Rarely
Sometimes
Usually
always
Total
Cheating1
24.3
27.8
27
18.3
2.6
100
Cheating2
25.2
23.5
30.5
16.5
4.3
100
Cheating3
28.7
24.3
24.3
12.3
10.4
100
Cheating4
32.3
21.7
24.3
13.9
7.8
100
Cheating5
33
31.3
14.8
17.4
3.5
100
Cheating6
25.2
19.1
27
15.7
13
100
Cheating7
28.7
24.3
20
18.3
8.7
100
Cheating8
56.5
20
10.4
7
6.1
100
Cheating9
64.3
13.9
8.7
7
6.1
100
Cheating10
64.3
18.3
10.4
6.1
0.9
100
Cheating11
50.4
27.8
14.8
4.3
2.7
100
Cheating12
68.7
14.8
11.3
2.6
2.6
100

According to table 13 the second and third columns from the right table (always or most of the time), for the 5 final questions (new methods), the percentages are lower than other states. Therefore, we can conclude that the new methods are less used.
According to table 12 -13we can understand that most students use the old method to cheat. Perhaps the reason for this usage is the availability and simplicity of these methods. Another reason for such a preference is that students are not allowed to use mobile phone (as a new method) in the exam sessions. The other reason may be the higher risk of using the new methods compared to the old ones. Furthermore, students may be afraid to use the new methods.

Chapter vii
Discussion, Conclusion,
Implications, and
Suggestions

3.10 Introduction

Chapter five. Discussion, Conclusion, Implication ans suggestion

3.11Discussion Cheating and rapport are complex construct that need further research. in this study, the researcher hypothesized that the relationship between teacher and student reduces students’ cheating, but it is clear that students’ cheating relates to some variables such as culture, school environment, poor teaching, student’s financial situations, age, gender and so on too. Although in this research no significant relationship between teacher-student rapport and students’ willingness to cheat was observed, considering other variables can help reduce students’ interest in cheating. As noted by Baird (1980), cheating is an unplanned occasion.
3.12Conclusion:
The conclusion we can draw from this study is that there is no clear-cut profile of a student who cheats. The decision to cheat and the reasons leading up to the decision are complex and include a variety of personal and situational factors. Since school is a big society with different cultures, philosophies and values, prevalence of cheating in school is more alarming than its prevalence in society (Callahan, 2004). Thus, it is necessary for teachers to know their students and be informed about traditional and technological methods of student cheating.
3.13Implications for the classroom:
As noted by Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitly and Washburn (1998), “Cheating has become a serious problem in today’s classrooms, in particular at the college level” (p.223). Cheating occurs in classroom from sharing answers with classmate to use cell phones for writing messages, from copying materials to cutting and pasting homework answers found on the Internet, from bringing cheat sheets on gum wrappers into exams to advanced preparation of essay answers on laptop computers. Although old methods of cheating, such as sharing exam answers are still common, technology has facilited methods are being described more frequently in popular press and academic literature. The use of technology facilitated methods of cheating may be related to individual differences, such as college major, financial affluence, and technological expertise. Some college major needs to use of more technology than do other majors. Thus it is clear that cheating is directly related to demands of the academic task. Therefore, if the task requires technology, then the cheating method occurs by technology. Our review of the literature indicates the how students cheat also depends on the characteristics of the teacher. For example, McCabe (1999) remarked if teachers were not technologically proficient, would not be able to detect cheating if Internet sources were utilized. Wells (1996) showed that if teachers don’t have good relationship with the students, they will lose their motivation and class is not interesting for them, so they use cheating. Another teacher characteristic that affects how student cheat is that some teachers ignore cheating behavior that it may develop cheating as a normative behavior.
3.14Suggestion:
In this study, although the relationship between teacher and students did not any impact on reducing students’ cheating behaviors, it should be considered as a variable that can control cheating behaviors with other variables. Based on review of literature, Eisenberg (2004) remarked that some variables such as, situational and personal variables have major roles in students’ cheating behaviors as, competitive environment, poor teaching, different culture, poor monitoring on exam and parents pressure, age and gender. Cheating has a complex structure that needs further research. As noted by Baird (1980), “cheating is an unplanned occasion” (p, 520). Thus, in future studies all variables should be considered to reduce cheating behaviors among students. For example, study the relationship between gender and cheating behavior. Study the relationship between middle school and high school with cheating behavior.

References

Abimbade, A.A. (1999). Teaching and teacher preparation in the twenty first
century.Department of Teacher Education. http://journal- archieves20
.webs.com/557-565.pdf
Ahlers-Schmidt, C. R., & Burdsal, C. (2004). Passive cheating in back-to-back
classes. Teaching of Psychology, 31,108-109.

Anderman, E. M.,(1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1,84-93

Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and
cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
84-93

Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic
cheating across the transition from middle school to high school.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 499-517.

Anderman, E. M. & Murdock, T. B., (2006). Motivational perspectives on student
cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational
Psychologist, 41,129-145.

Anderson, M. (1992). Impostors in the temple. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Athanasou, J. A., & Olasehinde, O. (2002). Male and female differences in self-
report cheating Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8{5).
Retrieved February 3, 2005 from.http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=5

Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-522
Bajah, S.T. (1999).The Challenges of Science Technology and Teacher Education
in Nigeria Beyond the year 2000. African Journal of Education 1(91) 43-49.

Baker,J.A.(1999).Teacher-student intraction in urban at-risk classroom:
Differential behavior,relationship quality, and student staisfaction with
school.The Elementary school Journal,100(1),57-70

Baldwin, D. C., Jr., Daugherty, S.R., Rowley, B. D., &Schwarz, M. R. (1996).
Cheatingin medica! school: A survey of second-year students
at 31 schools. Academic Medicine, 71, 267-273

Bandura, A. (1971). Psychotherapy based upon Modelling Principles in A.E.
Benguna and S.Garfield (Eds). Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behaviour
Change. An Empirical Analysis.New York Wiley and Sons Inc

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school
communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151.

Bell, R. A. and Daly, J.A. (1984). The affinity seeking function of communication.
Communication Monographs, 51, 91-115.

Berg, J. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and
Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-42.

Borsboom, D., (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables.Psychological
Review, 110, 203-219

Bouville, M. (2010). Why is Cheating Wrong?. Studies In Philosophy & Education
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.1506.pdf

Bracken, B. A., & Craine, R. M. (1994). Children’s and adolescents’interpersonal
relations: Do age, race, and gender define normalcy? Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 14-32.

Brandes, B. (1986). Academic honesty: A special study of California students.
California State Department of Education, p. 36, the Chronicle of Higher
Education. (1999). Colloquy.Retrieved June 22, 2005 from
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/99/cheat/27.htm.

Brophy, J. (1985). Teachers’ expectations, motives, and goals for working with
problem students. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in

دسته بندی : No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید