in every forms of cheating provided in the questionnaires.

3. The practical implication from this study

There is no clear-cut implication to solve the cheating problem

immediately. Every single variable that influences the students to cheat need a

deeper understanding from the continuous study. However, The results gain

pointed out that there were no rules, orientations and campaign to manage the

cheating problems in the Campus. Thus the first practical implication is the need

for orientation, workshop and campaign. Another great impact from society’s

pressure is the social value. Meanwhile the suggestion from McCabe et al (2012)

regarding the changing social value is to start from the integrated stakeholders

such as the students’ family, teachers, administrators, policy makers and society.

Nevertheless, one of the most important elements in social value is the pressure

to get scores. Thus, the second implication is to engage the students in the

pursuit of lessons rather than scores, grades or certificate.

76    

Chapter VI

General opinions & Recommendations

This study was only a very small step toward looking into and solving the

problem of cheating at the Dongdok Campus. There were many significant

points, which were not investigated in detail yet such as: the further

investigation of the level of the tests’ difficulty, how do the peers and parents

play an essential role in the students’ cheating behaviors, ethics in the teachers’

conducts, the factors influence the students to cheat on exams before they attend

the university, what are the teaching methods that influence in students’ decision

to cheat, why do the students have no passions to learn that make them cheat,

why do the students lack of confidence while taking exams, the reasons why the

students rely on rote and passive learning which cause the students to cheat, and

how can cognitive development influence the students to cheat. However, the

results have given the researcher a very strong and concrete background for the

next project. This chapter has been divided into 2 main points such as: general

opinions towards this project and recommendations for the next project.

1. General opinions

Although the number of the students who admitted that they cheat was

over 78% in every forms of cheating provided in the questionnaires. But if 100%

of the students cheated, then what kind of result should be reported for this

problem? The researcher still believes that the cheating problem is more serious

and pervasive than the results have indicated. It is not consistent that the same

number of the students yielded a different result. For example: the number of the

students who copied the answers from their peers with mean score of 2.90 and

the standard deviation of .933, and the number of participants was 419 students.

77    

While, the number of participants of 416 students who let the other students

copy had the mean score of 3.27 and the standard deviation of 0.949. The

standard deviation score indicated no big deviation from the mean score. As a

result this showed that there was less number of the cheaters than the number of

the person who let others copy.

2. Recommendations

Because this study was the first one to investigate about cheating, it was

considered as a strange and scandalous project for both the students and the

teachers at the targeted classrooms during the time the researcher administrated

the questionnaires. It is recommended that the next project should have a

workshop for both the students and teachers regarding the consequences of

cheating on exams. As the researcher did a short orientation around 5 minutes to

explain the projects before administering the questionnaires, it was found to be

very useful for the students and the teachers to give a good participation.

According to the findings from the interpretation, the others very crucial

and beneficial recommendations are the methods to manage the cheating

problems. It is believed that there are two stages to cope with such problems: 1.

Short-term deterrent, and 2. Long-term deterrent.

Short-term deterrents

The findings indicated that the students engaged in every forms of

cheating with more 78% of the participations for each. At the same time, the

teachers have played a part in the students’ cheating behaviors such as: neglect

to detect cheating. In addition, the students claimed that there were not clear

policies, rules. Thus, in the short term it is required punishment, penalties, strict

78    

rules, detections, and the proctors who are not the current teachers or who is in

charge of any other careers.

Long-term deterrent

The short-term deterrents can be implemented within the campus and there

is no need to take much time and budget. On the other hand, because the

students’ cheating behaviors in the Dongdok Campus were influenced by both

internal and external factors. This meant the cheating problems dominated a

huge area from inside and outside the campus. To illustrate, the variables in each

factor lie in a wide area of personnel in charge of the students’ cheating

behaviors such as: the personnel in society, the family and the campus. In the

long run, it is required the sustainable solutions which involve all stakeholders in

the campus and the society to deter the cheating problems. The illustrations are

mentioned below:

Davis (2009) stated that the main task of the institutions to solve the

problem of cheating is not to detect cheaters but to create a culture of integrity

and an environment where cheating is socially unacceptable. The students at

Dongdok campus did not have the ethics and morals since they have not been

taught to have a good moral judgment and academics ethics. This can be

illustrated from the students’ characteristics in seeing the importance of scores

and grades to get ahead in the workforce and also the social value rather than the

knowledge in their fields for profession. In addition, the number of the students

who decide to cheat is very high (more than 78% in every form of cheating) this

means they do not have a strong inner force which morality-judgment and

ethical-decision styles to fight against outside forces and distractions. Thus in

the long run the institution needs to engage students in morality and ethics.

79    

Davis (2009) suggests that, despite teaching and developing students’ ability in

judging morally, establishing moral intent, and engaging in moral behavior, the

institution can excellently change the social conceptions that many academic

behaviors which are only considered as morally disagreeable to morally

reprehensible.

Moreover, Goodchild (n.d) as cited in Gallant (2011: 135) suggested

systems to empowering change and creating the ethical academy: 1. Enhancing

individual responsibility in higher education (embracing ethical theory in

professional decision-making frameworks). Adrianna J. et al (n.d) as cited in

Gallant (2011: 153) recommended an enacting transcendental leadership

(creating and supporting a more ethical campus). Keller (n.d) as cited in Gallant

(2011: 169) suggested a systems to empowering change and creating the ethical

academy. It is integrating ethics education across the education system.

Furthermore, one of the very important and potential influences on the ethical

academy is from Drinan (n.d) as cited in Gallant (2011: 183) he proposes that to

support the systems. It is necessary to expand the radius of trust to external

stakeholders (value infusions for a more ethical academy).

What is more, McCabe et at (2012) suggested a sustainable solution which

is an implementation of a culture of integrity. In this way the culture will grow a

common ideas, customs, and social behaviors for the campus at large. In

addition, he also specified that even though the culture can have a significant

impact on academic integrity but what makes the difference is to encourage the

institutions’ environment to develop and maintenance an ethical community that

is called a culture of academic integrity. This suggestion is very beneficial to the

circumstances at the Dongdok Campus. However, in order to create a culture

80    

which has various steps beyond an implementation of a traditional honor code

environment. It is required several questions such as: Are the students and

institution’s staff open to change? What are their attitudes toward cheating

problems? And what can be changed to improve the existing culture?

Further research

The future research needs to focus on the students’ morality and ethics,

which are considered as the inside power to stop cheating. In addition, it also

requires an investigation into the ethics of the teachers as they play a crucial role

in the students’ cheating behaviors. The other future studies should examine

closer to the suitability of the level of difficulty of the exams, the factors

affecting students to have no passions in studying because this is considered as

one reason that influences the students to cheat, the reason why the students

have no confidence which causes the students to cheat as well, and how

academic dishonesty is managed. Especially, managing the problems of cheating

on exams at the campus.

1    

Reference:

Beauchamp, A., & Murdock, T. (2009) Cheating. 25, June 2013 retrieved from the

WORLD WIDE WEB: http://www.education.com/reference/article/cheating/

Björklund, M. & Wenestam, C. (1999) Academic Cheating: frequency, methods, and

causes (Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,

Lahti, Finland 22-25 September.) Åbo Akademi University Department of

Teacher Education, Vasa, Finland. Retrieved 21, July 2013 from the WORLD

WIDE WEB: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001364.htm

Chinamasa, E., Mavaru, L., Maphosa, C., & Tarambawamwe, P. (2011). Examinations

cheating: Exploring strategies and contributing factors in five Universities in

Zimbabwe (pp. 86-101). Journal of Innovative Research in Education 1(1), April

2011. Retrieved 12, June 2013 from: www.grpjournal.org

Davis, F. S., Drinan, F. P., & Gallant, B. T. (2009) Cheating in School: What We Know

and What We Can Do. WILEY-BLACKWELL, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,

Publication

Dornyei Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research, Construction,

Administration, and Processing. LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES,

PUBLISHERS. Mahwa, New Jersey

2    

Excellence and ethic. (Winter 2011. p3) The Education Letter of the Smart & Good

Schools Initiative. Retrieved 3, August 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://www2.cortland.edu/dotAsset/317302.pdf

Field, A. (2005) Factor Analysis Using SPSS, Retrieved 10, April 2014 from the

WORLD WIDE WEB: http://www.statisticshell.com/docs/factor.pdf

Gallant, T. B. (2011) Creating the Ethical Academy, A System Approach to

Understanding Misconducted and Empowering Change in Higher Education.

Routledge, Milton Park, the United Kingdom

Halima, D. (2003). A Study of Some Socio-psychological Factors of Cheating in

Examination AMONY Students of KADUNA Polytechnic. Unpublished Master

Thesis, Ahmadu Bello university, Nigeria

Jonhson, S. (n.d) Academic Integrity. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from the WORLD WIDE

WEB: http://www.ue.ucsc.edu/academic_integrity

Magnus, J. R., Polterovich, V. M., Danilove, D. L., & Savvateev, A. V. (2002).

Tolerance of Cheating: An Analysis Across Countries. Retrieved 17, June 2013

from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220480209596462#.UfUdnmT0-

Fc

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001) Cheating in Academic

Institutions: A Decade of Research, Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219-232. Retrieved 4,

June 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

3    

http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/257513/original/Decade_of_Research.pd

f

McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (2002). Honesty and Honor Codes. Academic, 99, 37-41.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2012) Cheating in College: Why

Students Do It and What Educators Can Do About It. Johns Hopkins University

Press. the United States of America

Meizlish, D. (2005). Promoting academic integrity in the classroom. CRLT Occasional

Paper No. 20. Retrieved from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://www.crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource_files/CRLT_no20.pdf

Mohammade, Y. N. (2012). Special Lecture: Challenges in Education Towards the

Realization of ASEAN Community 2015. Retrieved 13, June 2013 from the

WORLD WIDE WEB: www.site.rmutt.ac.th/cpscworkshop/materials/sp.pdf

National University of Laos (NUOL) Website, (2013) retrieved from the WORLD

WIDE WEB: http://fol.edu.la/en/about/history.html

Roth, B. (2011) Cheating in College Can Ruin Your Life. Retrieved 3, July 2013 from

the WORLD WIDE WEB: http://collegesuccess.blog.com/2011/03/02/cheating-

in-college-can-ruin-your-life/

Ruto, K. D., Kipkoech, C. L. & Rambaei, D. K. (2001). Moi University, Eldoret,

Kenya. Problem of Management in the 21th Century, 2. 173-181. Retrieved on

4    

23, June 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pmc/files/pdf/Ruto_Vol.2.pdf

Saengmany, K. (2007). Student Cheat Caught Using Mobile Phone, University

Entrance Exam Committee Says Entrance Tests Fairer This Year. Vientiane

Times Newspaper. p3, July 18, 2007

Taderera, E., Nyikahadzoi, L., Matamande, W., & Mandimika, E. (n.d). Exploring

Management Strategies to Reduce Cheating in Written Examinations: Case Study

of Midlands State University. Journal of Case Studies in Education. Retrieved 17,

June 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131528.pdf

UNESCO, Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Reporting 2005 (THE

QUALITY IMPERATIVE), Retrieved 17, June 2013 from the WORDL WIDE

WEB: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf

VaenKeo, S. (2012) Measures Outlined to Prevent Use of Fake Diplomas. Vientiane

Time Newspaper. Wednesday JUNE 20, 2012. ISSUE 141

Vice Chanceller and Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity, Research on

Academic Integrity (2005), Research findings. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University. Retrieved 25, July 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://its.syr.edu/admin-sys/est/miscdocs/ResearchReport.pdf

5    

Viphavanh, P. (2010). Lao Ministry Admits to Fraud, Cheating in Education. Vientiane

Times Newspaper. Monday JUNE 21, 2010. ISSUE 144

Watson, J. (2001). How to Determine a Sample Size: Tipsheet#60, University Park,

PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension. Retrieve 21, July 2013 from the WORLD

WIDE WEB: http://www.extension.psu.edu/evaluation/pdf/TS60.pdf

Whitley, E. B., Jr. Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002) Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s

Guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. the United States of America.

Witherspoon, M., Maldonado. N., & Lacey C. H. (2012) Undergraduates and

Academic Dishonesty, International Journal of Business and Social Sciences. 3.

76-86. Retrieved 10, August 2013 from the WORLD WIDE WEB:

http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_1_January_2012/9.pdf

  1  

Appendix 1 Questionnaire in English Version

Dear Students, this questionnaire is written to gain information for a thesis submitted to the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master in TEFL. In addition the research is dedicated to help improve our education, especially in term of qualitative education. You can be a part of helping our department and our country to improve by answering the following questions.

Part I Personal information: Age: 17-18 � /19-20 �/ 21-22 �/23-24 �/ <25 �

Sex: Male �/Female � Nationality: Lao� other…………

Part II Factors influencing students to cheat on exams

Put a tick (ü) to rate the scales, which are true for you No You cheat on the exam because 5.

