The Mythical Sly Fox Learner, Enterprising Wolves, and Cunning Hounds: Academic Dishonesty Revisited in Online Learning Environments
Abstract
It is an invariable fact, --- some students cheat. This paper examines why academic dishonest acts committed by “sly fox” learners (students who knowingly cheat with the intention of not getting caught) in online higher education (HE) learning environments in the United States do not occur in greater numbers and more frequency than those committed by sly fox learners in state-side traditional campus classrooms. Coupled with the maturity and readiness of students, the findings indicate that online learning institutions can diminish acts of cheating through the exploitation of (i) internal and external system controls (ii) increased student-tutor interactions, scaffolding, and constructivist-type pedagogical activities and assessments, (iii) requisite student training for academic writing and (iv) and by issuing proactive, periodic reminders by the tutors and institution about the school’s integrity policy and its consequences for breaking it. In the end, the notion of a sly fox learner is proven to be more of a myth of lore than a substantiated fact.
It is an invariable fact, --- some students cheat. This paper examines why academic dishonest acts committed by “sly fox” learners (students who knowingly cheat with the intention of not getting caught) in online higher education (HE) learning environments in the United States do not occur in greater numbers and more frequency than those committed by sly fox learners in state-side traditional campus classrooms. Coupled with the maturity and readiness of students, the findings indicate that online learning institutions can diminish acts of cheating through the exploitation of (i) internal and external system controls (ii) increased student-tutor interactions, scaffolding, and constructivist-type pedagogical activities and assessments, (iii) requisite student training for academic writing and (iv) and by issuing proactive, periodic reminders by the tutors and institution about the school’s integrity policy and its consequences for breaking it. In the end, the notion of a sly fox learner is proven to be more of a myth of lore than a substantiated fact.
I. Introduction With the aid of the internet and personal computers, it is an undeniable fact that online education has grown exponentially in recent decades. Whereas students of higher education (HE) in the United States used to attend primarily brick-and-mortar educational institutions in the past, more and more students of various ages, ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds are now able to conveniently attend online institutions of HE to suit their complex lifestyles (Sloan-Consortium, 2006). But no matter how you look at it, there remains one particular troublesome aspect in education that has yet to be eradicated from the general student population; --- cheating (Adkins, Kenkel & Lim, 2008). There are those that believe that there are more acts of academic dishonesty committed by “sly fox” learners in online educational dens than in the traditional learning environments. But repeated research and compounding empirical evidence contradict this notion. The online learning environment is no more a haven or facilitator of academic dishonesty than the traditional one (Varvel, 2005; Grijalva, Nowell & Kerkvliet, 2006).
To substantiate these points the first part of this paper presents background information on academic dishonesty in order to establish a foundation for understanding. It first provides a definition of academic dishonesty and explores the acts committed most often by perpetrators. This is followed by a systems view of the sly fox learner’s world as it relates to distance education, other ecological systems, outside influences, and key inputs and outputs. It is paramount to understand how the learner fits in these systems by acknowledging the interplay between them and outside influences which shapes the learner’s ethical behavior. This aids in understanding the emerging profile of the minority sly fox learner and why people believe that online education is a greater haven for such activity. This section ends by examining reasons why these learners admit to committing such acts.
The subsequent parts of the paper get to the heart of the matter by examining how academic dishonesty is facilitated or deterred in online educational settings. It begins by examining the characteristics of the adult online learner. It then explores the role that technology plays in today’s computer savvy environment in terms of transactional distance. Without question we have achieved efficiencies in education by employing its use (Rumble, 1997, p 2). It is followed by examining the role pedagogy can play to deter or exacerbate the problem. The paper concludes by refuting claims that acts of academic dishonesty occur more often in online educational environments than in traditional ones and ultimately debunks the existence of the sly fox learner.
II. Academic Dishonesty Defined According to Stuber-McEwen, Wisley & Hoggatt (2009) academic misconduct occurs most often when a learner misrepresents his work or abilities and can occur in a variety of ways. Academic dishonesty can be classified as 2 broad types: (i) planned cheating and (ii) panic cheating (unplanned). The first occurs through thoughtful planning by the learner to purposely deceive (e.g. by devising crib notes, purchasing term papers from a paper mill etc.) The later occurs as a result of the student feeling utter despair during the assessment even though there is no conceived plan to cheat (Grijalva, 2006). Panic sets in and the learner begins to feel the need to pass the assessment even if unethical means have to be employed. Northwestern University (2006) classifies the 7 most common types of academic dishonesty as follows:
A. Cheating on Assessments
These types of activities can be characterized as (i) using unauthorized information such as banned study notes or other resources, (ii) resubmitting previously graded work for a better grade in the same class without authorization from the instructor, and (iii) submitting previously graded work from another course to satisfy a requirement in a different course without prior authorization from the current instructor.
Additionally, Adkins et al (2008) refer to “ringers” as the human resources engaged to create or perform someone else’s work which is then submitted as if it was one’s own work. While the University of California at Santa Barbara’s Instructional Development website (2009) suggests that instructors could physical detect ringers by looking for unfamiliar faces in class, online professors and teaching assistants (TAs) must employ other means since the instructor and students are separated by distance and sometimes time (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). In general, teaching-learning by two-way videoconferencing or satellite is not as convenient for a learner who can more readily use a personal laptop at work, home or while traveling. Therefore, the online learner’s physical appearance remains veiled for the most part during the teaching-learning experience even though many of the learner’s characteristics and habits do not.
