1. R ESEARCH REPORT : R USSIAN AND A MERICAN C OLLEGE S TUDENTS ’ A TTITUDES, P ERCEPTIONS, AND T ENDENCIES T OWARDS C HEATING Team #1: Ania Etlender, Aryn Moulton, Nadine Sexton, Lee Staub, Rebecca Stern, Shaila Thompson October 17, 2013

3. Terms used in this Research

4. Academic Dishonesty: “Any type of cheating that occurs in relation to a formal academic exercise. It can include plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating, bribery, sabotage, professorial misconduct, or impersonation” (“Academic dishonesty,” n.d.). Cheating: “receiving credit for work that is not one’s own” (Fraenkel, Wallen, Hyun, 2012, p. 417). Cheating Tendencies: “actual cheating in various forms” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 417). Content-Related Validity (evidence of): “The degree to which an instrument logically appers to measure an intended variable; it is determined by expert judgment” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-2). Convenience Sample/Sampling: “A sample that is easily accessible” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-2). Dichotomous Questions: “Questions that permit only a yes or no answer” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-2). Endemic: “Characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment ” (“Endemic,” n.d.).

5. Internal Validity: “The degree to which observed differences on the dependent variable are directly related to the independent variable, not to some other (uncontrolled) variable” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-4). Instrument Decay: “Changes in instrumentation over time that may affect the internal validity of a study” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-4). Instrumentation Threat: “The possibility that results are due to variations in the way data are collected, thereby affecting internal validity” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-4). Location Threat: “The possibility that results are due to characteristics of the setting or location in which a study is conducted, thereby producing a threat to internal validity” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-4). Mortality Threat: “The possibility that results are due to the fact that subjects who are for whatever reason “lost” to a study may differ from those who remain so that their absence has an important effect on the results of the study” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-5).

6. Nondirectional Hypothesis: “A prediction that a relationship exists without specifying its exact nature” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-5). Qualitative Research/Study: “Research in which the investigator attempts to study naturally occurring phenomena in all their complexity” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-7). Scalar Questions: “Series of statements using a seven-point scale anchored with Strongly disagree to Strongly agree” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 411). Survey Study/Research: “An attempt to obtain data from members of a population (or a sample) to determine the current status of that population with respect to one or more variables” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-8). Target Population: “The population to which the researcher, ideally, would like to generalize results” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-8). Unit of Analysis: “The unit that is used in data analysis (individuals, object, groups, classrooms, etc.)” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. G-9).

7. Academic Dishonesty Cheating Cheating Tendencies Content Related Validity Convenience Sample Dichotomous Questions Endemic Internal Validity Instrument Decay Instrumentation Threat Location Threat Mortality Threat Nondirectional Hypothesis Qualitative Research Scalar Questions Survey Study Target Population Unit of Analysis Find the Terms Circle the words, which can be in any direction Click here to view/print the.pdf version.

8. In a Nutshell

9. Summary of Research on Cheating This study investigates the differences between Russian and American business college students

10. Attitudes aboutAttitudes about 1 Perceptions ofPerceptions of 2 Tendencies in regards toTendencies in regards to 3 Differences in CHEATING!

11. “Hmmm, I am not sure if I like him cheating!”

12. History of Cheating

13. Cheating has been around for over 2,000 years. Today, students get expelled for cheating. But, back in ancient China, the penalty for the student and teacher was DEATH!

14. 200 Number of studies and reports created in U.S. regarding students cheating in college 70% Percentage of U.S. college students who admit to cheating (based on various studies)

15. 1)Reporting the incidences and types of cheating, 2)Reporting the behavioral and situational causes of cheating, 3)Reporting the reactions of academia towards cheating, The five literature categories for U.S. cheating are: 4)Discussing the prevention and control of cheating, 5)And presenting statistical research methodologies used to measure academic misconduct.

16. Russia has only one major study conducted by Poltorak (2005) about attitudes and tendencies towards cheating at post-secondary technical universities. Poltorak’s study found that cheating occurred 80% of the time, and male college students were found to cheat more than females.

17. Factors That May Affect Russian Cheating % Russian educational systems lack funding and may be in “serious disrepair” so bribes are common (Dolshenko, 1999). Plus, not all Russians value higher education. And, Russian culture is more collective than the U.S. (Ryan et al., 1991).

18. Other international studies on student cheating have been conducted in: Australia Austria Germany Palestine Poland United Kingdom But most of these are not comparative studies. Who Else Cheats?

19. Cross-National Student Cheating Studies  Australian and U.S. college students cheated more in high school than college; it’s linked to grade and learner-oriented attitudes (Davis et al., 1994).  Japanese college students report higher cheating tendency levels than U.S. students and can rationally justify it (Diekhoff et al., 1999).  Polish students cheat more than U.S. students and don’t feel cheating is so bad. They also blame it on the environment created by the instructor (Lupton et al., 2000).

20. Chapman & Lupton To date, Chapman & Lupton are the first to conduct a cross- national study between Russian and U.S. business- college students. So, their cross-national study provides the first bit of information on differences in attitudes, beliefs, and tendencies towards cheating with Russian and U.S. business-college students.

21. M ETHOD AND S AMPLE

22. Two Nations, Two Groups, and a Convenience Sample The following are the types of the samples taken:  Location  Gender  Age  Academic class; although all were business students

23. United States Sample Location: Colorado State University, Fort Collins Sample size: 443 “usable” Gender ratio: 50% male, 50% female Age: average of 21 years Average GPA: 3.02 Grade Level: 52% juniors, 45.8% seniors

24. Russian Sample Location: Novgorod State University and the Norman School College, both in Novogorod Sample size: 174 “usable” Gender ratio: 64% male, 36% female Age: average of 21 years Average GPA: 4.27 Grade Level: 56.1% freshmen, 20.5%, 17.5% graduate students

25. S URVEY I NSTRUMENT

26. Questionnaires Identical, anonymous, self-reporting questionnaires were used in both countries Contained basic demographic questions Administered during students’ classes Consisted of 29 questions:  Dichotomous (yes/no) questions specifically asked about cheating behaviors (e.g., “Have you cheated during college?” “Have you received information about an exam from students in earlier sections of the class?”) (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 410-11).

27. Questionnaires (cont.) 29 questions (cont.) :  Scalar questions were asked using a seven- point scale and topics about student’s attitudes and beliefs about cheating (e.g., “Cheating on one exam is really not that bad. I believe telling someone in a later section about an exam you just took is OK”) (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 411).  One question that “… asked students to assess what proportion of their peers they believe cheat” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 410).

28. P ROCEDURES / I NTERNAL V ALIDITY

29. Results that need consideration “If the study intended to simply describe differences, internal validity is not an issue. If, however, results are used to imply causation, alternative explanations for nationality-causing cheating must be considered” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p 418).

30. What the authors said “The authors report that “neither expected grade in the course, overall grade-point- average, college class and gender, nor age interacted with country,” thus eliminating these alternative explanations. They further explained that variable such as teaching philosophy and societal values may provide a better understanding” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p 418).

31. C ONCLUSION

32. The 1 st Comparative Study This was the first study to compare the American and Russian views on academic dishonesty, which found that Russian students reported higher frequency of cheating. Russian and American students interpret academic dishonesty differently.

33. Takeaways from this Research Student exchange programs and international students are now becoming more dominant, which affect classroom management techniques. Effective classroom management is influenced by the norm in the region. More research is needed to fully understand cheating.

34. D ISCUSSION Q UESTIONS

35. The following questions are also located in iLearn 1.The researchers used a self-report questionnaire consisting of a series of yes/no questions, scalar questions, and one question that asked participants to assess perception of cheating behavior among peers. Do you feel this was an effective survey-instrument design to capture the cheating differences between Russian and American business college students? Why or why not? How would you devise a survey instrument or what would you do differently than these researchers to capture the differences in beliefs and behaviors around cheating between Russian and American business students? 2.Throughout the report, the researchers’ attitudes towards academic cheating as well as the role that instructors play in curbing “academic dishonesty” become clear: “Instructors should educate students on the virtues of not engaging in cheating” (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 414). What impact, if any, does researcher bias have on the outcome of this study, i.e., in instrument design, analysis of results, etc.? 3.Did you identify any extraneous variables in the sample that may have skewed the study’s results? What are they and what impact might they have had on the research conclusions?

36. The following questions are also located in iLearn (cont.) 4.How reliable and valid are the analysis of the two scenarios (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 411) ? Is there one true answer? Keep in mind the answers are being analyzed and interpreted by American researchers and their perspectives. Would it have been different had they been interpreted and compared by a Russian researcher? 5.When I moved to the United States, I had to study for my driver’s permit test. I read the book, but in addition, someone gave me several previous exam forms with the answers. The test I took was different from those. However, I used them to learn the questions and understand the answers. Would that be considered cheating? Why or why not? 6.In your opinion, what is considered cheating and why do you feel that way? Is it black and white? Do you think your view matches that of the educational system? Why? Does the purpose of cheating affect your response? Who is responsible for monitoring cheating? Is it a student’s or are there more factors involved?

37. A PPENDIX

38. References Academic dishonesty. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty Davis, S. F., Noble, L. M., Zak, E. N., & Dreyer, K. K. (1994). A comparison of cheating and learning: Grade orientation in American and Australian college students. College Student Journal, 28, 353-6. Diekhoff, G. M., Labeff, E. E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999). College cheating in Japan and the United States. Research in Higher Education, 40, 3, 343-53.

39. References (cont.) Dolshenko, L. (1999). The college student today: A social portrait and attitudes toward schooling. Russian Social Science Review, 40, 5, 73-83. Endemic. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/endemichttp://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/endemic Frankel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8 th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

40. References (cont.) Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K., & Weiss, J. (2000). American and Slovakian university business students’ attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward academic cheating. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 4, 231-41. Poltorak, Y. (1995). Cheating behavior among students of four Moscow institutes. Higher Education, 30, 2, 225-46. Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 12, 1509-24.

41. H ERE ’ S SOMETHING THAT ’ S JUST TOTALLY ENTERTAINING ABOUT CHEATING ! Click here for a fun surprise!