Always (100%)

4. Often (75%)

3. Sometimes

(50%)

2. Seldom (25%)

1. Never (0%)

1 I don’t want to study term III (Modify F)

2 You used to cheat in high school

3 You are not sure about answers

4 You think that exams are too hard

5 Exams do not test what you have learnt

6 The test instructions are not clear

7 Low severe of punishment

8 You do not prepare well before exams

9 You do not pay attention to study in class since you know that you can eventually cheat when an exam comes

10 You think that even teachers or proctors see you cheat they will never complain because they used to be a student as well

11 The lesson revision is not done in class only the teacher asks you to revise the lesson by yourself at home

12 Too little and limited time available to study in class and you don’t know how to study by yourself at home

13 To pass the exam is more important than gaining the knowledge

  2  

No How often you cheat on the exam because

5. Always (100%)

4. Often (75%)

3. Sometimes

(50%)

2. Seldom (25%)

1. Never (0%)

14 You want to create a standard scores to continue your study in higher level or to pursue scholarship

15 Your friends help and you feel obligated to help them back when they can’t do the exams

16 Pressure & expectation from your family

17 Pressure & expectation to work in a good place

18 Teachers or proctors allow or give chances to cheat since you can’t answer any thing

19 Teachers leave room during a test

20 Everyone else seems to be cheating

21 I am not confident in the teacher whether he is expert in that field so I cheat

22 There is no campaign or orientation about being an honest student

23 There is no clarity of sanctions or explicitness of academic integrity policies but only it is believed that cheating is considered wrong

24 New technologies allow you to cheat, such as: mobile phone, copy machine

25 The saying “Study to get knowledge, take exams to get scores”

26 The saying “Passing the exams dirtily is better than failing cleanly”

28 How often you cheat on exams

because…………………………………

…………………………………………

…………………………………………

…………………………………………

  3  

29 What do you think? What factors urge you to cheat on exams?.....................................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

30 What do you think the other students cheat on exams because?.......................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

………………....................................................................................................................

  4  

Part III Frequency and methods students use to assist cheating on the exams Put a tick (ü) to rate the scales, which are true for you

No How often you do these things when

taking exam 5.

Always (100%)

4. Often (75%)

3. Sometimes

(50%)

2. Seldom (25%)

1. Never (0%)

31 Copy the answers from your friends

32 Let your friend(s) copy answers from your sheet

33 Use hands gestures or signal to tell your friend(s) the

34 Receive the answers from your friends’ signal or hand gestures

35 Smuggle clip notes with some answers to copy

36 Use mobile phone to help in cheating such as: looking up for meanings of words, store some pictures, texts.

37

Change your answers since the cheaters said this is right that is wrong.

38

You choose to sit at the back of the class to avoid the teachers or proctor’s sight

39

Write major points on the table, wall, learning equipment’s such as ruler, pen and so on

40

Copy from other students without them realizing (Giraffing)

41

Hurry to copy from friends or books when the teachers or proctors tell you to hand in the sheets

42

Hurriedly write the answers for your friends.

Thank you so much for your time spending on the questionnaire.

If you have any question about the questionnaire or any unclear questions

Please don’t hesitate to contact Mr. Thanongdeth Nalisak

Tel: 020 95329701 Email: Thanongdeth.nalisak@Gmai.com

1

ແບບສອບຖາມ

ຽຊຄຌກຘກຘາກໂໞາຌໃຉບຍຍຍຘບຍຊາຓ, ຍຍຘບຍຊາຓຘະຍຍຌໄຓຈຎະຘຄ ຽຑໃບຂຂໄຓຌເຌກາຌຽປຈຍຈໄຌທໟາຍຆໄຌຎະຖຌງາ ຖະ ຽຑໃບຆໞທງຎຍຎຄ ຖະ ຑຈະຌາຖະຍຍກາຌຘກຘາ ຈງຘະຽຑາະຓຌດ ທະງາຽຂຈຈຄຈງ (ຓະນາແຖນຄຆາຈ). ໞາຌຘາຓາຈຽຎຌຘໞທຌໜໃຄເຌກາຌຆໞທງຑຈະຌາກາຌຘກຘາຂບຄຖາທຽປາຑຄຉຽຖບກຉບຍາຊາຓຖຓຌໄ:

ຑາກ 1 ຂໄຓຌຘໞທຌຉທ: ບາງ: 17-18/19-20/21-22/23-24/>25. ຽຑຈ: ຆາງ/ງຄ ຘຌຆາຈ ຖາທ ບໃຌໂ............................

ຑາກ 2 ຎຈເໃຓຏຌກະຍຽປຈເນຌກປຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄ

ຉໃຓຽໃບຄໝາງຊກ () ຽຑໃບຉບຍາຊາຓໃໞາຌຈທໞາຊກກຍຉໞາຌຽບຄໃຘຈ.

ຖ/ຈ ໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະທໞາ 5. ກໂຽໃບ (100%)

4. ຽຖໄບງໂ (75%)

3. ຍາຄຽໃບ (50%)

2. ຈຌໂຽໃບ (25%)

1. ຍໃຽງຽຖງ

(0%)

1 ຍໃດາກຓາປຌຽຓ 3 (ກF) 2 ຽງກໞາງຓາຉໄຄຉຉບຌປຌຓຎາງຖທ 3 ໞາຌຍໃຌເເຌາຉບຍ 4 ໞາຌຈທໞາຍຈຽຘຄຌໄຌງາກຑຈ 5 ຍຈຽຘຄຍໃແຈບບກຉາຓຍຈປຌໃແຈປຌຓາ 6 ນທຍຈຘບຍຽຘຄຍໃະຄ, າຊາຓຍໃະຄ

(ຍໃຽຂໄາເາຊາຓ)

7 ກາຌຖຄຈຍໃໜກຽໃາໃທຌ 8 ໞາຌຍໃແຈຽຍໃຄຍຈປຌຽຑໃບກຓຽຘຄ 9 ໞາຌຍໃແຈຉໄຄເປຌເຌນໟບຄຽຑາະຈທໞາປບຈຓໄ

ຽຘຄກະກໞາງຽບາ

10 ໞາຌຈທໞາຽຊຄະຽນຌທໞາກໞາງຽຑໃຌກະຍໃທໞານງຄຽຑາະຽຑໃຌກຽງຽຎຌຌກປຌກຌໜໟາະຽຂໄາເ

11 ບາາຌຍໃຑາທຌຌຍຈປຌກໞບຌຽຘຄຓຉຍບກຍຈປຌເນ,ຖທແຎໄຌທໟາຽບາຽບຄດຍໟາຌ

12 ຽທຖາເຌກາຌປຌເຌນໟບຄຓໜໟບງກຍຍໟາຌແຎກຍໃປທໞາະປຌຈໟທງຉຽບຄໃຄເຈ

13 ກາຌຽຘຄແຈຘາຌນາງກທໞາກາຌປຌຽບາທາຓປ

14 ຘໟາຄຓາຈຉະຊາຌະຌຌແທຽຑໃບດຌປຌຉໃ ນຂຌປຌຉໞາຄໂ

15 ຓໝຍບກ, ຽຑາະຽປາຽບຄກຽງຆໞທງໝເຌຽທຖາຽຂາຽໄາຍໃຘາຓາຈຽຘຄແຈເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄ

2

ຖ/ຈ ໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະທໞາ 5. ກໂຽໃບ (100%)

4. ຽຖໄບງໂ (75%)

3. ຍາຄຽໃບ (50%)

2. ຈຌໂຽໃບ (25%)

1. ຍໃຽງຽຖງ

(0%)

16 ທາຓກຈຈຌ ຖະ ທາຓາຈນທຄາກບຍທ

17 ທາຓກຈຈຌ ຖະ ທາຓາຈນທຄໃະແຈຽປຈທກຈໂ

18 ບາາຌ ນ ຏຽຐໄານໟບຄຽຘຄຽນຌເຽຑາະທໞາຍໃແຈນງຄຽຖງຎບງເນກໞາງຌ

19 ບາາຌ ນ ຏຽຐໄານໟບຄຽຘຄບບກາກນໟບຄຽຘຄ 20 ຽຍໃຄທໞາຓຌເຏກໃກໞາງກຌໝຈ 21 ຍໃໝໄຌເເຌຉບາາຌຘບຌກຍຘໃຄໃຽຑໃຌຘບຌ

(ບາາຌໃຘບຌຽຍໃຄຍໃຆໞທຆາຌເຌຍຈປຌໃຽຑໃຌກາຖຄຘບຌດ) ຽຑໃບເນຌເທໞາຉບຍຊກຉໟບຄກໞາງຎໄຓ

22 ປຄປຌຍໃຓກາຌເນທາຓປນງຄກໞທກຍຏຌຈຂບຄກາຌຽຎຌຌກປຌໃຆໃຘຈ (ຍໃກໞາງ)

23 ປຄປຌຍໃຓຂໄນໟາຓໃະຄຍໃຓກຈ ນ ຌະງຍາງໃຽຎຌປຍຎະາ, ຓຉທາຓຽຆໃບຉໃໂກຌຓາທໞາກາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຎຌກາຌກະາໃຍໃຈ

24 ຽຉກຌຖຆໄໃຌຘະແໝຽຆໃຌ: ຖະຘຍຓຊ, ບຌຽຉຽຌຈ, ຎຕຌຽຉ ຖະ ກກບຍຎໄຉໞາຄໂ

25 າຽທໄາໃທໞາ “ຽທຖາປຌ, ປຌຽບາທາຓປ ຽທຖາຽຘຄ, ຽຘຄຽບາະຌຌ”

26 ປຌຍຍຆໃຘຈນາງກະຉາງຑໟບຓຘະຖກຌ “ແຈຍຍຘກກະຎກຈກທໞາຉກຍຍຂໞາທຘະບາຈ”

27 ທາຓປບາຈຍໃແຈເຆເຌທກຉຄຉະຌຌະຽຎຌຉຆໄຍບກບະຌາຈແຈ

28 ຽຖໄບງໂຆໃາເຈໃໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະ..... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... .....................................................

3

29 ໞາຌຈທໞາງໟບຌຘາຽນຈບຌເຈໃຽປຈເນໞາຌກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄ........................................ ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

30 ໞາຌຈທໞາຌກປຌຘໞທຌນາງຖທກໞາງເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຑາະທໞາ:......................................... .......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................

4

ຑາກ 3 ຎຌນາເຌກາຌກໞາງຓທາຓປໟາງປຄຆໃາເຈ

ຉໃຓຽໃບຄໝາງຊກ () ຽຑໃບຉບຍາຊາຓໃໞາຌຈທໞາຊກກຍຉໞາຌຽບຄໃຘຈ.

ຖ/ຈ ໞາຌຽປຈຘໃຄຽນໃາຌໄເຌຽທຖາຽຘຄຽຖໄບງໂຆໃາເຈ? 5. ກໂຽໃບ (100%)

4. ຽຖໄບງໂ (75%)

3. ຍາຄຽໃບ (50%)

2. ຈຌໂຽໃບ (25%)

1. ຍໃຽງຽຖງ

(0%)

31 ກໞາງາຉບຍາກໝ 32 ເນໝກໞາງາຉບຍາກຽປາ 33 ເຆຓ ນ ໞາາຄຉໞາຄໂຽຎຌຘຌງາຖກຽຑໃບຍບກ

າຉບຍເນໝ

34 ເນໝຍບກາຉບຍຈງເຆຓຽຎຌຘຌງາຖກໞາາຄຉໞາຄໂ

35 ຽບາຽງຌໟບງຽຂໄາແຎກໞາງ 36 ເຆຖະຘຍຓຊຽຑໃບຽຍໃຄາຘຍ, ຽຍໃຄປຍຑາຍໃ

ຓາຉບຍ, ຑຓາຉບຍແທເຌບຌຍບກ; ຌຈ, ຘໃຄຂໄທາຓຊາຓ ນ ຍບກໝ

37 ຎຌາຉບຍຽຑາະໝໃກໞາງທໞາຉຌໄຌຉຌໄຊກ 38 ຽຖບກຌໃຄາຄນຄນໟບຄຽຑໃບດແກຘາງຉາຂບຄ

ບາາຌຽຐໄານໟບຄ

39 ຂຌຍຈປຌໃໜໟາະບບກຽຘຄແທໜໟາຉະ, ຐານໟບຄ, ຂຌ, ຂາ, ຐາຓ, ແຓຍຌຈ ຖະ ບຎະກບຌຽໃບຄປຌບໃຌໂ

40 ຖກບຍຽຍໃຄາຉບຍາກຽງຽຘຄຂບຄໝ 41 ຒາທກໞາງາຉບຍາກໝ ນ ຎໄຓ ເຌຉບຌໃ

ບາາຌຍບກຘໃຄຽງ

42 ຂຌາຉບຍເນໝຉບຌຽທຖາເກະໝຈ

ຂຂບຍເກໂໞາຌໃຘະນະຽທຖາບຌຓໞາຉບຍຍຍຘບຍຊາຓ

ຊໟາໞາຌຓາຊາຓກໞທກຍຍຍຘບຍຊາຓ ຓາຊາຓໃຍໃະຄ ນ ຓາຌະຌາກໞທກຍນທຂໄກາຌໄຌທໟາຌໄ

ຉຈຉໃ ໟາທ. ະຌຄຽຈຈ ຌາຖຘກ 020 95329701. ບໃຽຓຖ Thanongdeth.nalisak@Gmail.com