Annotated Bibliography on Cheating and Plagiarism

 

Symposium: Ethical conduct of student physicians: the special problem of cheating (1981). Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education, 20, 269-275.

Alschuler, A. S. & Blimling, G. S. (1995). Curbing Epidemic Cheating Through Systemic Change. College Teaching, 43, 123-126.
Abstract: A discussion of the prevalence of academic cheating in higher education looks at research on the problem and at possible remedies. Difficulties for faculty in enforcing discipline policies are noted. Approaches to creating a culture encouraging integrity include vocal administrative support for ethics, an academic integrity code, classroom procedural changes that discourage cheating, and powerful institutional support for faculty. (MSE)

Anderson, R. E. & Obenshain, S. S. (1994). Cheating by students: findings, reflections, and remedies. Academic Medicine, 69, 323-332.
Abstract: Cheating among students is surprisingly frequent and may be increasing. The 1991 study reported herein was prompted by an episode of cheating involving three second-year medical students at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM) and was undertaken (1) to elicit the opinions of faculty members and students at that institution about whether selected descriptions of students' behaviors were unethical; (2) to document possible discrepancies between the opinions of the two groups concerning these behaviors; (3) to define the prevalence of unethical behavior among current students as estimated by faculty and students; and (4) to determine how best to approach future instances of unethical behavior. Questionnaires were distributed to all faculty and students. The first two parts, sent to both groups, concerned reactions to a series of described physician and student behaviors. For each described behavior, respondents were asked whether or not it was unethical and, for the described student behaviors, whether they had personal knowledge of such behavior by local medical students. The third portion of the questionnaire concerned faculty perceptions regarding students' behaviors over time. With the exception of the class involved in the cheating incident, faculty and students were surprisingly similar in their opinions regarding the ethical nature of the described behaviors. According to both faculty and students, there was a significant incidence ( > or = to 10% of the respondents) of unethical behavior at the school of medicine, most commonly in relation to cheating on examinations.

Auer, N. J. & Krupar, E. M. (2001). Mouse Click Plagiarism: The Role of Technology in Plagiarism and the Librarian's Role in Combating It. Library Trends, 49, 415-432.
Abstract: Discusses the growing problem of plagiarism in academia, particularly with Internet-based resources. Topics include factors influencing student behaviors and attitudes toward plagiarism; faculty attitudes; and the role of librarians in helping to prevent and detect plagiarism, including student instruction and forming partnerships with faculty. (LRW)

Baldwin, D. C., Jr. and others. (1996). Cheating in Medical School: A Survey of Second-Year Students at 31 Schools. Academic Medicine, 71, 267-273.
Abstract: A survey of 2,459 medical students found that 39% had witnessed cheating in their first 2 years of medical school, and 66.5% had heard about cheating. About 5% reported having cheated during that time. Students appeared resigned to the fact of cheating, but lacked consensus about how to proceed when witnessing it. Guidance in intervening in ethical situations is recommended. (Author/MSE)

Beemsterboer, P. L. (1997). Academic Integrity: What Kind of Students Are We Getting and How Do We Handle Them Once We Get Them? Journal of Dental Education, 61, 686-688.
Abstract: Presents data on values and behaviors of students before they arrive at dental school, particularly regarding cheating, and examines how these are related to the values and behaviors expected of them in professional school. Discusses faculty's role in prevention and treatment of academic dishonesty: structuring an environment to prevent dishonesty; establishing clear expectations; and acting as role models. (MSE)

Booth, D. E. & Hoyer, P. J. (1992). Cheating: Faculty Responsibilities When Integrity Fails. Nursing Outlook, 40, 86-93.
Abstract: Faculty members faced with unethical behavior by students can be guided by an ethical decision-making framework to help them protect student and faculty rights and promote moral development. (Author)

Bradshaw, M. J. & Lowenstein, A. J. (1990). Perspectives on academic dishonesty. Nurse Educ, 15, 10-15.
Abstract: Academic dishonest behaviors, such as lying, cheating, and plagiarism, are destructive and must be recognized and addressed early in the development of professional nurses. Faculty must be concerned with the relationship between student integrity in the classroom and clinical or professional behaviors. The authors discuss student motivation and attitudes toward unethical practices, faculty responses, and responsibilities when these incidents arise, and strategies for preventing academic dishonesty

Brooks, C. M. and others. (1981). Student Attitudes toward a Medical School Honor Code. Journal of Medical Education, 56, 669-671.
Abstract: A survey to determine medical student perceptions of an honor code and the attitudes of medical students toward personal adherence to the provisions of an honor code at the University of Alabama School of Medicine is presented. Support was compromised by the reluctance of students to report suspected violations. (MLW)

Brooks, M. H. (1995). Cheating in medical school. Cheating continues on through career. BMJ, 311, 193.

Brown, B. S. (1995). The Academic Ethics of Graduate Business Students: A Survey. Journal of Education for Business, 70, 151-156.
Abstract: Survey responses from 207 of 313 graduate business students revealed that 80% had engaged in at least 1 of 15 unethical practices. No relationship appeared between ethical behavior/attitudes and student characteristics. Despite their self-perception as more ethical than undergraduates, graduate students had similar frequency of unethical behavior compared to undergraduates in other studies. (SK)

Buckley, M. R., Wiese, D. S., & Harvey, M. G. (1998). An Investigation into the Dimensions of Unethical Behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 284-290.
Abstract: Data from 86 female and 124 male business students indicated that the most effective predictors of cheating were the probability of being caught, high hostility/ aggression (Type A behavior), and gender. Males reported a higher tendency to engage in unethical behavior. (SK)

Burnett, D. D., Rudolph, L., & Clifford, K. O. (1998). Academic Integrity Matters. NASPA Monograph Series.
Abstract: The problem of academic dishonesty is festering on campuses across the nation. On most campuses a student-managed honor system is the sole mechanism for enforcing the integrity of the academic process. This monograph examines the many perspectives the problem presents and is designed to be used by a broad cross-section of the institutional community. It includes the following chapters: (1) "Creating a Campus Climate for Academic Integrity" (Jon C. Dalton); (2) "Students' Perceptions of Academic Integrity: Curtailing Violations" (Wanda Kaplan and Phyllis Mable); (3) "The Academic Dishonesty of College students: The Prevalence of the Problem and Effective Educational Prevention Programs" (William L. Kibler); (4) "The Classroom Environment and Academic Integrity: A Behavioral Science Perspective" (Bernard E. Whitley, Jr. and Mary E. Kite); (5) "A Comprehensive Approach for Creating a Campus Climate that Promotes Academic Integrity" (Lynn Rudolph and Linda Timm); (6) "When Institutions and Their Faculty Address Issues of Academic Dishonesty: Realities and Myths" (Donald D. Gehring); (7) "The Effect of Institutional Policies and Procedures on Academic Integrity" (Donald L. McCabe and Gary M. Pavela); (8) "Academic Integrity and Campus Climate at Small Colleges" (Karen O. Clifford); (9) "Can the Academic Integrity of Cost-Effective Distance Learning Course Offerings be Protected?" (Mary Elisabeth Randall); (10) "The Impact of Technology on Academic Integrity" (Harold Goldsmith); (11) "Conclusions." (Contains 242 references.) (JDM)

Chiodo, G. T. & Tolle, S. W. (1994). Student cheating: ethical issues. Dentistry, 14, 21-26.

Cole, S. & McCabe, D. L. (1996). Issues in Academic Integrity. New Directions for Student Services, 67-77.
Abstract: Presents statistics and research findings concerning student academic dishonesty and discuss useful processes and sanctions in adjudicating cases. Prevention strategies and ways to implement proactive campus initiatives are also presented. (Author/KW)

Cole, S. & Kiss, E. (2001). The Delicate Task of Combating Student Cheating. Trusteeship, 9, 24-28.
Abstract: Describes the alarming rise in cheating at colleges and universities and considers the responsibility of trustees in addressing the problem. (EV)

Collura, F. J. (1997). Academic Corrective Action from a Legal Perspective. Journal of Dental Education, 61, 689-691.
Abstract: In cases of cheating, plagiarism, or violations of the law in dental education, a very high level of due process is required. University counsel can help administrators determine whether an accused student is professionally suited to dentistry by characterizing as many corrective actions as possible as academic under the rubric of "suitability to practice dentistry." (MSE)

Coverdale, J. H. & Henning, M. A. (2000). An Analysis of Cheating Behaviors during Training by Medical Students. Medical Teacher, 22, 582-584.
Abstract: Assesses the acceptability of various behaviors including cheating behaviors and their prevalence during medical school training. Involves second and fourth year medical students in the study and reports behaviors of altering or manipulating data and falsifying references or a bibliography. (Author/YDS)

Dans, P. E. (1996). Self-reported cheating by students at one medical school. Academic Medicine, 71, S70-S72.

Davies, S. (2001). Cheating at medical school. Summary of rapid responses. BMJ, 322, 299.

Davis, S. F. and others. (1992). Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants, Techniques, and Punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16-20.
Abstract: Discusses results of a questionnaire asking students' opinions and experiences concerning academic cheating. Examines the prevalence, situational and dispositional determinants, and techniques of cheating. Concludes that pressures for good grades, student stress, ineffective deterrents, condoning teachers, and an increasing lack of academic integrity are important determinants of cheating. (DK)

Davis, S. F. & Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional Data on Academic Dishonesty and a Proposal for Remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 119-121.
Abstract: Maintains that cheating is a major concern on college campuses. Presents data from 2,153 upper-division undergraduate students on the frequency of cheating, reasons for cheating, and influence of penalties on cheating. Offers a model that develops an internalized code of ethics to counteract academic dishonesty. (CFR)

Derting, T. L. (1997). Undergraduate Views of Academic Misconduct in the Biological Sciences. American Biology Teacher, 59, 147-151.
Abstract: Reports on a survey designed to study four aspects of academic misconduct: (1) the prevalence of academic misconduct; (2) perceptions of what constitutes academic misconduct; (3) views regarding causal factors; and (4) punitive measures appropriate in an instance of academic misconduct. Proposes recommendations to enhance student awareness and understanding of academic misconduct. (JRH)

Diekhoff, G. M. and others. (1996). College Cheating: Ten Years Later. Research in Higher Education, 37, 487-502.
Abstract: A follow-up study of college students' (n=474) cheating behaviors looked at extent of cheating, attitudes toward it, characteristics of cheaters/noncheaters, effectiveness of deterrents, and attitude changes from 1984-94. A significant rise in cheating was found, but with less rationalization. An additional 12 variables discriminating cheaters emerged. Strongest deterrents were embarrassment and fear of punishment; peer disapproval was least effective. (Author/MSE)

Fass, R. A. (1986). By Honor Bound: Encouraging Academic Honesty. Educational Record, 67, 32-36.
Abstract: In today's climate of competitiveness and cynicism, colleges and universities should aggressively review and enforce their policies on academic dishonesty. Education about the importance of ethical academic behavior must be part of the institutional agenda from the moment students are accepted. (MSE)

Fergusson, N. (2001). Cheating at medical school. Cheating should be properly punished. BMJ, 322, 297.

Galus, P. (2002). Detecting & Preventing Plagiarism. Science Teacher, 69, 35-37.
Abstract: Proposes some procedures to aid teachers in detecting plagiarism and preventing students from choosing to plagiarize. Includes a list of Internet writing resources. (DDR)

Genereux, R. L. & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances Surrounding Cheating: A Questionnaire Study of College Students. Research in Higher Education, 36, 687-704.
Abstract: A survey of 365 college students identified circumstances likely to increase both planned and spontaneous cheating behavior, those likely to discourage both kinds of cheating, factors underlying planned cheating, most common types of cheating, and student demographic characteristics associated with greater cheating behavior. (MSE)

Graham, M. A. and others. (1994). Cheating at Small Colleges: An Examination of Student and Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255-260.
Abstract: Examined perceptions of cheating held by 480 college students and 48 faculty members at 2 small colleges. Eighty-nine percent of students surveyed admitted they had cheated. Attitudinal variables were better at predicting cheating than were background variables. Faculty agreed on a definition of cheating yet did not agree on how to deal with cheating. (Author/NB)

Greene, A. S. & Saxe, L. (1992). Everybody (Else) Does It: Academic Cheating. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association Boston, MA.
Abstract: This paper presents results of a study that investigated the role of perceptions of normative behavior concerning academic cheating on self-reported cheating behaviors. A survey was distributed to 250 undergraduates (87 responses) in which demographic information was obtained and the students (nearly all aged 18-22 years) were asked about their knowledge of other people's participation in 15 specific behaviors; to report how often he or she personally participated in the same 15 behaviors; and to rate how dishonest each of the 15 behaviors was, on a bipolar scale. Among the findings were the following: (1) cheating is widespread on college campuses; (2) the participating students reported high incidence of cheating for others (99%) as well as for themselves (81%); (3) the student's own cheating was viewed as not at all unusual--it was seen as a reflection of situational forces; and (4) the students also believed that others benefited more from cheating than they themselves did. Finally, the students also blamed their parents and teachers for widespread cheating because of pressure being placed on them to do well. The study showed that if cheating is widespread, it is in part due to its acceptance among college undergraduates. Contains 32 references. (GLR)

Haines, V. J. and others. (1986). College Cheating: Immaturity, Lack of Commitment, and the Neutralizing Attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25, 342-354.
Abstract: A 49-item questionnaire administered to 380 students was used to study cheating on exams, quizzes, and homework assignments. More than half the students reported cheating during the academic year in at least one area. (Author/MSE)

Hall, T. L. & Kuh, G. D. (1998). Honor among Students: Academic Integrity and Honor Codes at State-Assisted Universities. NASPA Journal, 36, 2-18.
Abstract: Examines the relationship between institutional honor codes and student attitudes and behavior related to academic dishonesty. Results reveal that an academic honor code is only a mild deterrent to academic dishonesty; faculty, student affairs staff, and students differ in their views as to why students cheat; and students are more likely to cheat if they perceive that their campus culture tolerates cheating. (Contains 36 references.) (Author/GCP)

Hauptman, R. (2002). Dishonesty in the Academy. Academe, 88, 39-44.
Abstract: Discusses dishonesty in higher education, including the specific problems of cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, peer review, documentation, human subjects, and administration. Offers some solutions, asserting the crucial importance of honesty to the academic endeavor. (EV)

Hawley, C. S. (1984). The Thieves of Academe: Plagiarism in the University System. Improving College and University Teaching, 32, 35-39.
Abstract: The problem of literary piracy at the collegiate level was examined in an exploratory study. Forms of plagiarism, especially term paper mills; student attitudes toward plagiarism; approaches to dealing with the problem; and measures educators can take to address the problem in the classroom are discussed. (MLW)

Heberling, M. (2002). Maintaining Academic Integrity in On-Line Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5.
Abstract: Discussion of academic cheating and plagiarism focuses on occurrences in online courses, based on experiences at Baker College (Michigan). Highlights include tools to fight plagiarism; using search engines to detect plagiarism; digital paper mills; plagiarism detection companies; and the role of administrators and faculty. (LRW)

Hendershott, A., Drinan, P., & Cross, M. (2000). Toward Enhancing a Culture of Academic Integrity. NASPA Journal, 37, 587-597.
Abstract: Reports on a study of the academic integrity culture of a mid-sized comprehensive private university. Study outcomes illustrate the need to address campus culture issues before attempting to create a student honor code. Argues that the need to involve every layer of an institution is key to the creation of a culture that will support and sustain a climate of academic integrity. (Contains 16 references and 3 tables.) (Author/GCP)

Higbee, J. L. & Thomas, P. V. (2000). Preventing Academic Dishonesty. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 17, 63-66.
Abstract: Presents findings from a study of 251 faculty members and 227 undergraduate students, regarding attitudes about what constitutes academic dishonesty. States that, even within each group, there was considerable range of opinion on specific issues, such as whether it is dishonest for a student to turn in the same paper for two classes or to collaborate with others on homework. (PGS)

Higbee, J. L. & Thomas, P. V. (2002). Student and Faculty Perceptions of Behaviors that Constitute Cheating. NASPA Journal, 40.
Abstract: Assesses whether faculty members and students consider specific behaviors cheating. This study differs from previous research in that it allows students and faculty to indicate conditions that may influence their opinions regarding the integrity of academic practices. Argues that it is imperative that faculty members, advisors, and counselors involved in new student orientation address academic honesty issues with students. (Contains 35 references.) (GCP)

Hilbert, G. A. (1985). Involvement of Nursing Students in Unethical Classroom and Clinical Behaviors. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1, 230-234.
Abstract: A study to determine the incidence of unethical classroom and clinical behaviors among nursing students, to find out their opinions, and to investigate the relationships among demographic data, unethical behaviors and opinions about the behaviors is discussed. (Author/MLW)

Hollinger, R. C. & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1996). Academic Dishonesty and the Perceived Effectiveness of Countermeasures: An Empirical Survey of Cheating at a Major Public University. NASPA Journal, 33, 292-306.
Abstract: Presents self-reported prevalence and incidence data about student academic dishonesty generated from an anonymous survey. Over two-thirds of students reported some form of academic dishonesty during a sample semester. Evaluates the perceived effectiveness of cheating countermeasures by comparing those students who admitted involvement with those who did not. (RJM)

Hoyer, P. J., Booth, D., Spelman, M. R., & Richardson, C. E. (1991). Clinical cheating and moral development. Nursing Outlook, 39,  170-173.
Abstract: Clinical cheating is one of the most devastating ways students can breach moral principles, and its prevention should be a priority for nurse educators. Educators can promote the professional integrity of students by integrating moral development into all curricular efforts

Jarmulowicz, M. (2001). Cheating at medical school. Public declaration of an appropriate punishment is important. BMJ, 322, 298.

Jeffes, E. J. & Janosik, S. M. (2002). The Courts' Response to Student Cheating with the Help of Term Paper Mills: Implications for Student Affairs Administrators. College Student Affairs Journal, 21, 68-77.
Abstract: Examines how members of the academic community are affected by the use of term paper mills, how institutions and states have responded to these term paper mills, and the implications for student affairs administrators and faculty members. (Contains 24 references.) (GCP)

Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty Reactions to Academic Dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 401-406.
Abstract: Examined reactions of faculty members to students' cheating on examinations at university that has policy for defining, punishing, and processing instances of academic dishonesty. Results indicated that faculty members tended to ignore academic dishonesty policy and preferred to handle situations on one-on-one basis. Found faculty did not understand implications of following or ignoring dishonesty policy. (Author/ABL)

Jendrek, M. P. (1992). Students' Reactions to Academic Dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 260-273.
Abstract: Examined reactions of 776 students to witnessing cheating, their attitudes toward the offending student, and their attitudes toward academic dishonesty in general. Findings suggest that the creation of academic dishonesty code requiring students to report instances of academic dishonesty apparently did not work. Students preferred to handle problem informally rather than by using formal university policy. (Author/NB)

Kibler, W. L. and others. (1988). Academic Integrity and Student Development: Legal Issues and Policy Perspectives. Asheville, NC: College Administration Publications.
Abstract: This book addresses policy and legal issues for colleges and universities interested in developing comprehensive programs to respond to academic integrity issues. It is divided into four sections. The first section defines academic dishonesty, provides a contemporary context for the issue, describes the scope of the problem, and considers reasons students cheat. The next section examines how application of theories of student development and moral development might help to improve the quality of academic integrity on their campuses. The third section discusses the importance of prevention in dealing with academic dishonesty and the responsibility for prevention, and provides a chart summarizing strategies for detecting dishonesty and offers prevention strategies. The final section addresses legal issues and administrative procedures related to the resolution of academic dishonesty cases. Appendices examine the development of a program to protect academic integrity and presents a sample academic integrity code. Six case studies involving students caught cheating and the disposition of their cases are also included. A table of court cases which involve academic integrity is also provided. (Contains approximately 100 references.) (GLR)

Kibler, W. L. (1993). Academic Dishonesty: A Student Development Dilemma. NASPA Journal, 30, 252-267.
Abstract: Provides review of current literature to support position that academic dishonesty is student development problem best addressed from student development perspective. Examines academic dishonesty as contemporary problem in higher education; explores contentions about what causes academic dishonesty; addresses student development perspective; and reviews use of student development perspective in addressing academic cheating. (NB)

Landau, J. D., Druen, P. B., & Arcuri, J. A. (2002). Methods for Helping Students Avoid Plagiarism. Teaching of Psychology, 29,  112-115.
Abstract: Describes an experiment used with undergraduate students to educate students about plagiarism and paraphrasing techniques. Discusses the procedure used for the experiment as well as results from the experiment and a post-experiment questionnaire. (CMK)

Laskin, D. M. (1980). Who's cheating whom? J Oral Surg., 38, 89.

Lester, M. C. & Diekhoff, G. M. (2002). A Comparison of Traditional and Internet Cheaters. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 906-911.
Abstract: Study assesses the prevalence of on-line plagiarism and examines if and how Internet cheaters differ from those who cheat using more traditional methods. (Contains 26 references.) (GCP)

Lipson, A. & McGavern, N. (1993). Undergraduate Academic Dishonesty at MIT. Results of a Study of Attitudes and Behavior of Undergraduates, Faculty, and Graduate Teaching Assistants. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research Chicago, IL.
Abstract: This report describes what has been learned from three surveys about undergraduate academic dishonesty at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The surveys involved 891 undergraduates, approximately 490 faculty, and 481 graduate teaching assistants. Cheating was examined as a literal reality rather than as an abstract concept. Undergraduates were asked about their own behavior and the behavior of other students and for their assessment of whether particular acts constitute cheating. They were also asked about reasons for cheating and ways that it might be mitigated. In separate surveys, faculty and graduate teaching assistants were asked similar questions about their attitudes toward and experiences with undergraduate cheating. Based on the study's results, the report presents observations and conclusions concerning collaboration efforts between undergraduates and faculty; communication between lecturers and recitation instructors; student workload; support for students in difficulty and at critical times; the reuse of exams, problem sets, or other assignments; the publicizing of punishment and keeping records on repeat offenders; and the issue of ethical values. Appendices provide composition sketches of survey respondents and a sample questionnaire. (GLR)

Lord, T. & Chiodo, D. (1995). A Look at Student Cheating in College Science Classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 317-324.
Abstract: Surveyed undergraduates (N=300) to gain an appreciation of the collusion rate of college students in science classes. Reports that 83% of the respondents had cheated in science sometime in their lives, the vast majority had shared homework answers, and over three quarters of the students admitted to cheating on large exams and major projects. (Author/JRH)

Maramark, S. & Maline, M. B. (1993). Academic Dishonesty Among College Students. Issues in Education.  
Abstract: This monograph addresses some common questions about academic dishonesty in higher education and reviews issues affecting these institutions in light of existing research. The extent of academic dishonesty and the perception that it is increasing is examined. Three studies cited indicate that cheating is chronic and that 60 to 75 percent of students do cheat. A look at causes of cheating include ignorance of concepts such as collaboration, fair-use, and plagiarism, and also stress, and competition for jobs, scholarships, and admission to post-college programs. Research indicates that cheating depends significantly on situational characteristics of the classroom or institutions and that cheating is less likely to occur when there are threats of detection or sanctions. Faculty reaction research suggests that despite concerns, faculty rarely discuss rules on academic dishonesty in their classrooms. Findings also indicate that faculty often bypass university policy and handle cheating incidents on an individual basis. Research on how institutions respond to cheating incidents finds that key issues are: how academic dishonesty is defined, how cases are assessed, and how cheating is monitored. The paper concludes that institutions must take a proactive stance to reduce the incidence of cheating and to improve the climate for honesty. (JB)

May, K. M. & Loyd, B. H. (1993). Academic Dishonesty: The Honor System and Students' Attitudes. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 125-129.
Abstract: Examined relationships between academic dishonesty and students' attitudes toward honor system, students' personal code of honor, and other variables. Findings from 177 college students supported conclusion that existence of an honor code is associated with increased academic honesty. Honor system and cheating, however, appeared to have more complex relationship than this simple conclusion implies. (Author/NB)

McCabe, D., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic Integrity in Honor Code and Non-Honor Code Environments: A Qualitative Investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 211-234.
Abstract: Survey data from 4,285 students in 31 colleges and universities indicates students at schools with academic honor codes view the issue of academic integrity in a fundamentally different way than do students at non-honor code institutions. This difference seems to stem from the presence of an honor code and its influence on the way students think about academic honesty/dishonesty. (Author/MSE)

McCabe, D. & Pavela, G. (2000). Some Good News about Academic Integrity. Change, 33, 32-38.
Abstract: Reports that despite alarming news stories about growing academic dishonesty on college campuses, new research confirms the effectiveness of strategies such as modified honor codes that emphasize student leadership and intensive programming about the importance of academic integrity. Offers 10 specific guidelines for implementing a modified honor code. (DB)

McCabe, D. (2001). Cheating: Why Students Do It and How We Can Help Them Stop. American Educator, 25, 38-43.
Abstract: Reviews the latest research on cheating, examining the prevalence of cheating, who cheats and why, and problems related to use of the Internet. Focuses on the special responsibility that adults have to help students deal with the problem of cheating, suggesting that the key is to convince students that academic integrity is something to be valued. (SM)

McCabe, D. & Trevino, L. K. (2002). Honesty and Honor Codes. Academe, 88, 37-41.
Abstract: Explores the rise in student cheating and evidence that students cheat less often at schools with an honor code. Discusses effective use of such codes and creation of a peer culture that condemns dishonesty. (EV)

McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty Responses to Academic Dishonesty: The Influence of Student Honor Codes. Research in Higher Education, 34, 647-658.
Abstract: A study of 789 college faculty at 16 institutions of higher education found faculty reluctant to report students for academic dishonesty, even at institutions with strong honor codes. Most preferred that faculty, students, and administrators all be involved in handling incidents of cheating. Student attitudes, determined in an earlier study, are used for comparison. (MSE)

McCabe, D. L. & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379-396.
Abstract: A survey of 1,793 students at nine state universities found cheating was influenced by a number of characteristics of individuals, including age, sex, and grade point average, and contextual factors, including level of cheating among peers, peer disapproval of cheating, fraternity/sorority membership, and perceived severity of penalties for cheating. Peer disapproval was the strongest influential factor. (Author/MSE)

McCabe, D. L. & Makowski, A. L. (2001). Resolving Allegations of Academic Dishonesty: Is There a Role for Students To Play? About Campus, 6, 17-21.
Abstract: Discusses the importance of involving students in the design and enforcement of campuswide academic integrity policies, and in the education of other students about the importance of academic integrity. Argues that any approach to student discipline must involve a collaboration among faculty, administrative staff, and students. (GCP)

McMurtry, K. (2001). E-Cheating: Combating a 21st Century Challenge. T.H.E. Journal, 29, 36.
Abstract: Discusses electronic cheating in higher education made possible by new technologies. Highlights include statistics on plagiarism; using Web search engines and paper mills; and ways to combat cheating, including academic honesty policies, designing writing assignments with specific goals and instructions, being aware of what is available on the Web, and using plagiarism search services. (LRW)

Meade, J. (1992). Cheating: Is Academic Dishonesty Par for the Course? Prism, 1, 30-32.
Abstract: Reports the results of a survey sent to 15,000 students at 31 top-ranked universities asking students in engineering, business, science, and the humanities if they had cheated during their college career. From the 6,000 responses, business students ranked the highest with 87 percent, engineering 74 percent, science 67 percent, and humanities 63 percent. (KR)

Mitchell, C. M. & Wisbey, M. E. (1995). Cheaters Never Prosper, but Do They Get College Degrees? College Student Affairs Journal, 15, 87-93.
Abstract: Current literature on academic dishonesty identifies many factors that influence students to cheat, faculty members' responses to cheating, and ways that campuses have sought to deter cheating. Through an appropriate use of both educational and developmental programs and due process policy responses, campuses can make real progress in the struggle against academic dishonesty. (JBJ)

Nonis, S. & Swift, C. O. (2001). An Examination of the Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 69-77.
Abstract: A survey of 1,051 business students found that those who believed that dishonest acts such as cheating are acceptable are more likely to engage in them. Those who engage in dishonest acts in class are more likely to do so in the workplace. (SK)

Nuss, E. M. (1996). What Colleges Teach Students about Moral Responsibility? Putting the Honor Back in Student Honor Codes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Institute on College Student Values Tallahassee, FL.
Abstract: A consideration of college honor codes examines why academic integrity is one of the most effective vehicles for teaching about moral responsibility, how honor codes are distinguished from codes of conduct, how students reason about academic integrity issues, the role of penalties and punishments, and steps campuses can take. A discussion of the power of honor codes for teaching students about moral responsibility notes that three conditions must be in place: universal agreement that the prohibited conduct is unacceptable by all campus constituencies; effective prevention or deterrence of the prohibited conduct; and reliable and fair measures of enforcement. Honor codes are described as characterized by a signed pledge, obligation not to tolerate and to report offenders, peer judiciary, and unproctored exams. A look at how students reason about academic integrity notes the strong influence of peers' behavior and the importance of understanding the social and cognitive constructs most prevalent at a particular institution. A discussion of penalties and punishments argues that the role of punishment as a deterrent cannot be ignored. A conclusion lists nine steps that campuses can take to enhance academic integrity and argues that efforts to restore honor to codes of conduct must focus on fostering an environment which encourages students and faculty to adopt the values of integrity. (Contains 23 references.) (JB)

Odom, J. G. (1991). The Practical Ramifications of Cheating. Journal of Dental Education, 55, 272-275.
Abstract: Ramifications of cheating include underqualified graduates and the probable continuation of unethical behavior into dental practice. Dental educators are encouraged to stress pride in professionalism, to reinforce positive student behaviors, and to administer swift punishment to violators. (DB)

Odom, J. G. (1997). Academic and Clinical Ramifications of Integrity and Cheating. Journal of Dental Education, 61, 681-685.
Abstract: An alternative to traditional solutions to academic cheating is proposed which provides a systematic institutional strategy stressing academic and professional integrity, encourages students to actively ensure academic integrity, and administers swift and fair punishment to violators. Implications are drawn for dental education and development of professionalism among dental students. (MSE)

Ogilby, S. M. (1995). The Ethics of Academic Behavior: Will It Affect Professional Behavior? Journal of Education for Business, 71, 92-96.
Abstract: A scenario involving questionable academic behavior was rated by 2 groups of business students (n=61 and 54). The second group was asked more questions about the case. The behavior was rated unethical by 63.9% of the first group and 90.7% of the second; no gender differences appeared. Most (83%) of the second group saw a correlation between academic and professional ethical behavior. (SK)

Osinski, K. (2003). Due Process Rights of Nursing Students in Case of Misconduct. Journal of Nursing Education, 42, 55-58.
Abstract: Explains the concepts of academic misconduct, due process rights, and the implicit contract between students and the university. Discusses ways to incorporate due process in nursing school course catalogs, course requirements, evaluation methods, and grievance procedures. (SK)

Ozar, D. T. (1991). The Ethical Ramifications of Cheating. Journal of Dental Education, 55, 276-281.
Abstract: The ethics of cheating among dental students is considered, including why cheating is wrong, the commercial model of dentistry, the guild model of dentistry, and the more desirable interactive model focusing on the dentist-patient relationship. Cheating's effects on the teacher student relationship and the need to respond appropriately are stressed. (DB)

Paldy, L. G. (1996). The Problem That Won't Go Away: Addressing the Causes of Cheating. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 4-6.
Abstract: Addresses the issue of student cheating in undergraduate programs. Discusses the role of student-managed honor systems in addressing this problem. (JRH)

Pancrazio, S. B. & Aloia, G. F. (1992). Evaluating University Policies on Plagiarism and Other Forms of Research Misconduct. North Central Association Quarterly, 67, 335-342.
Abstract: Reports research findings on higher education institutions' expectations for academic honesty, indicating that colleges and universities are dealing with a wide range of allegations of misconduct using a variety of administrative structures. Urges colleges to take primary responsibility for ensuring academic integrity on campus. (DMM)

Paton, J. (2001). Cheating at medical school. Main impact of cheating is on clinical work. BMJ, 322, 298.

Pavela, G. & McCabe, D. (1993). The Surprising Return of Honor Codes. Planning for Higher Education, 21, 27-32.
Abstract: Principles for developing college academic honor codes include developing clear, specific definitions of dishonesty and applying them uniformly; using peer education and influence; appealing to students' personal integrity; reducing temptation to cheat; encouraging active student participation and critical thinking; imposing reasonable but strict penalties; and eliminating proceduralism in case resolution. (MSE)

Pulvers, K. & Diekhoff, G. M. (1999). The Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and College Classroom Environment. Research in Higher Education, 40, 487-498.
Abstract: A study of 280 undergraduates in two liberal arts colleges examined the relationship between college classroom environment, academic cheating, and the neutralization (justification) of cheating. Results suggest classroom environment is a significant situational variable in academic dishonesty, with both attitudes and behavior being related to perceptions of classroom environment. (Author/MSE)

Roberts, E. F. (1997). Academic misconduct in schools of nursing. Nursingconnections., 10, 28-36.

Roberts, R. N. (1986). Public University Responses to Academic Dishonesty: Disciplinary or Academic. Journal of Law and Education, 15, 369-384.
Abstract: Reviews court decisions in cases involving suspension or dismissal of public university students for academic dishonesty. The courts have required universities defending such suits to meet the procedural and due process standards for nonacademic disciplinary proceedings. Discusses the constitutional due process problems raised by the suspension or dismissal of students for cheating. (MD)

Rozance, C. P. (1991). Cheating in medical schools: implications for students and patients. JAMA, 266, 2453, 2456.

Rutherford, D. G. & Olswang, S. G. (1981). Academic Misconduct: The Due Process Rights of Students. NASPA Journal, 19, 12-16.
Abstract: Clarifies the legal rights of students accused of cheating or plagiarism. Suggests a procedure which addresses those student rights while preserving faculty ability to grade students only on their own work. Discusses due process requirements and issues related to punishment and academic freedom. (RC)

Scanlon, P. M. & Neumann, D. R. (2002). Internet Plagiarism among College Students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 374-385.
Abstract: Six hundred ninety-eight undergraduates (85.9% between the ages of 17 and 23; 87.5% in the first through fourth year) from nine colleges and universities completed a survey on Internet plagiarism. A substantial minority of students reported they use the Internet to copy and paste text into their papers without citation. (Author)

Scheers, N. J. & Dayton, C. M. (1987). Improved Estimation of Academic Cheating Behavior Using the Randomized Response Technique. Research in Higher Education, 26, 61-69.
Abstract: Academic cheating behavior by university students was surveyed using the randomized response technique and by conventional anonymous questionnaire methods. Underreporting is concluded to be a serious problem with anonymous questionnaires. (Author/MLW)

Schmelkin, L. P., Kaufman, A. M., & Liebling, D. E. (2001). Faculty Assessments of the Clarity and Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association San Francisco, CA.
Abstract: Despite the fact that cheating on tests and other forms of academic dishonesty are rampant, there is no standard definition of academic dishonesty, nor is there agreement as to the particular behaviors that constitute cheating. In this study, a survey was administered to 160 university professors in order to obtain faculty estimates of the clarity and prevalence of types of academic dishonesty. Results indicate that most faculty members had encountered incidents of cheating. While professors agreed on certain behaviors as clear examples of dishonesty, other behaviors produced a greater variety of opinions. The most commonly offered reasons for not taking action on encountering incidents of cheating were insufficient proof of the occurrence of an infraction and the difficult process involved in reporting violations. Increasing administrative support of professors and educating students about the University policy on cheating are suggested avenues for increasing faculty reports of cheating. (Author/SLD)

Schneider, A. (1999). Why Professors Don't Do More To Stop Students Who Cheat. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45.
Abstract: While college faculty complain about student cheating and plagiarism, many do little or nothing about it. Few lodge formal complaints against individual students, finding the campus judicial process laborious, and punishments often unrelated to the offense. At institutions with honor codes, the issues can be different, with reporting of infractions slightly higher, but many faculty deal with offenses privately. (MSE)

Shyles, L. (2002). Authenticating, Identifying, and Monitoring Learners in the Virtual Classroom: Academic Integrity in Distance Learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association New Orleans, LA..
Abstract: Cheating is not a problem unique to Internet-based training. It is a phenomenon that can and does compromise academic integrity in all settings, in both the traditional classroom and in distance-learning environments. But what are the remedies to compromises and abuses of the learning process, and challenges to the testing process in distance education? That is, how can distance education be administered so as to identify, authenticate, and monitor learners, minimize cheating, and thus maintain academic integrity? This paper proposes to provide an answer to this question. The paper discusses the virtual classroom, pointing out that the possibilities for abuse of academic integrity in the virtual classroom require special mechanisms to provide adequate monitoring in distance education. It notes the inevitability of distance education and contends that it is vital for institutions of higher learning that wish to remain in business to take the lead in developing systems that preserve academic integrity in the distance learning setting. The paper then describes some of the approaches to preserving academic integrity in the distance learning setting. In some cases, the approach is one that has been used for many years, while in other cases the approach is a relatively new but promising development. Includes 5 notes. (NKA)

Sierles, F. and others. (1980). Cheating in Medical School. Journal of Medical Education, 55, 124-125.
Abstract: A study to determine the frequency and correlates of cheating among medical students found that cheating is extremely frequent (87.6 percent) among premedical students and less frequent (58.2 percent) but still significant among medical students. The most disturbing finding was the positive correlation between cheating in school and cheating in patient care. (JMD)

Sierles, F. S. and others. (1988). A Controlled Experiment with a Medical Student Honor System. Journal of Medical Education, 63, 705-712.
Abstract: An experiment in which a medical school's behavioral sciences midterm and final examinations were unproctored and corresponding physiology and neuroscience exams were proctored found, by anonymous questionnaires, that more behavioral science students cheated or observed cheating, while only two reported it officially. (MSE)

Simon, C. A., Carr, J. R., McCullough, S. M., Morgan, S. J., Oleson, T., & Ressel, M. (2003). The Other Side of Academic Dishonesty: The Relationship between Faculty Skepticism, Gender and Strategies for Managing Student Academic Dishonesty Cases. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 193-207.
Abstract: This case study analysis of faculty at a medium-sized university in the Western United States found that the level of faculty institutional confidence is related to the use of formal deterrence strategies toward academic ethics violations. Additionally, it found that female faculty members are less confident in the administration but are only marginally less likely to use formal administrative approaches to manage academic ethics. (EV)

Simpson, D. E. and others. (1989). Medical Students' Perceptions of Cheating. Academic Medicine, 64, 221-222.
Abstract: Students at a large private medical school were surveyed concerning the appropriateness of traditional cheating behaviors and behaviors related to professional misconduct and dishonesty in patient care. They also rated the acceptability of various rationalizations for these behaviors. (Author/MLW)

Sims, R. L. (1993). The Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 207-211.
Abstract: An investigation of the relationship between the range and severity of academic dishonesty during undergraduate studies and that of dishonesty engaged in during employment revealed that subjects (n=60) who admitted to a wide range of academic dishonesty also admitted a wide range of work-related dishonesty. (Author/JOW)

Singhal, A. C. & Johnson, P. (1983). How to Halt Student Dishonesty. College Student Journal, 17, 13-19.
Abstract: Outlines methods to prevent cheating in colleges by: (1) defining the problem; (2) describing physical arrangements of testing situations; and (3) stressing the importance of detection and retributions for academic dishonesty. The individual faculty member should control cheating. A "cheating" table provides suggestions for detecting and preventing cheating. (JAC)

Stern, E. B. & Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. J Allied Health, 15, 129-142.
Abstract: Educators in health-related fields are particularly sensitive to academic misconduct because undergraduate students who falsify academic work in such fields can go on to endanger the health and well being of the very people they are meant to assist. This paper presents the results of a survey of 104 faculty and 314 undergraduate students regarding their experience with academic misconduct. Faculty and student definitions of misconduct are compared, the incidence of cheating within each category is reported, and the projected efficacy of methods for controlling misconduct are examined. Major findings include the following: faculty and students differed significantly in their definitions of 24 of the 36 described behaviors, 82% of the surveyed undergraduate students admitted to engaging in some form of academic misconduct during their college careers, few differences in cheating patterns were related to year in school (class) or gender, and faculty and students differed on the impact that changes in environment and procedure were expected to have on cheating

Stevens, E. H. (1996). Informal Resolution of Academic Misconduct Cases: A Due Process Paradigm. College Teaching, 44, 140-144.
Abstract: A legal approach to due process in cases of college student cheating is outlined. Issues discussed include severity of the misconduct, need for informal vs. formal procedures, the due process paradigm as reflected in relevant court litigation, and steps in application of the paradigm (preliminary steps, notice and hearing procedures).(MSE)

