disagree
Rapport1
11.3
8.7
29.6
30.4
20
Rapport2
15.7
20.9
23.5
25.2
14.8
Rapport3
8.7
10.4
25.2
38.3
17.4
Rapport4
9.6
13
21.7
35.7
20
Rapport5
39.1
33
11.3
9.6
7
Rapport6
24.3
8.7
13.9
32.2
20.9
Rapport7
21.7
20.9
24.3
20.9
12.2
Rapport8
32.2
28.7
13
13.9
12.2
Rapport9
7
3.5
10.4
38.3
40.9
Rapport10
1.8.3
14.8
31.3
12.2
23.5

Now in the table 6 the results of descriptive statistics are shown for the whole samples and the cheating questions:
Table 6 Descriptive statistics
cheating
Mean
Median
SD
Cheating1
2.48
2
1.13
Cheating2
2.51
3
1.17
Cheating3
2.51
2
1.31
Cheating4
2.43
2
1.29
Cheating5
2.27
2
1.19
Cheating6
2.72
3
1.35
Cheating7
2.54
2
1.31
Cheating8
1.86
1
1.22
Cheating9
1.77
1
1.23
Cheating10
1.61
1
0.96
Cheating11
1.81
1
1.02
Cheating12
1.56
1
0.98

Percentages
cheating
never
rarely
sometimes
usually
always
Cheating1
24.3
27.8
26.1
19.1
2.6
Cheating2
25.2
23.5
30.4
16.5
4.3
Cheating3
28.7
24.3
24.3
12.2
10.4
Cheating4
32.2
21.7
24.3
13.9
7.8
Cheating5
33
31.3
14.8
17.4
3.5
Cheating6
25.2
19.1
27
15.7
13
Cheating7
28.7
24.3
20
18.3
8.7
Cheating8
56.5
20
10.4
7
6.1
Cheating9
64.3
13.9
8.7
7
6.1
Cheating10
64.3
18.3
10.4
6.1
0.9
Cheating11
50.4
27.8
14.8
4.3
2.6
Cheating12
68.7
14.8
11.3
2.6
2.6

Inferential statistics
In the table 6, the research hypotheses are tested.
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between student-teacher relationship and students’ cheating.
The statistical hypothesis test is as follows:
Null hypothesis: There is not a significant relationship between student-teacher relationship and students’ cheating.
The opposite hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between student-teacher relationship and students’ cheating.
Given that the questionnaires’ items are qualitative and of ordinal scale, nonparametric Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used. The results are as follows:
Table 7 Correlations

cheating
rapport
Spearman’s rho
cheating
Correlation Coefficient
1.000
-.093

Sig. (1-tailed)
.
.162

N
115
115

rapport
Correlation Coefficient
-.093
1.000

Sig. (1-tailed)
.162
.

N
115
115

Interpretation:
Since in table 7 the probability of error is higher than 5%, so the assumption is not significant. That is, with 95% confidence there is not a significant relationship between student-teacher relationship and students” cheating. Because the correlation coefficient of the two variables is negative, the relationship is inverse type. It means that the stronger the relationship between student and teacher, the less cheating in the exam. However, in this case, the correlation is not so strong that the hypothesis is confirmed.

Correlation graph between relationship and cheating
Scatter plot

The Correlation chart
The above chat shows the Scatter Plot of the relationships between teacher-student relationships and students’ cheating. If the points on the chart be on or near the first and the third quadrant bisecting line, there will be a strong correlation. This feature is not seen in the above chart and the points are scattered quite chaotically. Therefore, as the correlation coefficient was calculated, the correlation coefficient is not significant.
ANOVA test
In order to conduct ANOVA test, the distribution of the data should be normal. Therefore, firstly, using Kolmogorov – Smirnov test, the normality of data is investigated. This test has the following assumptions:
Null hypothesis: The distribution is normal.
Converse hypothesis: The distribution is not normal.
Oneway

Table 9 ANOVA
rapport

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
1.748
4
.437
.508
.730
Within Groups
94.520
110
.859

Total
96.268
114

Interpretation:

