A Relationship Between Cheating and Accountability in Community College Mathematics Classes
A Relationship Between Cheating and Accountability in Community College Mathematics Classes
Files
Publication or External Link
Date
1975
Authors
Strong, David H.
Advisor
Davidson, Neil A.
Citation
DRUM DOI
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
between cheating behavior and the situation of
varying degrees of accountability in community college
mathematics classes. Three community college mathematics
classes were selected for the experiment with one arbitrarily
designated as the High accountability group, another
arbitrarily designated as the Moderate accountability group,
and a third as the Low accountability group.
Five examinations were given to each class at s paced
intervals during the experimental period with directions
that there were penalties to one's score for guessing and
that all work had to be shown on separate paper. Each
class was told that every student would correct his own
examination. After each examination, the instructor surreptitiously
made a record of answers given by each student.
When the examinations were returned for correction in class,
the following took place. An answer key was passed out, and the instructor left the room to administer the examination
to those absent from the previous class . He remained
absent long enough for cheating behavior to take place.
Upon the instructor's return, answer sheets only were collected
and placed on a table so the instructor could see
which students answered which questions correctly.
For each question, a student in the High Accountability
group was selected by the instructor to explain and
otherwise defend his correct answer to the class' satisfaction.
The selection of the student was random and based
only on whether or not he had correctly answered the question.
If he failed to satisfactorily defend his answer, he
was either reprimanded or reminded of the directions printed
on the examination. This procedure was continued for the
remainder of the class until all questions were satisfactorily
answered. It was usually the case that all students
were called on at least once during the period. In this
way, students were made to feel accountable for their
answers. In the Moderate Accountability group, students
were selected to answer every other question, and in the
Low Accountability group, the instructor answered all questions
unless a class member volunteered. When the class was
finished, answer sheets were compared in the office to the
earlier copies of the original answer sheets. A record was
made of how many people had cheated in each class and the
total number of answers that had been altered in any way. Scores used for achievement measurement were taken from the
original answer sheets.
Cheating was defined to be the deliberate changing
or addition of an answer when marking one's own paper. Incidences
of cheating meant the total number of answers
changed, and rate of cheating meant the total number of
changed answers divided by the total number of cheaters in
each class.
Four hypotheses were tested: the Analysis of Variance
technique was used for hypothesis A, and the chi-square
statistic for hypotheses B, C, and D. These hypotheses are
as follows:
(A) There are no significant differences among the
achievement of the subjects in the classes with varying degrees
of accountability.
(B) There are no significant differences among the
number of subjects exhibiting cheating behavior in classes
with varying degrees of accountability.
(C) There are no significant differences among the
number of cheating incidences in classes with varying degrees
of accountability.
(D) There are no significant differences among the
rate of cheating in classes with varying degrees of accountability.
Using the .05 level of significance, the results are
as follows:
(1) No significant differences appeared when the
achievement of the classes was compared.
(2) No significant differences appeared between the
number of cheaters in the classes for the first exam, but
there were significantly fewer cheaters in the High Accountability
group than in both the Moderate Accountability group
and the Low Accountability group on the other four examinations.
(3) No significant differences appeared between the
incidence of cheating in the classes for the first examination
but there were significantly fewer incidences of cheating
in the High Accountability group than in both the
Moderate Accountability group and the Low Accountability
group on the other four examinations
(4) No significant differences appeared for any exam
when the rate of cheating was compared.