Show simple item record

Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment

dc.contributor.authorPassow, Honor J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMayhew, Matthew J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFinelli, Cynthia J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHarding, Trevor S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCarpenter, Donald D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-08T20:37:11Z
dc.date.available2006-09-08T20:37:11Z
dc.date.issued2006-04-19en_US
dc.identifier.citationPassow, Honor J.; Mayhew, Matthew J.; Finelli, Cynthia J.; Harding, Trevor S.; Carpenter, Donald D.; (2006). "Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment." Research in Higher Education 47(6): 1-42. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/42694>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0361-0365en_US
dc.identifier.issn1573-188Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/42694
dc.description.abstractAcademic dishonesty (cheating) has been prevalent on college campuses for decades, and the percentage of students reporting cheating varies by college major. This study, based on a survey of 643 undergraduate engineering majors at 11 institutions, used two parallel hierarchical multiple regression analyses to predict the frequency of cheating on exams and the frequency of cheating on homework based on eight blocks of independent variables: demographics, pre-college cheating behavior, co-curricular participation, plus five blocks organized around Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (moral obligation not to cheat, attitudes about cheating, evaluation of the costs and benefits of cheating, perceived social pressures to cheat or not to cheat, and perceived effectiveness of academic dishonesty policies). The final models significantly predict 36% of the variance in “frequency of cheating on exams” and 14% of the variance in “frequency of cheating on homework”. Students don’t see cheating as a single construct and their decisions to cheat or not to cheat are influenced differently depending on the type of assessment. Secondary findings are that a student’s conviction that cheating is wrong no matter what the circumstances is a strong deterrent to cheating across types of assessment and that a student who agrees that he/she would cheat in order to alleviate stressful situations is more likely to cheat on both exams and homework.en_US
dc.format.extent346728 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherKluwer Academic Publishers; Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherCheatingen_US
dc.subject.otherExaminationsen_US
dc.subject.otherHomeworken_US
dc.subject.otherTheory of Planned Behavioren_US
dc.subject.otherEngineeringen_US
dc.subject.otherHigher Educationen_US
dc.titleFactors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEducationen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumCenter for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumCollege of Engineering and Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA, ; 1071 Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Avenue , Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Student Life Assessment, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherManufacturing Engineering, Kettering University, Flint, MI, 48504, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherCivil Engineering, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, 48075, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/42694/1/11162_2006_Article_9010.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9010-yen_US
dc.identifier.sourceResearch in Higher Educationen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.