NPar Tests

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

rapport
Cheating
N
115
115
Normal Parametersa
Mean
3.0957
2.2696

Std. Deviation
.91894
.76905
Most Extreme Differences
Absolute
.073
.121

Positive
.050
.121

Negative
-.073
-.049
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.785
1.293
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.568
.071

Interpretation:
Since table 9 showesthe probability of error for both of the variables are more than 5%, then the assumption is not significant. That is, with a 95% confidence level, for both teacher-student relationship and students’ cheating are normal and there is no problem using ANOVA.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between teacher-student relationship and students’ GPA.
The statistical hypothesis testing is as follows:

Null hypothesis: the relationship between teacher and student is the same at the different levels of GPA.
The opposite hypothesis: There is a difference between teacher-student relationship in the different levels of GPA.
To perform this test, given that the data values are of numerical types and the number of GPA levels are more than two, the ANOVA will be used. However, since the assumption of normality of the data was not available, we use its parametric test, i.e. the Kruskal – Wallis test. This test uses an asymptotic distribution chi-square statistic. The results are as follows

Oneway

Table 10 ANOVA
rapport

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
1.748
4
.437
.508
.730
Within Groups
94.520
110
.859

Total
96.268
114

Interpretation:
NPar Tests

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Ranks

moadel
N
Mean Rank
rapport

1
2
59.50

2
15
63.43

3
31
61.82

4
37
56.65

5
30
52.90

Total
115

Test Statisticsa,b

Rapport
Chi-square
1.575
df
4
Asymp. Sig.
.813
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: moadel

Since the probability of error is higher than 5%, then the assumption is not significant. That is, with 95% confidence level the teacher and student relationship at all GPA levels are the same. That means teacher-student relationship is not related to the students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between students’ cheating and their GPA.
The statistical hypothesis test is as follows:

Null hypothesis: Students’ cheating/ not cheating is the same at different levels of GPA .
Opposite hypothesis: There is a difference between students’ cheating / not cheating at different levels of GPA.
To conduct this test, given that the data values are of numerical values and the number of GPA levels are more than two levels, the ANOVA will be used. However, since the assumption of normality of the data was not available, we use its’ paramedics’ equivalent (the Kruskal – Wallis test). This test uses an asymptotic distribution chi-square statistic. The results are as follows:
Oneway

Table 11 ANOVA

cheating

Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
3.029
4
.757
1.293
.277
Within Groups
64.395
110
.585

Total
67.423
114

NPar Tests

Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks

moadel
N
Mean Rank
cheating
1
1
2
44.25

2
15
52.00

3
31
56.61

4
37
52.38

5
30
70.28

Total
115

Test Statisticsa,b

cheating
Chi-square
6.021
df
4
Asymp. Sig.
.198
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: moadel

Since in table 11 the probability of error is higher than 5%, so the assumption is not significant. That is, with 95% confidence level of students’ cheating/ not cheating are the same. This means that students’ cheating / not cheating is not related with their GPA.
– Another question addressed is that whether students use old methods or advanced methods for cheating?
To investigate this question, researcher considers the frequency and percentage of responses.

Table 12. Table of response frequency
Frequency table
Cheating
Never
rarely
Sometimes
Usually

Always
Total
Cheating1
28
32
31
21
3
115
Cheating2
29
27
35
19
5
115
Cheating3
33
28
28
14
12
115
Cheating4
37
25
28
16
9
115
Cheating5
38
36
17
20
4
115
Cheating6
29
22
31
18
15
115
Cheating7
33
28
23
21
10
115
Cheating8
65
23
12
8
7
115
Cheating9
74
16
10
8
7
115
Cheating10
74
21
12
7
1
115
Cheating11
58
32
17
5
3
115
Cheating12
79
17
13
3
3
115

Of the 12 methods listed in table 12, with a little care, we can say the first 7 method refers to old methods and the last 5 methods refer to new cheating methods.
Considering the second and third column from the right of the table (always and most of the times), for the last 5 questions (items number 8-12 which refers to the new methods), the number was one digit and are less than the other scenarios. Therefore, we can conclude that the new methods are less used.
Table.13 Response percent
cheating
Never

دسته بندی : No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید