Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student Perceptions of Faculty Use of Cheating Deterrents

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evidence is provided on faculty use of cheating deterrents for in-class exams. The evidence comes from a survey of students who report on their most recent in-class exam in a randomly selected course that they are taking. Three types of cheating are considered: (i) advance knowledge of exam questions; (ii) copying; and (iii) other improper student actions during the exam. The deterrents examined consist of the following: (i) a rate of repeating questions; (ii) multiple versions of the exam and seating arrangements; and (iii) monitoring. The sample size is small but may cover about one-fourth of the faculty at the institution at which the survey was conducted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett, D., & Dalton, J. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22(6), 545–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R., Baca, A., Landers, K., & Witek, M. (2008). Methods of cheating and deterrents to classroom cheating: an international study. Ethics & Behavior, 18(4), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B., Weible, R., & Olmosk, K. (2010). Business school deans on student academic dishonesty: a survey. College Student Journal, 44(2), 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coren, A. (2011). Turning a blind eye: faculty who ignore student cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekhoff, G., LaBeff, E., Clark, R., Williams, L., Francis, B., & Haines, V. (1996). College cheating: ten years later. Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., & Shank, D. (1985). Personal work ethic and effort training affect cheating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 520–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M., Monday, J., O’Brien, K., & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: an examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1979). Protestant ethic endorsement and the fairness of equity inputs. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. (1976). Amount and loci of classroom answer copying, spaced seating, and alternate test forms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 729–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. (1983). Alternate test forms as a means of reducing multiple-choice answer copying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 572–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. (1986). Classroom answer copying: roles of acquaintanceship and free versus assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 230–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B., Whitley, B., & Washburn, J. (1998). Why professors ignore cheating: opinions of a national sample of psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior, 8(3), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerkvliet, J., & Sigmund, C. (1999). Can we control cheating in the classroom. The Journal of Economic Education, 30, 331–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett-Hooper, G., Komarraju, M., Weston, R., & Dollinger, S. (2007). Is plagiarism a forerunner of other deviance? Imagined futures of academically dishonest students. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newstead, S., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premeaux, S. (2005). Undergraduate student perceptions regarding cheating: tier 1 versus tier 2 AACSB accredited business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staats, S., Hupp, J., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes don’t cheat: an examination of academic dishonesty and students’ views on why professors don’t report cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Pope, K. (1991). Ethics of teaching: beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as educators. American Psychologist, 46(5), 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpe, R., Davidson, L., & Bell, M. (2008). Faculty attitudes and behaviors concerning student cheating. College Student Journal, 42(1), 164–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J., & Kelly, R. (1974). Cheating: student/faculty views and responsibilities. Improving College and University Teaching, 22(1), 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

I thank an anonymous reviewer and participants at the PEA Conference for helpful comments. The views in this manuscript are mine and are not necessarily the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. P.O. Box 1115, State College, PA, 16804, USA

    Robert Liebler

Authors
  1. Robert Liebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Liebler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liebler, R. Student Perceptions of Faculty Use of Cheating Deterrents. J Acad Ethics 10, 327–333 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9170-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9170-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation