Guilty in Whose Eyes University Students PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Sheffield Hallam University]
On: 21 July 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773565535]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Studies in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713445574
Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and

plagiarism in academic work and assessment
Peter Ashworth a; Philip Bannister a; Pauline Thorne a; Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course
Unit b
a
Learning and Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University, UK b School of Health and Community Studies,
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Online Publication Date: 01 January 1997
To cite this Article Ashworth, Peter, Bannister, Philip, Thorne, Pauline and Unit, Students on the Qualitative Research Methods
Course(1997)'Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and
assessment',Studies in Higher Education,22:2,187 — 203
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03075079712331381034
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381034
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Studies in H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Volume 22, No. 2, 1997 187
Guilty in Whose Eyes? University

students' perceptions of cheating
and plagiarism in academic work
and assessment
PETER A S H W O R T H , PHILIP B A N N I S T E R & PAULINE
THORNE
Downloaded By: [Sheffield Hallam University] At: 22:11 21 July 2009
Learning and Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
with Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit

School of Health and Community Studies, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
ABSTRACT The little published work on cheating and plagiarism amongst students in higher
education has, almost without exception, used questionnaire techniques which take for granted a
shared understanding of the issues involved. The work reports the use of a qualitative methodology
which attempts to discover the student perception of cheating and plagiarism without presupposing
that students start from the same premises as academics. Prominent among the findings are the
following: (a) there is a strong moral basis to studems" views, which focus on such values as
friendship, interpersonal trust and good learning. This means that some punishable behaviour can be
regarded as justifiable and some officially approved behaviour can befelt to be dubious; (b) the notion
of plagiarism is regarded as extremely unclear--some students have a fear that they might well
plagiarise unwittingly in writing what they genuinely take to be their own ideas; and (c) factors such
as alienation from the university due to lack of contact with staff, the impact of large classes, and the
greater emphasis on group learning are perceived by students themselves as facilitating and sometimes
excusing cheating. Understanding the student perspective on cheating and plagiarism can
significantly assist academics in their efforts to communicate appropriate norms.
Introduction
T h e issue o f student cheating has long been a m a t t e r o f concern to those teaching within
higher education, b u t has received increasingly anxious attention in recent years 0 o h n s t o n ,
1991; Williams, 1993; Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995). Although there seems to be no
research on the true trend, anecdotaUy it does a p p e a r that the anxiety m a y be based on a
factual increase in the prevalence o f cheating a n d plagiarism. I n any case the current move
in the U K towards a system o f mass p a r t i c i p a t i o n - - w i t h a b r o a d e r range of ability a m o n g
students, a decline in the t u t o r - s t u d e n t ratio, a reduction in class contact time, m i n i m a l
personal contact between student and teacher, a n d new approaches to course delivery which
stress collaborative l e a r n i n g - - w o u l d tend to fuel fears that students are less readily con-
trolled, a n d that therefore cheating might be expected to b e c o m e a m o r e frequent occurrence.
O n a m o r e specific level, plagiarism has b e c o m e a source of particular anxiety as information
0307-5079/97/020187-17 © 1997 Society for Research into Higher Education

188 P. Ashworth et al.
technologies assume a more integral role in student learning. The proliferation of rapidly-
accessible electronic information sources---full text C D - R O M databases, electronic journals
on the Internet, etc.--and the ease with which material can be downloaded and appropriated
for one's own purposes present clear opportunities for malpractice, with staff having no
straightforward means of regulating how students use resources of this kind (Morgan, 1996).
Another current feature of higher education is the increase in bureaucratic formality
which governs procedures within the academic environment. This is partly motivated by the
need to lay down the conditions for mutual accountability between students and the
institution. In order to draw up rules differentiating correct from impermissible practice in
assessment, it has been necessary to specify the meaning of cheating and plagiarism.
Procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct have had to be established, and
penalties for transgression laid down. All this has increased staff awareness of the issues
surrounding cheating, and their concern to fix a proper attitude to cheating and plagiarism
in the minds of students.
It is a relative commonplace for students to be required to sign declarations