Tankersley, K. C. (1997). Academic Integrity from a Student's Perspective. Journal of Dental Education, 61, 692-693.
Abstract: A dental student defines professional integrity within the context of dental education, examines the problem of academic cheating and its ramifications for patient care, places the burden of responsibility on individual students, and argues that dental schools should provide a dental ethics course early in the curriculum and establish a strong honor system with meaningful consequences for unethical behavior. (MSE)

Tauber, R. T. (1984). Cheating and Plagiarism: Matters beyond a Faculty Member's Right to Decide! Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Teacher Educators New Orleans, LA.
Abstract: The issue of whether cheating and plagiarism should be categorized as an academic evaluation or disciplinary misconduct is discussed. It is claimed that if these offenses are categorized as disciplinary misconduct, students are entitled to some due process. However, if cheating and plagiarism are classified as academic evaluations, students are entitled to little, if any, due process. The courts may enter the picture if it can be shown that the actions of the school, including actions of faculty as agents of the institution, are clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Allowing faculty the right to judge what is cheating or plagiarism is a problem that is further complicated when faculty are also given the right (responsibility) to decide what sanction or punishment is appropriate. It is suggested that if cheating and plagiarism are examples of code of conduct breaches, all such cases should go before a hearing board. These offenses would then be matters beyond an individual faculty member's right to decide. A questionnaire about what qualifies as cheating and a "Cheating Quiz" are appended. (SW)

Tittle, C. R. & Rowe, A. R. (1974). Research, Fear and the Student Cheater. Change.
Abstract: Determines the relative effectiveness of simple trust, a punishment threat, and a moral appeal in achieving classroom honesty. (Author)

Trinchera, T. (2001). Cut and Paste Plagiarism: What It Is and What To Do about It. Community & Junior College Libraries, 10, 5-9.
Abstract: Defines cut and paste plagiarism as copying sections of articles or books directly from the Internet or a CD-ROM and into a personal paper. Offers suggestions, from a librarian's vantage point, for locating plagiarized sources and for dissuading students from cheating. (NB)

Underwood, J. & Szabo, A. (2003). Academic Offences and E-Learning: Individual Propensities in Cheating. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 467-477.
Abstract: Investigated the attitudes to, and extent of, self-reported involvement in Internet-supported dishonest academic practices such as plagiarism among United Kingdom undergraduates. Discusses Internet experience, acceptability of cheating, assessment of risk, gender, frequency of Internet use, and maturity of students, and outlines responses that should be considered by faculty to address this problem. (Author/LRW)

Vargo, D. J. (1991). How can we deter cheating in medical school? JAMA, 266, 2456.

Vines, E. L. (1996). Honor Codes at Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60, 348-352.
Abstract: A survey of 57 pharmacy school deans found less than half of the schools had honor codes, and revealed no clear consensus on definition of academic misconduct or solutions. The existing honor codes varied in structure and reflected a wide range of procedures. Respondents identified some shortcomings and strengths of their programs. Seven colleges were very satisfied with their codes. (MSE)

Wagner, R. F., Jr. (1993). Medical student academic misconduct: implications of recent case law and possible institutional responses. Academic Medicine, 68, 887-889.
Abstract: Recent case law has protected medical students found guilty of academic misconduct from severe sanctions by emphasizing due process and contractural rights. In light of this development, proactive approaches should be considered by medical schools. Faculty or administrators who have legal backgrounds are more likely to avoid breach of contract and violation of due process and should be appointed as hearing officers in cases of alleged academic misconduct. Finally, determination of a student's mental state (as defined in the MPC) by the hearing officer is a fair and rational method of determining what sanctions should be placed on medical students found to have cheated or plagiarized

Warman, E. and others. (1994). Dental Students' Attitudes toward Cheating. Journal of Dental Education, 58, 402-405.
Abstract: A survey of 243 predoctoral students at the New Jersey Dental School investigated attitudes about specific cheating behaviors, such as copying on examinations and forging attendance list signatures. Responses indicated that students felt cheating was generally not justifiable but also suggested that students might benefit from ethics courses. (MSE)

Warner, S. L. (1971). Academic cheating: a problem in perspective. Radiologic Technology, 43, 130-133.

Werner, D. L., Heiberger, M. H., Feldman, J., & Johnston, E. (2000). The Prevalence of Unethical Student Behavior in Optometry Schools. Optometric Education, 25, 82-87.
Abstract: A survey of second and third year students (n=1,092) at 16 optometric schools found 5.5 percent admitted to cheating in optometry school (and 13.9 percent admitted cheating in college), a finding similar to that found for medical students, whose self-reported cheating ranged from 4.7 percent to 10 percent. (Author/DB)

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors Associated with Cheating Among College Students: A Review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235-274.
Abstract: Studies (n=107) of prevalence and correlates of college student cheating are reviewed. Strongest correlates of cheating included having moderate expectations of success, past cheating, poor study conditions, positive attitudes about cheating, perceiving that social norms support cheating, and anticipating rewards for success. A model of antecedents of cheating is proposed and implications for identifying at-risk students are examined. (Author/MSE)

Wilhoit, S. (1994). Helping Students Avoid Plagiarism. College Teaching, 42, 161-164.
Abstract: Discusses how and why college students commit plagiarism, suggesting techniques that instructors can use to help student avoid plagiarism. Instructors should define and discuss plagiarism thoroughly; discuss hypothetical cases; review the conventions of quoting and documenting material; require multiple drafts of essays; and offer responses appropriate to the type of error. (MDM)

Young, J. R. (2001). The Cat-and-Mouse Game of Plagiarism Detection. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47.
Abstract: Describes how colleges, frustrated by students who use the Internet to plagiarize, are going online to enable professors to fight back. Explains that plagiarism-detection software, available for several years, is increasing in use. (EV)