John D. Proe
Professor of Management and Health Care Administration
Miles K. Davis
Assistant Professor of Management
Harry F. Byrd Jr. School of Business
Shenandoah University
1460 University Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
jproe@su.edu
Posted: August 2005 Student Affairs Online, vol. 6 no. 3 - Summer 2005
In what a delicious dilemma on-line educators find themselves. On one hand, they have a technology that allows them to transmit information worldwide. This information is structured in such a way as to provide learning opportunities for recipients, revenue for providers and an educated populace for society. Resultant is the classic win-win situation.
On the other hand, the very nature of this technology provides access to unscrupulous individuals allowing them to exploit the technology and the processes for their own gain, be it by cheating to achieve something they did not earn or by representing themselves as something they are not -- diploma mills selling degrees.
This essay will limit itself to discussing the general scope of cheating with links to societal values; it will also address why people cheat and how to create an educational climate, even on-line which discourages the behavior. Exemplars based on experience conducting on-line courses in a small private university in Virginia will be used.
General
In reviewing the literature on on-line cheating it is perhaps indicative of our culture that the vast number of cites have nothing to do with education but with cheating spouses. Be that as it may, there are many influences that shape poor ethical decisions in regard to administering and taking on-line educational courses. These include, but are not limited to, peer pressure (what others do), outside life commitments (having nothing to do with on-line education), avarice (wanting something for nothing) and cultural and societal differences. When looking at the ethics of on-line education we must also not forget the unscrupulous selling of certifications on the Internet by diploma mills and the cheating by teachers who prepare their students hoping they get higher scores as these are evaluative elements pertaining to the teachers ability to convey knowledge (Lehrer, 2000).
In Western Civilization, there is a very well developed body of knowledge related to ethics and ethical conduct. Ethics relates to standards of conduct and moral judgment. In this study there are several basic models. We have “Utilitarians” who evaluate behavior based on its effect and promulgate rules that allow behavior stressing the maximization of good and the minimization of evil.
“Deontology” another ethical construct relies on people’s responsibility for other humans and their welfare. Here we see the development of good rules, their testing and dissemination to a greater society. Those following the concepts of “Natural Law” feel that humans differentiate themselves from animals by their ability to reason. This rationality will cause humans to seek good and avoid evil as we must give the dignity and respect to others in order to receive the same ourselves. Finally, there is a synthesized model attributed to John Rawls which indicates that there is a responsibility to assist those less well off than themselves because, but for circumstances, the better off could be worse off themselves (Darr, 1991).
Proceeding on, we can now begin to understand why individuals choose to behave unethically when participating in on-line educational offerings. It is often a matter of values and what is valued. If society has been successful in passing its values on to its people then they are less likely to violate these values. Consequently, it is not a job only for educators conducting on-line courses but also for the greater society, government, the university and moral institutions to shoulder some of the burden (McCabe, 1996).
Drawing on the work of Kenneth Boulding and John Rawls in Walter’s (1977) Corporate Social Responsibility and Political Ideology education must seek some balance between educational requirements (Exchange Systems), Integrative Systems such as ethics, Honor Systems, responsibility and doing the right thing and Threat Systems (rules, and sanctions). When this balance is achieved the likelihood of unethical behavior is reduced.
Special problems arise in a global offering of on-line education as other non-Western cultures may not ascribe to Western concepts of ethics and proper behavior. Often non-compliance arises not through an intent to be unethical but because the expectations of the Western institution are foreign to the participant.
Encouraging Ethical Behavior in On-line Course Takers
Experience in a small, private university in Virginia has led to the development of a model that seems to have optimized the use of ethical behavior in participating in on-line course work. There have been very few instances of unethical (cheating behavior) detected and in those few instances where found they have been dealt with expediently.
In this university, from the time students enter the campus and are made aware of the value the institution places on ethical behavior and individual responsibility for actions. This initial grounding is reinforced as a theme in classroom teaching. In the business school especially, because of the ethical shortfalls recently uncovered in the marketplace, the teaching of ethics has been integrated into almost every course offering. This is reinforced by the major specialty accrediting body in the field (AACSB) in its standards for accreditation (AACSB, 1991).
Thus, the Integrative Systems start early to engender ethical behavior. The university has a well thought out Honor System that is based on proscriptions against lying, cheating, and stealing. There is a quasi-judicial system established to investigate and try alleged instances of honor code violations. Finally, there is an appeals process to ensure due process.
The Threat Systems or sanctions become operational if it is determined that unethical behavior (usually cheating) did occur. There is a range of sanctions. At the lower levels mutual contracts can be made between the instructor and the individual student. These may include a lower grade, dropping the class or a course failure. At the upper level a student may be dismissed from a program or even from the university or made to remain suspended for up to a year from the program of study. In any event the transcript will reflect a grade of F*. The asterisk denotes F for reasons of an honor violation. This entry remains on the transcript for a period of five years at which time the student or ex-student may apply to have it removed. It should be noted that these sanctions have economic as well as time penalties associated with them that further discourage unethical behavior.
Two examples of this working will be offered. A student in an on-line course visited the home of another student and while there the visitor used the host’s computer. The course file was accessed and the violator copied course work to an e-mail and sent it to a computer at home. This copied work was then offered as original work and presented for grading. The instructor quickly realized that the same material was being read, almost “déjà vu,” and determined two different parties had presented the same material.
In this case, unofficial enquiry quickly determined what had occurred and the student was offered the option of accepting a failing grade. The student declined and the case was turned over to the Honor Court. After exhausting the appeal process the student in the MBA program was dismissed from that program and a grade of F*entered into his academic record. It was amazing how quickly the word spread among peers of the action and the positive impact it had on their behavior.
Another interesting case of on-line unethical tinkering came in another university program in which on-line testing is common. Instructors noted that two students were achieving far beyond expectations supported by classroom behavior. Analysis of computer usage showed that these two students were accessing the tests for longer periods than their peers and often not completing any test bank items. Then finally an access was made and a sterling performance was the outcome. Suspicions were raised and the students were asked to turn their computers over to Institutional Computing. At this university all student laptops are leased hence the university retains ownership control.
An analysis by computer technicians uncovered hidden programs in each of the miscreants’ computers that allowed screen captures. The violators simply logged on took a picture of a test screen, logged off, completed the answers at leisure and eventually did the whole test. This triggered an examination of all computers for the devices. This let students know that unethical behavior and the use of technology to foster it was strongly frowned upon by the program and the university.
To close the circle, one of these two students was the same student sanctioned in the first example. This student received another F*, was suspended from his program for a year, and only allowed to return in a probationary status. The second student received an F* and was made to retake the course.
Mechanical Aids
The literature is replete with suggestions for mechanical methods to discourage cheating. The authors subscribe to most of those, such as know your student; when in question, give an unexpected call; have off-site proctored exams; and use narrative testing (papers, case studies, essay questions) rather than discrete testing (T-F, multiple choice, fill in the blank).
Going even further, instructors should have some grasp of the technology, its strengths and limitations or at the least access to some resource offering assistance in on-line course development that can engineer in protections against unethical use of the technology itself.
Conclusion
The advent of on-line teaching using new computer technology and the World Wide Web has created excitement and not some little angst in the academic world. Most faculty engaged in the field have found that on-line teaching saves no time and is actually, if done right, more demanding than classroom teaching. Faculty members are concerned with quality of product and the ethical nature of those using it. For in the final analysis it is their and their universities’ reputations that are at stake and we wish to sully neither.
From observation, experience, and the literature we can conclude that through technical design, mechanical structuring of the content and proper development of evaluative methodologies we can reduce the temptation to use the on-line resource unethically. In addition, the ethical use of “threat systems” makes being honest easier and the right choice as the penalty is greater than any benefit derived from cheating.
In the final analysis though, using one of the most basic human skills, “pattern analysis,” it is still the faculty member who bears the responsibility for excellence. If suspicious, inconsistent, or incomplete patterns develop, check them out. If something is wrong, report, investigate, analyze and then take action. Because of the few it will be a never-ending task.
In closing, seldom is it as easy as grading an international student’s paper whose introduction was written using grammar reflecting the use of the fractured English found when speaking, then eight pages of content presented in grammatically perfect English, followed by a closing again in fractured English. The authors’ final observation is that fortunately those resorting to unethical behavior in the classroom either on-line or in person do so seeking an easy out. They are not usually the brightest stars in the heaven so it is easier to ferret them out.
References
AACSB. (1991). Standards for accreditation. Retrieved May 23, 2005, from http://aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp
Darr, K. (1991). Ethics in health services management (2nd ed.). New York.
Lehrer, J. (2000). Cheating teachers. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june00/teachers_4-26.html
McCabe, D. (1996). What we know about cheating in college. Change, 28(1), 28-33.
Walters, K. D. (1977). Corporate social responsibility and political ideology. California Management Review, 19(3), 40-51.