of 'academic honesty' on submitting assignments, confirming that all sources consulted
have been acknowledged. Statements detailing what is and is not acceptable in
the production of assessed work often form part of student handbooks, together with
information on the official procedures which will result if cheating is discovered, and on the
students' rights of appeal. T h e prominence and transparency of the official university
regulations also places pressure on academic staff to provide an institutionally-standard
response to students in given situations rather than using their personal discretion or
professional judgement.
Cheating within the context of higher education has been the focus of some research
inquiry, although the existing literature is largely North American in origin (see, for example,
Davis et al., 1992). Studies within this field characteristically measure student and/or staff
perceptions of cheating through the use of attitude scales. For example, the Roberts &
Toornbs Perceptions of Cheating Scale (1993) invites the research subjects to score a number
of cheating scenarios in terms of their relative seriousness. The only British workers who have
published significantly in this area (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; Newstead et al.,
1996) also use this style of approach, with the acknowledgement of its limitations. Their
research has been pioneering within the U K and has produced findings which are of
considerable interest. What curbs the usefulness of studies of this nature is the presupposition
that the meaning of cheating is relatively unequivocal, and comparable for the researchers
and their subjects (teachers and students) who are all assumed to know what cheating 'looks
like'. This assumption of consensus does not deal with the question of precisely how cheating
is conceived and understood within the student world, and sets aside the possibility that it is
a far more involved and complex issue than imagined. The setting up of meaningful attitude
scales is seriously hampered currently by what is nor known about the student perspective and
experience--~e specific behaviours which are classed as cheating; the hierarchies and
typologies into which they are organised; the processes of moral evaluation involved when
someone is discovered cheating; the significance of cheating for the way an individual is
viewed by others; and the degree to which the particular context in which cheating occurs
influences how that practice is understood and judged (e.g. the circumstances which mitigate
certain prohibited behaviours).
We would argue that the use of attitude scales and other measurement tools to
investigate cheating is premature. Prior work is necessary to discover the various meanings of
cheating within the students' life-world (and, by the same token, x~thin the experience of
teachers also) before any attempt at surveys can be made. The intention of the study reported
Students' Perceptions of Cheating 189
here is to attend to the meaning of cheating within the student experience as closely and fully
as possible, without imposing an external conceptual framework or attempting to verify that
experience against some external standard, in order to obtain a detailed insight into how the
issue is perceived by students, in the context of other aspects of their experience of higher
education within which cheating is intimately bound.
Method
T h e purpose of the method used in the present study is to elicit and make sense of the
data to show how cheating and plagiarism appear from the perspective of the student. T o
do this, certain guiding principles--aimed at maintaining the focus of the researcher's
attention entirely on the experience of the interviewees--are observed in both interviewing
and analysis (Wertz, 1983; Giorgi, 1985; Kvale, 1996). For example, any apparently-
relevant scientific findings or scholarly views are set aside in coming to an understanding
of the interview material. Indeed, we are bound to suspend the view that interviewees'
utterances can be judged for their veracity against any kind of external criterion (Ashworth,
1996). In short, the individual student's expressions of attitude in the interview are
steadfastly taken as descriptive of their perceived world, and whether the perceptions are
veridical is of no concern. It would be another study, with quite different aims, which
would judge the students' perceptions against some yardstick of truth or even morality.
T h e purpose of the research reported here is to ascertain the place of cheating and
plagiarism within the lived experience of the students interviewed, whether these percep-
tions are wise or foolish.
Nineteen interviews were carried out as coursework towards the end of a semester-long
Masters degree unit in qualitative research interviewing. The work was undertaken by the
course members (and PA, the unit tutor), who each interviewed one student (not undertaking
the unit), and completed a full analysis and report on that one interview. The interviewers are
acknowledged at the end of this paper (the interview transcripts, analyses and reports
constituted the unit assessment). Further analysis on the set of interviews as a whole was
carried out by two of us (PB assisted by PA).
T h e students had, by the time they began interviewing, received some 9 hours
of instruction and discussion in qualitative research interviewing. Confidentiality
and anonymity were promised to the interviewees, and this was scrupulously maintained
(especially" important since confessions of cheating were not uncommon). During
classroom discussion prior to interviewing, the likely interviewees were roughly categorised
by sex, discipline area, maturity at entry, higher education institution, and current year
of study, and some target interviewees were changed in order to establish as m u c h variety
in the group as possible. After the interviews, the categorisation was reworked in order
to take account of the fact that interviewees did not necessarily discuss incidents connected
to the course they were presently undertaking. Details of the interviewees are given in
Table I.
Interviews were designedly as close to conversation in style as possible. Interviewees
knew the broad topic and were asked to give opinions a n d - - m o r e importantly--describe
situations relevant to cheating. Issues which interviewers would raise themselves, if necessary-,
included: examples of clear instances of cheating; judgements of seriousness; plagiarism,
punishment, mitigating factors and group work. T o cope with the possibility that interviewees
would not be communicative, short vignettes aimed at eliciting comments on these issues
were developed.
Interviews having been analysed separately, themes common to the students, or issues
190 P. Ashworth e t al.
TABLE I. Research participants
Full-time
/part- Interviewer
Interviewee Gender Mature Discipline'~ time Level~: SHU~ gender
1 f ./ a f g ,/ f
2 m J a p 3 ,f m
3 f b f g f
4 m a f 1 J f
5 m ~/ b f 3 ,/ f
6 m ~" a f 1 J f
7 f a f 2 m
8 f c f 2 ¢" f
9 f a f 3 ,/ f
10 f a f 2 m
11 f b f 3 f
12 f ¢" a f 3 f
13 m J b p 3 ~/ f
14 f J b p g f
15 m ,/ b f 3 ,/ f
16 m ¢" a p 3 J f
17 f ,/ c f g ¢' m
18 f ,/ a f 2 f
19 m ,/ a f g m
Key: ~'theinterviewee entered as a mature student the course described in the interview; J-referring
to a course which was mainly (a) arts, humanities or social science, (b) business, science or technology
or engineering, (c) mixed; :[:inyear or level 1, 2 or 3 graduated (g) at time of the interview; ~Referring
to a course at Sheffield HaUam University (v') or elsewhere.
which--though r e s p o n d e d to i n d i f f e r e n t w a y s - - w e r e w i d e l y r e c o g n i s e d b y t h e s t u d e n t s , w e r e
n o t e d . I t is t h e s e m a t t e r s t h a t are r e p o r t e d i n t h e f i n d i n g s .
Findings
T h e f i n d i n g s are a r r a n g e d u n d e r t h r e e m a i n h e a d i n g s , (I) Cheating and plagiarism, i n w h i c h

t h e i r m e a n i n g as m o r a l i s s u e s is b r o u g h t o u t ; (II) Personal reactions to cheating--including
s o m e j u s t i f i c a t i o n s ; a n d (III) The institution--with s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y
itself h a s a role i n t h e c a u s e s of, as well as t h e c u r b s on, c h e a t i n g . I t s h o u l d b e r e - e m p h a s i s e d
t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t t h e s t u d e n t p e r s p e c t i v e . I n t e r v i e w e e s are i n d i c a t e d in p a r e n t h e s e s .
I. Cheating and Plagiarism

(a) Cheating and plagiarism as a moral issue.
(i) Cheating is a definite moral issue. P r a c t i c e s w h i c h h a v e a d e t r i m e n t a l effect o n o t h e r
s t u d e n t s , e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , are p a r t i c u l a r l y s e r i o u s a n d r e p r e h e n s i b l e . T h e e t h i c o f
fellow-feeling o r peer loyalty is a d o m i n a n t o n e :
I t ' s n o t fair o n t h e o t h e r s t u d e n t s , b e c a u s e I t h i n k we are all i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h
e a c h o t h e r f o r t h e l s t s , 2 i ' s a n d 2ii's. (15)
I d o n ' t m i n d h e l p i n g a n y o n e i f t h e y ' r e g e n u i n e l y s t u c k , b u t I w o n ' t give s o m e o n e
i n f o r m a t i o n if t h e y c a n ' t b e b o t h e r e d to go o u t a n d e v e n t r y a n d f i n d i t - - I t h i n k
t h a t ' s a b i t w r o n g . (12)
You can plagiarise someone who's written a book, because they're not on the same
level as you. If you copied your friend's work, when you get marked for it y o u ' d be
getting her mark, but you're not getting someone else's who's way above you. (1 I)
Where 'cutting corners' is at the cost of learning, whether 'officially' cheating or not, it is bad
practice. Where cheating entails some element of learning it is relatively acceptable. T h e ethic
of learning matters here:
In Russian, you get English sentences and have to translate them into Russian, and
it's direct from the unit you're on. Each week you get the next unit in the book. And
of course you have to refer to the book to get the answers but I feel that's a bit
bad...I d o n ' t actually learn the new grammatical structures that we're meant to do,
I just copy it from the book. It seems a bit of a cheat, it's part o f the course
assessment and I ' m not actually using m y own brain here, but this is still accepted.
T h e tutor said 'If you have any trouble, you'll find it in the book'. A n d we're
expected to use the book. (10)
I ' d actually done the work on it, it's just that I needed some sort of trigger, because
I ' d got all the information in m y h e a d - - i t wasn't as if I ' d gone in there with quotes
and things written up m y arms, just a mnemonic. I suppose that is a cheat, having
a little m e m o r y aid, but I had done the work, I would justify myself. (12)
(ii) Cheating is a definite moral issue, but the 'official" university view of cheating is not always
appropriate. Student practices which are accepted by the university may not be thoroughly
justifiable in the eyes of students. Equally, the university can punish practices which seem
relatively harmless:
I think that pressing tutors for help with assignments is a bit wrong because that
information should be shared to the whole class--so everyone's got an equal
chance...I wonder if you can still class it as cheating though, because that tutor has
given the information willingly. (12)
I think you can justify cheating towards an institution because you can't see that
you're affecting a person, but if you're cheating towards a person then you know you
can hurt that person for what you've done, so there's a distinction there. A person
is a person and an institution is just a thing, you're not really hurting anyone. (12)
Although the student outlook differs from that of the university, the official regulations are
definitive. If behaviours which might otherwise appear morally or ethically suspect are
approved or tolerated by the staff, they cannot class as cheating:
What they say is cheating is in the Student Information File isn't it? Someone writes
down what it is and your opinion of cheating becomes irrelevant because it's what's
in the rules and guidelines, isn't it?...A practice is not cheating if the staff are
offering it; it's the institution that makes the rules, isn't it, and you've got to go
along with it. (15)
(b) The hazy nature of plagiarism. It can be very difficult to work out what constitutes
plagiarism:
You d o n ' t know what is cheating, if you've got an idea of an article, or if it is your
own idea and you write it down in your own words. Another possibility, if you mix
two ideas together you think it's your own idea, it's really not your own idea but the
book did help you find it. Sometimes I think, ' O h that's a really good idea' and you
put it into your essay, but you find it later in a b o o k - - b u t the lecturer can't help that
you got it first. (18)
S o m e b o d y said to me they did an essay last year at university and ' W h a t I did', she
said, 'I copied most of it out of books, referenced it and just put a few words in
between and I passed with it'. And then you start thinking, well where does
plagiarism come into it? I know that's not plagiarism because you've referenced it,
that's your loophole, but then is it her essay? O f course it's cheating. It's not her
work is it, anybody could do that. (6)
Students are anxious that it might occur by accident:
It's difficult when you start out in academia, you could not be sure about what it
means to be a student. So when I first started I was again unsure about what to do
in terms of references and that sort of thing. So you could say that in some of m y
essays I did things wrong unknowingly because I didn't reference it right. But that
was something to do with m y lack of experience in academia. (19)
W h e n I ' m taking notes for an essay in English I begin to take on other people's
opinions on certain things and I end up with these big notes, some of which is mine,
some of which is other people's and I begin to think, is this what I've said or what
someone else has said? It comes that close, and I sometimes feel it's possible that I
could have copied, just, like a sentence--an expression--from somebody else,
describing what I agree with. (10)
tL Personal Reactions
(c) Personal reactions to those who cheat. Although other people's cheating may be found
morally offensive, it remains a matter for individual choice unless one is personally affected
by it. Passing judgement on those who cheat without knowing their motivations is not fair:
I think m y attitudes to cheating are of a very high standard and are, to me, morally
correct; they might not be held to such a high degree by other people but I think it's
a very individual thing. (2)
It's perhaps unfair to judge people, saying they're lazy--I mean, there's a lot of
stress with the course. (1)
(d) Gauging the seriousness of cheating. Extensive, intended cheating leading to substantial
gain is the most serious. Signs of intention or premeditation lead to the cheating being taken
more seriously than if it occurs inadvertently. It also seems that cheating which is blatant can
be more readily accepted than that which is surreptitious (indicating artlessness rather than
premeditated intention to deceive):
For most assignments you're researching and taking bits out of books, you might
make a mistake of not referencing it, it might just be a natural mistake, and you
could be done for plagiarism. But it's not always your fault, whereas with other
things you would know you were cheating, especially if y o u ' d got hold of an exam
paper because they d o n ' t just get found lying around, you've actually got to go and
find it, and copying other people's work, yes that's obvious that you are cheating,
you must know that you are doing it. (4)
Obtaining advance knowledge of an exam paper would have to be sort of surrep-

titious. I mean, if it's going to be underhanded, then it surely must be cheating. (10)
Examination cheating is seen as more serious than coursework cheating; the contravention of
obvious regulations indicates blatancy, and students should act loyally as fellow sufferers in
examinations--the ethic of peer loyalty is contravened.
Exams are a better appraisal of your work. Exams require your individual work but
are harder in that you have to learn everything in your head. You can't cheat in
exams, unless you take the answers in, and you're not allowed to. You can see why
people copy things in coursework assignments, it's not a big moral issue but actually
cheating in an exam, I mean, I wouldn't be able to do that. (11)
There's something about an exam, isn't there? You're all sat there in the same boat,
it's more like you'd be betraying the other people with you rather than just yourself,
whereas with an essay you just think, ' I ' m cheating myself so who cares?' (7)
Cheating which occurs at a relatively low academic level, or in the context of formative
assessment, is less serious. In the instance of plagiarism:
Academia does depend on everything being acknowledged, especially if it's actual

research, something that is intended to be of value--then I think it's very important
that things are referenced, if it's leading edge stuff. If it's an undergraduate essay on
a subject that's been discussed and looked over for donkey's years, then it doesn't
really matter. (5)
Certain issues are controversial--the copying of another student's work with their consent,
and the use of extenuating circumstances to obtain preferential treatment.
I think allowing someone to look at your work is teaching--you are just doing the
job of the teacher, which the teacher may have done badly or may have done well.
If you are willing to do it, which is a decision for you to make, then I don't think
it is cheating. (5)
Just looking at someone else's work would actually give me a framework which I
could base my essay on, and that, to me, I would see as morally wrong and possibly
cheating. (2)
I've heard of a lot of people that use extenuating circumstances for the simplest and
most frivolous kind of things and that annoys me because I think it just belittles then
the people with the real problems. That to me is cheating their way out of work
because they haven't planne d it properly and they've been far too busy sort of
socialising and off they go and they just don't place so much importance on what
really is quite important. (9)
I don't mind lying about extenuating circumstances, I've done that in the past...said
someone's die, I mean I know half the people in the world must do that. (15)
(e) Reasons why cheating occurs.

(i) People know full well what they're doing when they cheat. Some cheating is felt to occur
through conscious choice, possible motivations being idleness, rebellion, a lack of interest in
studying, the potential gain and the probability of not being discovered:
194 P. Ashwonh et al.
People that cheat and get away with it, then it serves their purpose. T h e y take the
risk and they know what the consequences are. (19)
Plagiarism can be a deliberate course of action if the source material expresses a point well
or succinctly.
I was short of knowledge on a particular area and I borrowed somebody's work and
used a few sentences, because it was really eloquent--this person obviously had a
m u c h better understanding of what he was talking about than I did. (19)
(ii) Sometimes you just can't take it and have to cheat. Cheating is a strategy for coping with
the demands of higher education level work and the pressure to succeed. It is not necessarily
habitual: students who are normally hardworking may resort to it on occasion:
You do help each other out and things like that because you need to--it's such a big
step from A levels. (9)
N o w if I found out that after this first semester that I couldn't get this 2i unless I
got something like a good mark, which on line with what I ' d done in the first
semester I knew I wouldn't get, then I would probably cheat--find some way of
cheating to b u m p m y mark up. (12)
A friend of mine who was caught cheating in an e x a m - - I think he just got himself
into some kind of a vicious circle, he was like ' I ' m going to cope on m y own, I am
independent enough and strong enough to cope by myself and I will do it' and at
the end of the day I think he just thought 'I can't take this anymore'. (9)
Some people can just do brilliant on some parts of the course but not quite make
the grade on other parts, and just 'cause you cheat doesn't necessarily mean that you
d o n ' t work hard either. I mean certainly in m y case I've never worked so hard in my
life as I did on m y course. I think the majority of people that cheat just do to help
them on a particular subject or particular problem. (17)
(f) Justifications for consciously engaging in behaviours which you know to be wrong. Life is
competitive, and not to cheat might jeopardise your future:
I think the majority of people that cheat just do to help them on a particular subject
or particular p r o b l e m , - - y o u know, why ruin somebody's whole career just because
they couldn't get through say the computing side of it, when they were getting in the
seventies or eighties in every other subject: there's no point is there? (17)
There are shortcomings within the university environment: the form of assessment is flawed;
resources and the teaching are inadequate; the work is not of any larger significance:
I think it stupid for people having to remember chunks of formulae and I can't really
see why someone shouldn't take information in [to exams]. (5)
If plagiarism is just copying things out of books, that's just lazy, but if it's because
you can't get the books [and you copy it from a fellow student] that's different. (11)
I wouldn't say bad teachers but teachers using bad methods to teach us, where we're
not getting the information we need; I d o n ' t think that just the teacher, just the bad
teaching method is a justification for cheating. (12)
It's not relevant to what you're going to do, you're never, probably, going to use it
ever again, so why just 'clog' your m e m o r y - - s t o r e it up with something you're not
going to use? (12)
Published authors are guilty of plagiarism, so why not follow suit?
F r o m one book, say to the third, you can be sure the authors used exactly the same
wording for a particular thing. Well if they can do it why can't we do it? I think we
should be able to do that, we've still read the material, read the book, written the
essay. (12)
(g) Personal inhibitions to cheating. There are positive reasons for not cheating: self-respect,
maturity, and having the ability to envisage other solutions:
I've got respect for myself now and for other people as well, and for the things that
I ' m doing in life, you know. I ' m not going to cheat on this course because it means
so m u c h to me. (6)
I think with most people anyway, as you grow older you kind of realise that you've
got to do it by yourself. There is not going to be somebody there all the time that
you can borrow notes off, or copy from. W h e n you are at work, you've got to be able
to do it yourself. (8)
Cheating is discouraged through fear o f the possible consequences (e.g. guilt and self-recrim-
ination; shame resulting from the disapproval of others):
If I knowingly cheated I think I would feel guilty, extremely guilty about doing so,
I think that would be the overriding emotion. I think I would feel pretty worthless
if I actually resorted to cheating, disgusted. (2)
I think that's quite an important thing, the tear of being discovered. T h e disgrace of
being found out doing something like that. H o w terrible, I mean I just couldn't
contemplate that. (1)
If the cheating has a 'victim', the proximity of that victim influences readiness to cheat.
Students are inhibited from cheating when the victim can be conceived of in personal terms,
not if they are unknown or 'abstract'.
I stole and copied another student's assignment: it was just a piece of work with a
name on it, faceless, it was just a name, I didn't know the person, so I didn't know
who I was doing the wrong to, apart from to myself, I suppose. I wouldn't want to
cheat, using a friend's work without their consent, I think I might feel bad about
doing that. (15)
If you had some staff, like one module we did where the staff made a real effort to
print everything and make themselves understood, and gave you their address to
contact them on, so for that module I w o u l d n ' t give any work in that was crap, or
that I ' d copied, because I know that they put so m u c h work into it: that makes you
put more work in as well. I wouldn't cheat in exams with them. (11)
III. The Institution

(h) Student reactions to official guidance. Cheating seems to be a low-key issue for the
university; the regulations are sometimes vague, with responsibility for understanding them
placed on the student. It is assumed that students instinctively know what does and does not
constitute acceptable practice:
In our course book we have a little blurb of about two or three lines that just say
plagiarism will not be accepted in any circumstance whatsoever, and that's it really,
we d o n ' t have it d r u m m e d into us. It's considered so m u c h worse for you to do in
university, I think, than it was beforehand but I was surprised how m u c h it wasn't
really made an issue of. (9)
It's not laid down exactly what does count as cheating, I mean the plagiarism thing
yes, but it's not set down anywhere that you can't swap your work to revise from it
for exams. So in the absence of any sort of clear guidelines you've got to put your
own interpretation on what yon think is right. (1)
(i) The meaning of penalties for cheating. A genuine lack of knowledge of the penalties should
serve as a mitigating factor:
As long as everybody is clear from the start what's going to happen if you are found
out, then people deserve their punishment; I think it would be very unfair to punish
someone quite harshly ff they didn't realise that that was their punishment. (5)
T h e track record of a student caught cheating should, ideally, be taken into account when
determining a penalty, but this is administratively hard:
If people get caught, and they haven't done any work, y o u ' d think, yeah, it's fair
they should be punished, but people w h o ' d just done it because they were under
pressure, you know, y o u ' d want it taken into account. (11)
I d o n ' t think you can start setting individual standards. Like, under the circum-
stances, because then you're going to get into a whole new world o f - - y o u know, that
would be just too difficult to define. You've got to say, this is wrong and this is right,
and people have got to just work by it. I mean, if a student who is having difficulties
goes and sees her tutors I ' m sure they would understand that sort of thing. Just get
an extension or whatever. If you start saying, well, people in this situation can
plagiarise and people in this situation can't, then you just--it just gets ridiculous,
doesn't it. Because everyone's going to be saying, well, you know, I should be
allowed to do this and that because I've got a cold or something, you know what I
mean. I t ' d get stupid really. (7)
0") It's the university's fault that students cheat. Behaviours which are classed as cheating are
sometimes allowed or actively encouraged by particular situations and/or tutors:
I think I have cheated on practicals in that I've collaborated with other people, but
then you're encouraged to collaborate. If you're expecting people not to collude or
not to copy each other's ideas, you're a bit stupid to ask them to work together,
because it's just a natural thing to do. W h y should they penalise you for it if the
situation they put you in means you do it? (11)
Repeating an earlier quotation, b u t in this context of institutional encouragement:
In Russian, you get English sentences and have to translate t h e m into Russian, and
it's direct from the unit y o u ' r e on. E a c h week you get the next unit in the book. A n d
o f course you have to refer to the b o o k to get the answers b u t I feel that's a bit
b a d . . . I d o n ' t actually learn the new grammatical structures that we're m e a n t to do,
I just copy it from the book. It seems a bit of a cheat, it's p a r t of the course
assessment a n d I ' m n o t actually using m y own brain here, b u t this is still accepted.
T h e tutor said ' I f you have any trouble, you'll find it in the b o o k ' . A n d we're
expected to use the book. I mean, if we d i d n ' t w e ' d never get any marks at all! (10)
Additionally, students are forced to cheat t h r o u g h being let d o w n by the university and its
staff, or t h r o u g h the nature o f the assessment (see section [f]), and the vagueness o f the
university regulations forces students to draw their own lines on this issue (see section [h]).
(k) Factors facilitating cheating. Certain forms of cheating are comparatively easy to get
away within higher education:
It is easier to cheat at university in a way. Because you can plagiarise and they can't
chase it up. T h e r e ' s so m a n y of you. (11)
Different forms of assessment offer different opportunities for cheating:

T h e unit I m e n t i o n e d before is p r o b a b l y quite easy to cheat in, because people do
get together a n d discuss w h a t they are going to do, so you w o u l d write d o w n similar
things. It would be easy to copy as it is only a side o f A4, n o t like a fi~l written essay.
I think with the essays, the lecturers are m o r e likely to see that you have copied your
essay off s o m e o n e else. So, I think the courses with coursework spread throughout
are p r o b a b l y easier to cheat in, because you are n o t writing as much. (8)
H a v i n g traditional exams with invigilators, I think, gets away from all kinds of
cheating, because that's purely being examined on an unseen paper, so that is very
m u c h on what you know, from what your opinions are, from what your attitudes
are, and I see that as the ultimate n o n - c h e a t i n g examination, personally. (2)
Ease o f cheating differs between disciplines:
I know s o m e o n e who is doing science and a lot o f that is fact and so it is p r o b a b l y

easy to go a n d copy it, because all the lecturer is looking for is facts. But, for m y
humanities course it is m o r e about your own ideas and theories and so on. T h e way
we all write is different even t h o u g h it is based on fact, it is your own view. T h e
person I know who does science gets a lot o f p h o t o c o p i e d sheets out o f books. It is
all fact and she just writes it into h e r essays. I think it is p r o b a b l y easier to get away
with it in science than it is in what I ' m doing. (8)
Group work situations provoke questions over the assessment of levels of contribution:
W i t h group type assessments, m y personal view is that there is an element o f
cheating within that. Each o f the group m e m b e r s would n o t be c o m m i t t e d to
p u t t i n g in the exact same a m o u n t o f input in that piece of work, so one of t h e m has
b e e n carried t h r o u g h b y another person, potentially. A n d if that's the case then
they're cheating, in m y opinion. (2)
You do find you'll probably come out with an initial idea that you haven't really
expanded on, then somebody goes away and expands on it and gets the credit for
it when it was your idea in the first place. You could point out, 'Well that was my
idea, I said it first' and they could say, 'Yeah, but you didn't say this though': it
wasn't because they've gone completely on another track but it's basically stemmed
from what you said, and if you say anything it makes you sound petty but if you
don't say anything it's almost like you've been cheated out of something. (9)
If you are gleaning ideas from other people in a seminar which then leads you to
think 'I must research that topic a bit more and that seems like a good idea; that
seems like a good argument; I must expand on that for a bit more research', I don't
see that as cheating and I wouldn't see the necessity to acknowledge that you'd
discussed the topic with other people. (16)
Discussion: the place o f cheating in the student experience

Students plainly view cheating in terms of parameters which imperfectly mesh with the line
of official university regulations. There are strong ethical bases to the students' views--stress-
ing fellow-feeling and learning. But these do not rule out cheating and plagiarism directly.
indeed, a student who was scrupulous in observing these ethics may welt feel cheating to be
appropriate in certain circumstances (e.g. in helping a struggling friend to pass a unit which
was not a prerequisite for later units).
Peer Loyalty and Fellow-feeling

Potentially questionable practices are evaluated primarily in terms of their effect on the peer
group, with a strong consensus that the least acceptable forms of behaviour are those which
disadvantage other students. The student ethic is one of fellow-feeling and peer loyalty, and
it is in this context that cheating is mainly evaluated. The primacy of peer loyalty is also
evident in the general reluctance to condemn others who cheat--'all have their reasons', and
without knowing the intricacies of each case a uniform response would be inappropriate.
Student reluctance to cheat in examinations seems partly due to the social character
of the assessment and the attendant feeling that cheating would involve the 'betrayal'
of the others present. Similarly, there is a hesitation to 'cheat tutors' in situations
where the student-academic relationship is not one of mutual anonymity or cold formality
(e.g. where the member of staff has made an obvious effort to engage the students in the
learning-teaching process). In the most serious case of student cheating admitted to within
the study--one student physically stealing another's work the interviewee had made a
conscious point of taking the assignment from someone who was completely unknown to
them. So fellow-feeling is primarily felt towards those in the student's immediate circle.
Learning as an Ethic
A further ethical principle widely acknowledged is the centrality of learning. Repeatedly,
interviewees voice their objection to practices which circumvent the learning process. At least
part of this condemnation stems from a moral view of cheating as entailing the wilful
squandering of educational privilege. This disapproval has links with the theme of peer
loyalty, since obtaining a mark which is not representative of actual ability is seen as a kind
of personal affront to those who have completed the work through honest means~
' S h o r t cuts to learning' such as paraphrasing from a textbook or m a k i n g use o f another

student's bibliography are less serious in the eyes o f students. Such ,labour-saving practices
indicate a tactical tendency, b u t it would b e wrong to envisage work-avoidance as a guiding
principle for all students. I n fact, certain interviewees express a moralism far m o r e stringent
than that o f academic staff in some respects. A student who was encouraged by a foreign
language tutor to draw on examples from the textbook to help with translation assignments
regarded this as a short cut which would h i n d e r learning: it should be clear to someone who
has really m a s t e r e d the g r a m m a r h o w to do the translation. Similarly, certain interviewees felt
insecure over the idea o f receiving extensive individual guidance from a tutor: this w o u l d
sidestep the h a r d graft o f personal learning; it w o u l d also secure an unfair advantage over
other students (peer loyalty).
I n c o m m e n t on the student ethical stance and its relationship to cheating and plagiarism,
it appears to us unnecessary to undermine what are in principle laudable values. But, in
addition, academic values need to be inculcated.
Examination Cheating and other Assessment Procedures

Even those who claimed to be engaged in learning for its own sake were often ready to
countenance certain forms of c h e a t i n g - - p a r t i c u l a r l y where the consequences o f failure would
be profound, or in connection with certain types of assessment.
T h e latter theme is especially significant. Some m e t h o d s o f assessment are seen as
affording m u c h greater opportunities for cheating. T h e informal context in which coursework
exercises are c o m p l e t e d means there is a m p l e scope to cheat through collusion, plagiarism,
and so on, in contrast to the controlled, invigilated environment o f unseen examinations.
T h e r e is a notable reverence for this m o s t traditional form o f assessment. It seems that
students view unseen examinations as powerfully symbolic. As terminal summative assess-
ment, an examination necessarily carries with it a sense of dramatic climax. It is final, b o t h
in time a n d in fatefulness. T h e perceived formality of the examination as an Occasion lends
it gravity. It is an atypical, staged situation, which heightens the sense of its significance. In
the words o f one student,
T h e r e is m o r e o f an aura of formality in that situation, where you are all there and
it's quiet a n d you've got an invigilator...the rules are very c l e a r - - y o u know that it's
just y o u and your table and your pen and p a p e r - - n o t h i n g else. (5)
T h e fact that it is the individual who is being tested, b u t along with all the others in a solemn
social context, also appears to contribute to the m o m e n t o u s n e s s o f the event.
In contrast to those which apply to coursework, the regulations g o v e m i n g examinations
are seen by students as almost self-evident, being perceived through signifiers such as the
layout o f the r o o m , the visible presence o f institutional authority and the physical exclusion
o f certain materials from the examination hall. Cheating in an examination is thus a
deliberate and flagrant contravention o f self-apparent rules and so is worthy o f particular
censure. However, this attitude is only sustained if the formalities are thoroughly maintained.
W h e r e official procedures are n o t seen to be observed rigorously--desks are not spaced apart,
or there is lax i n v i g i l a t i o n - - t h e logical interpretation is that the assessment is not considered
i m p o r t a n t by staff, thus allowing cheating to occur without guilt.
It m u s t also be said that, although students see examinations as a proper, rigorous, a n d
serious form o f assessment, they d o u b t whether they assess skills that really matter. T h e r e is
a level o f dissatisfaction with the u n s e e n examination as a means o f measuring ability, a n d
overt criticism o f the overemphasis it places on recall faculties.
Cheating in non-formally assessed work is viewed as a comparatively acceptable ac-

tivity-several interviewees admitted to having cheated in unassessed assignments without
feeling guilt. In c o m m e n t on this finding, we feel that formative assessment is too valuable an
educational tool to be allowed to become marginalised in this way. There is an evident need
to find methods through which students can be encouraged to take such work seriously while
preserving the positive aspects of informal assessment.
There is widespread dislike of group work as a method of assessment. Although m a n y
criticisms are directed towards the practical and social difficulties of working in groups rather
than the academic value of this type of activity, one important and recurrent objection is that
the work tends not to be divided equally between the group members: if an undifferentiated
mark is awarded at the end this fails adequately to reflect individual input and so is 'unfair'.
Interviewees did not discuss the various techniques used to ameliorate this difficulty--maybe
they were not aware of them. Staff need to pay attention to the justification o f group work
assessment to students if this valuable set of techniques of teaching and learning is to be
credible in their eyes.
Institutional Treatment of Cheating

Our findings support the ample evidence that exists from surveys and the testimony of
academic staff that official regulations are not closely observed by a significant proportion of
students. Nevertheless~ there did appear to be a certain level of respect amongst the
interviewees for the comparatively harsh perspective of the institution towards cheating,
despite their different ethical values. This respect is, however, moderated by the blame
apportioned to the institution for various shortcomings and hypocrisies. Repeatedly, the
university was held to be culpable in some manner for student cheating: laxities of various
kinds are noted, and students tend to see a contradiction in the practice of individually
assessing group work and in penalising copying while at the same time encouraging collabo-
rative learning. Criticisms also focus on the methods by which the university informs students
of the regulations on cheating. O n the basis of the interview responses, cheating appears to
be simultaneously a high- and low-priority issue for the university: the potential penalties for
cheating are severe, but the information detailing which types of behaviour fall into this
category is given in an uncoordinated fashion, often at the very start of the student's
university career. Students had encountered passive approaches to disseminating this infor-
mation, principally through the handing out of documentation which the student is expected
to read (and which few do).
Plagiarism
Plagiarism appeared to generate a host of difficulties for the students interviewed. For the
majority it had been a new concept, and although all of those interviewed were very aware o f
the need to reference the source of the material cited, the positive reasons for adopting this
practice--other than to avoid punishment--were not universally apparent. While some did
share the 'official' view of its significance, others were perplexed as to why academic staff tend
to be so uptight about this issue, especially in relation to undergraduate-level studies where
students are generally not involved in producing original work but rather engaging with
well-established ideas.
T h e notion of plagiarism as a form of intellectual theft did have some currency among
the interviewees, but more frequent is the tendency to see correct referencing in terms of
academic etiquette and polite behaviour. T h e fact that plagiarism undermines assessment was
not mentioned. There was no hint of the idea that scholarship is a communal activity, to
which each contributes, acknowledging the contributions of others. In general, plagiarism is
a far less meaningful concept for students than it is for academic staff, and it ranks relatively
low in the student system of values.
An important feature of the student viewpoint is that, although the existence of an
activity termed plagiarism was acknowledged, students are unsure about precisely what
should and should not be assigned to this category. T h e threshold level at which it was felt
the use of unattributed material could incur punishment ranged from the wholesale lifting of
substantial portions of a text right down to the borrowing of a single word or phrase. T h e
tendency of certain students to conceive of plagiarism in a very literal, concrete sense offered
a clear indication of the limits of their understanding: the verbatim use of an author's words
obviously counts as plagiarism, but paraphrasing their argument in one's own language
renders the offence in some way different, lesser. Similarly, the 'mosaic' technique of
constructing an essay entirely from disparate but suitably referenced sources, one's own input
being only to thread the material together, was not seen as wrong by several (although one
interviewee did regard this as being on a par with 'straight' plagiarism).
What became very apparent from analysis of the interviews was the widespread igno-
rance concerning the correct procedure to follow when making use of other texts in one's own
academic work. More than one interviewee admitted that even midway through their degree
course they remained uncertain as to whether or not they referenced material properly,
attributing this to not having been taught the correct method and/or being unable to make
sense of the guidelines provided. D o u b t over what is 'officially' permitted and what is
punishable, deepened by the perceived opacity of the guidelines on referencing, appeared to
have caused considerable anxiety for a large proportion of those interviewed. T h e idea that
it is possible to be found guilty of this most cardinal of academic sins even when making an
effort to avoid plagiarising was entertained as real by nearly all interviewees. A central
element of this fear was the almost unanimous belief that plagiarism can occur by accident,
regardless of personal awareness of the university regulations. It was considered highly
feasible for a phrase or sentence from a text to lodge in one's subconscious and be reproduced
word-for-word in an assignment. A lack of clarity surrounding intellectual property also
generated agitation for certain interviewees: during the process of making notes from a text,
personal ideas or perspectives became irretrievably mixed with those of the author, rendering
it very difficult to determine exactly to w h o m a particular idea 'belongs'. Another anxiety,
attributable to uncertainty regarding how plagiarism is identified by academic staff, con-
cerned the possibility of a student arriving independently at an identical or similar conclusion
to a published author, which to an observer might appear as plagiarism.
Conclusion: alienation and cheating

Understanding the student perspective on cheating and plagiarism can significantly assist
academics in their efforts to communicate appropriate norms. T h e research findings point to
the imperative for a clear communication of plagiarism in terms which are readily compre-
hensible to students. Rather than being predominantly negative and prohibitive in tone, the
message given to students ought to stress the positive reasons for proper attribution and be
accompanied by concrete examples of both good and impermissible practice. We believe that
such an approach should include the idea that students are junior members of a scholarly
community.
Cheating is sometimes a symptom of some more general malaise. Cheating is taken to
be excusable where units are seen to be of marginal importance, or badly taught, or assessed
in a manner that almost invites cheating. The overall quality of the student experience thus
needs to be considered if the likelihood of cheating is to be minimised.
Discontent among the interviewees is also related to how students perceived themselves
to be regarded by academic staff. The experience of being a degree student was frequently
described as anonymous, particularly when measured against studying in school or further
education where contact with teaching staff is more prolonged. The movement from an
intensively-taught style of education to another in which the emphasis is on independent
learning, classes are larger, and academic staff have a role not confined to teaching, may
result in students feeling neglected by the system. The non-intensive style of pedagog3" in
higher education could be interpreted as lack of tutor care about undergraduates, with tutors
perhaps being preoccupied with their own research instead. One student went so far as to
attribute an occasional readiness to cheat to demotivation: the work meant nothing.
Alienation was not simply due to the demeanour of staff or their lack of contact with
students. Assessment tasks which did not engage the student (sometimes described in more
considered terms than being simply labelled 'boring') symbolised the gap between students
and staff. A complaint made by a number of interviewees was that the work did not demand
original thought but rather the reiteration of well-established ideas and concepts. In some
cases, students felt that the subject had been comprehensively exhausted--it was just not
possible to say anything which had not already been stated many times previously. All this has
the net effect of lessening student commitment to the work. One interviewee spoke critically
of a certain course assignment which had been set in virtually unchanged form year after year.
A belief that what they are doing is significant and weighty in the eyes of their teachers is a
factor in determining how far students feel part of or alienated from the academic life of the
institution. Without a basic commitment on the part of the student there is no moral
constraint on cheating or plagiarism.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the following for their assistance: Karen Barass, Cinnamon
Bennett, Michael Corner, Laura Dixon, Chris Hadley, Angie Heal, Sharron Hinchliff, Lee
Hutchinson, Julie Jackson, Deborah Molwuka, Kathie Moore, Rebecca Moore, Marie-Bar-
bara Noack, Phil Sawyer, Leonie Soper, Malcolm Todd, Norman Upton, Fiona Wilson,
students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit, School of Health and Com-
munity Studies, Sheffield Hallam University, Autumn 1995.
Correspondence: Peter Ashworth, Learning and Teaching Institute, The Learning Centre,
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK. Email: ltipda@shu.ac.uk
REFERENCES
ASHWORTH,P.D. (1996) Presuppose nothing! The suspension of assumptions in phenomenological psycho-
logical methodology,ffournal of Phenomenologieal Psychology, 27, pp. 1-25.
DAWS, S.F., GROVER,C.A., BEGKER,A.H. & McGREGOR,L.N. (1992) Academic dishonesty: prevalence,
determinants, techniques and punishments, Teaching of Psychology, 19, pp. 16-20.
FRANKLYN-SToKEs,A. & NEWSTEAD,S.E. (1995) Cheating: who does what and why? Srudies in Higher
Education, 20, pp. 159-172.
GIORGI,A. (Ed.) (1985) Phenomenology and Psychological Research (Pittsburgh, PA, Duquesne University
Press).
JOHNSTON, D.K. (1991 ) Cheating: reflections on a moral dilemma, Journal of Moral Education, 20, pp. 283-
291.
KVALE, S. (1996) InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research inte~iewing (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
MORGAN, K. (1996) Plagiarism: does it matter? http://ww~ec.spirit.com.aulacec96/papers/plag3.htm
NEWSTEAD, S.E., FRANKLYN-SToKES, B.A., & AV,M S ~ , P. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating,
ffournal of Educational Psychology, 88, pp. 229-241.
ROBERTS, D.M. & TOOMBS, R. (1993) A scale to assess perceptions of cheating in examination-related
situations, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 53, pp. 755-762.
WERTZ, F. (1983) From everyday to psychological description: analysing the moments of a qualitative data
analysis, Journal of PhenomenologicalPsychology, 14, pp. 197-241.
WILLIAMS, C. (1993) Plagiarism: the need for an institutional policy, Education Today, 43, pp. 22-25.

Guilty in Whose Eyes University Students PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Guilty in Whose Eyes University Students PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [Sheffield Hallam University]

On: 21 July 2009

Studies in Higher Education

Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and

Online Publication Date: 01 January 1997

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Guilty in Whose Eyes? University

Learning and Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University, UK

with Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit

0307-5079/97/020187-17 © 1997 Society for Research into Higher Education

It is a relative commonplace for students to be required to sign declarations

TABLE I. Research participants

T h e f i n d i n g s are a r r a n g e d u n d e r t h r e e m a i n h e a d i n g s , (I) Cheating and plagiarism, i n w h i c h

I. Cheating and Plagiarism

Students are anxious that it might occur by accident:

Obtaining advance knowledge of an exam paper would have to be sort of surrep-

Academia does depend on everything being acknowledged, especially if it's actual

(e) Reasons why cheating occurs.

step from A levels. (9)

Published authors are guilty of plagiarism, so why not follow suit?

maturity, and having the ability to envisage other solutions:

III. The Institution

Repeating an earlier quotation, b u t in this context of institutional encouragement:

Different forms of assessment offer different opportunities for cheating:

Ease o f cheating differs between disciplines:

I know s o m e o n e who is doing science and a lot o f that is fact and so it is p r o b a b l y

Discussion: the place o f cheating in the student experience

Peer Loyalty and Fellow-feeling

' S h o r t cuts to learning' such as paraphrasing from a textbook or m a k i n g use o f another

Examination Cheating and other Assessment Procedures

Cheating in non-formally assessed work is viewed as a comparatively acceptable ac-

credible in their eyes.

Institutional Treatment of Cheating

Conclusion: alienation and cheating

Potrebbero piacerti anche