LOS SERES VIVOS

In this part of the study, I shall explore research on preventing examination malpractice in schools. Research that focused on preventing examination malpractice in institutions of learning is few and such research perceive prevention of examination malpractice as the duty of teachers alone. Thus, student participation on the program of preventing examination malpractice is lacking. As I have noted above, students’ reasons for engaging in examination malpractice can be attributed to personal and situational factors (Cizek 1999). Some of the reasons students engage in examination malpractice include; fear of failure, competitive culture, poor learning conditions and uninteresting lessons (2.4). Students also engage in examination malpractice because of peer pressure and their rationalisation of examination malpractice.

Research that aimed at preventing examination malpractice in institutions of learning was carried out in the universities (McCabe et al, 1993, 1999; Kibler 1993). Researchers have reported different approaches to preventing

examination malpractice in the universities. While some researchers have advocated threats of sanction (Genereux et al, 1995), or influencing the personal characteristics of students (Jendrek 1992), others have maintained that examination malpractice can be prevented by minimising the availability of opportunities to engage in examination malpractice (Noah et al, 2001;

44 Rodabaugh 1996). Research on preventing examination malpractice in

schools has adopted two approaches; the classroom approach and the

institutional approach. The classroom approach includes strategies that could be applied in the classroom, while the institutional approach includes

strategies that could be applied at the school level.

Classroom approaches include the actions of teachers aimed at preventing examination malpractice in classrooms. These teacher behaviours include: where teachers make the effort to explain the purpose of lessons to students and how to apply the lesson to real life (Murray et al, 1996), where

examination seats are arranged in such a way that empty spaces are between the students during examinations (Houston 1986, 1976, Aiken 1991), where teachers invigilate examinations properly (Davis et al, 1992, Aiken 1991) and where multiple test forms are used (World Bank Group, Whitley et al, 2002). These preventive measures show only what teachers are to accomplish in their schools devoid of student participation. But teachers may not render maximum help to students on schooling if the later are not involved in their schooling. Preventing examination malpractice needs change in beliefs and behaviour by both teachers and students. Thus, the classroom approach is not comprehensive enough to deal with the problem.

An institutional approach includes programs that emphasise having

examination policies and application of sanctions (Kibler 1993, Barnett et al, 1981, Trevino 1992, McCabe et al, 1999, 201). Research shows that for schools to prevent examination malpractice, they need to enhance the integrity of examinations by enhancing students’ moral development and by developing a framework for monitoring how the school addresses its problem

45 with examination malpractice (Kibler 1993, Davis et al, 2009, McCabe et al, 1993). Schools can also prevent examination malpractice where there is a written “honor code” on examination malpractice (Kibler 1988; Pavela 1981, McCabe et al, 1993, 2001, 1999). McCabe et al, (1993) caution that adopting an honor code as the sole solution to preventing examination malpractice will be ill conceived because examination malpractice is affected by “multiple variables beyond the mere existence of an honor code” (p.533). Deterrence theory maintains that for students to be deterred from engaging in

examination malpractice they must perceive that they are likely to be caught, and also, that they must be severely punished when caught (Tittle et al, 1973). Where students perceive that the consequence of examination malpractice and being caught outweighs the reward for examination

malpractice, they are more likely to desist from it (Tittle et al, 1973). But the fact remains that only when students fear the punishment for examination malpractice will they desist from it and not where they perceive the

punishment as ineffective and the givers as indifferent to the offence.

The effect of punishment on deviant behaviour has been questioned: the study of Hendershott et al, (1999) shows that fear of punishment will deter female students more than males and the study of Montgomery et al, (1995) maintains that punishment is not a panacea for correcting deviant behaviour. Hendershott et al, (1999) caution that the prevention of examination

malpractice in schools would need multifaceted strategy. Where students are not sure or are not in agreement over what constitutes examination

malpractice, threat of sanction becomes ineffective. It can be counter-

46 unjust. Not all examination malpractice is deterred by threat of sanctions (Tittle et al, 1973). Some poor performing students may see threat as irrelevant, because the consequence of being caught and failing does not have any impact on their existing situation. Thus, where students are convinced that they are failing examinations, the fear of being given 0% for examination malpractice may not stop them from engaging in it. Jendrek (1992) advocates for moral development of students and perceived many of the above measures for preventing examination malpractice as setting “up roadblocks for students who want or might want to cheat.

47 Table: 2 Research on exam malpractice is dominated by quantitative

method and only few studies focused on its prevention

Name and year of publication

Institution Where Methodology Focus of the study

Evans & Craig 1990 Secondary school USA Questionnaire Prevalence and attributes of cheating Schab 1969 High school USA Questionnaire Gender difference, attitudes, prevention Hendrix, Sederberg, Miller 1990 High school USA Questionnaire Commitment and alienation to school Hughes & McCabe 2006b High school/ University Canada Questionnaire Prevalence, determinants and solution Davis, Grover, Becker, McGregor 1992 High school USA Questionnaire Prevalence, determinants, deterrents Brimble & Stevenson- Clarke 2005

University Australia Survey

Prevalence, perception of cheating

Pulvers & Diekhoff 1999

College USA Questionnaire

Relationship between environment, cheating, neutralization Wajda- Johnson, Handal, Brawer, Fabricator 2001

University USA Survey Prevalence, severity, justification and response to cheating Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, Washburn 1998 Psychology instructors

USA Interview Why instructors ignore cheating

Houston & Ziff 1976

University USA Experimental

Relationship between cheating and previous success-failure

Blankenship & Whitley 2000

University USA Questionnaire

Relation of cheating on an exam to other forms of deviance

Stearns 2001 University USA Questionnaire

Student perception of instructor behaviour and influence on cheating

48 Anderman, Griesinger, Westerfield 1998 Middle school USA Questionnaire Relation of motivational variables to self- reported cheating Alutu & Aluede 2006 Secondary school

Nigeria Questionnaire Perception of cheating and exam ethics Franklyn-

Stokes, Newstead 1995

University UK Questionnaire

Staff/ student perception of seriousness and frequency of cheating Wentzel 1997 Secondary school USA Questionnaire Perceptions of teacher caring in relation to motivation to achieve academically Wentzel 1998 Primary/ secondary USA Questionnaire Ways in which supportive relationship with parents, teachers, peers relate to student motivation Murdock, Hale, Weber 2001 Secondary school USA Questionnaire Relations between students’ cheating and academic and social motivation

McCabe, Trevino, Butterfield 2002

University USA Questionnaire

Influence of modifies ‘honor’ code and models of cheating Godfrey &

Waugh 1998

Secondary school

Australia Questionnaire Perceptions of cheating from students from religious school Vandewiele 1980 Secondary school Senegal Questionnaire Students’ perceptions causes and attitudes towards cheating New stead, Franklyn- Stokes, Armstead 1996 University UK Questionnaire

Incidence and causes of cheating

Evans & Craig 1990

High school

USA Questionnaire Teacher and student perceptions of cheating Ashworth, Bannister, Thome 1997 University UK Interview Students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism Kidwell, Wozniak, Laurel 2003 University USA Questionnaire

Student and faculty perceptions of cheating Calabrese,

Cochran 1990

Secondary school

USA Questionnaire Relation of Alienation to cheating

49 These are short-term solutions to the problem of academic dishonesty and do little to help prepare students for the ethically laden decisions facing them after graduation” (p. 272) Preventing examination malpractice by spacing students in the examination room is laudable but it is a short term solution as students may not see the need to develop the morality and integrity required of them in examinations and in life. Thus, research reviewed suggests that examination malpractice is prevalent in schools and is determined by students’ personal and contextual factors. Students’ primary reason for examination malpractice is to pass but research reviewed showed that necessary conditions for students to pass are often not existent in schools. The review shows that none of the strategies for preventing examination malpractice; punishment, moral development and honor code on itself can comprehensively prevent examination malpractice in schools and no studies has attempted to bring all together. Many of the suggestion on preventing examination malpractice have excluded students as partners in the solution and no studies on examination malpractice in secondary school has focused exclusively at preventing examination malpractice. Table 2 (above) shows that research on preventing examination malpractice in secondary is limited.

Studies are dominated by quantitative methods of research and few have focused on the prevention of examination malpractice.

50