B. Plagiarizing
The act of failing to correctly cite or attribute credit to a source constitutes plagiarism. Although the act of plagiarism is not new, the environment in which a learner can receive a paper written by someone else has changed significantly (Groark & Oblinger, 2001; Boehm, Taggett, 1998). Groark & Oblinger (2001) estimate that online traffic to paper mill sites, which are operated by enterprising wolves (persons or businesses that exist primarily to abet learners by selling them pre-written papers), exceeded 2.6 million in 2001 and that School Sucks.com reported being in the black from the first day of operation. Therefore, buyers and web site visitors are driving their demand. The purpose of enterprising wolves is to unethically exploit a basic need of learners (the production of term papers) usually at his or her monetary expense. Institutions are impacted as well since they must devise means to combat the issue by utilizing human, system, and monetary resources which more than likely would have been utilized for other educational purposes. These specific means are referred to as “cunning hounds” since they are used to proactively root out plagiarism while staying on the tracks of the sly fox learners.
Moreover, Baggaley & Spencer (2005) contend that the use of the online environment facilitates plagiaristic activities because it provides easier access to information with fewer controls on the learner. The authors further cite that “the ability to copy online material into one’s own work makes it easy for individuals to collate material with little or no cognitive involvement in it” (p. 56). Many students raised during the Internet era conveniently believe that information retrieved freely from the web can be done so easily and without repercussions (Rimer, 2003; Mertz, n.d.). These students view obtaining such information as inconsequential and therefore fail to properly credit their sources (Rimer, 2003).
Conversely, a study conducted by Stuber-McEwen et al (2009) indicated that plagiarism occurred 5 times more often in the traditional classroom when compared to the online environment. One critical physiological contributing factor that may account for these differences in claims is the age, maturity, and motivations of the student (Stuber-McEwen et al, 2009). Several other factors such as the use of system controls, moderate classroom size, access to citation tools, education and resources, awareness of copyright law, diminishing the fear associated with panic cheating (Grijalva et al, 2006), and achieving an understanding of the institution’s academic integrity policy all play a part to deter or reduce the instances of plagiarism in works submitted by students regardless of the learning environment.
Moreover, instructors must be aware of ecological factors that can contribute to a learner unwittingly committing plagiarism. For example, in some cultures using other’s work is viewed as a sign of adulation or respect (Baggaley & Spencer, 2005, p. 57). Whereas in a different environment this very act could at best result in a reprimand or expulsion, not even to mention the utter disgrace felt by the student. Clearly, this is an example of an ill-informed learner. In another context, the student would be deemed a sly fox learner if he or she knowingly offered their “cultural ecological den” as an excuse in spite of being aware of the rules and consequences of their institution’s plagiarism policy.
C. Fabricating
Falsifying data, methods or citations through erroneous means are examples of fabrication. Fabricating information has real life consequences as evident by New York Times news reporter, Jayson Blair’s activities. In 2003, The New York Times reported that one of their own had fabricated or plagiarized information in nearly 40 stories. Barry, Barstow, Glator, Liptak & Steinberg (2003) cite, “The investigation suggests several reasons Mr. Blair's deceits went undetected for so long: a failure of communication among senior editors; few complaints from the subjects of his articles; his savviness and his ingenious ways of covering his tracks. Most of all, no one saw his carelessness as a sign that he was capable of systematic fraud.” This would suggest that this environment lacked the proper controls to detect Blair’s fabrication early and that degrees of apathy were at play. Another example is that of Stephen Glass at The New Republic who concocted elaborate schemes to support his writings and in order to make them more engaging (Cheating culture, n.d.). While both men have moved on to other careers and even financially benefited from their acts of misconduct; their employers were left in their wake with damaged reputations to salvage.
Likewise, HE institutions recognize the impact that fabrication scandals can have on a school’s reputation and even affect their bottom line by way of decreased enrollment (the desire for potential and returning students to distance themselves from the stigma associated with cheating) and financial contributions which are oftentimes integral to a school’s survival.
D. Obtaining an Unfair Advantage
Undertaking activities which would allow one to obtain an advantage over other students such as obtaining, reproducing or circulating examination material prior to an assessment, purposely misleading others or destroying documents that will contribute in a positive light to another student’s work constitutes an unfair advantage. The Stuber-McEwen et al (2009) study suggests that this type of cheating activity occurs minimally in an online environment, but did not indicate how it was achieved. One could posit that a learner could purposely publish erroneous information in an online learning environment which other online learners would take into consideration when producing their deliverables. Or a learner could check-out or reserve materials from the school’s onsite or virtual library therefore preventing other learners from accessing them. This would in effect limit the quality of the other learners’ work thereby placing them at an academic disadvantage.
E. Aiding and Abetting
Providing assistance to another person in one of the aforementioned acts of dishonesty constitutes aiding and abetting-type activities. Stuber-McEwen et al (2009) note this type of cheating behavior occurs the most often in the online and traditional campus setting. Repeated research indicates that the theory of cognitive dissonance may be at play. For example, the cognitive dissonance theory manifests itself “whenever a person has two contradictory cognitions or beliefs at the same time” and is often cited as an important factor to help other students resolve cognitive conflicts (Stuber-McEwen et al, 2009). For example, the act of allowing another student to copy one’s work before it is submitted or taking an exam ahead of other learners and then publishing the contents of the test without coaxing suggests cognitive dissonance is at work. Essentially, learners do not prevent the cheating behavior, but rather passively permit it.
This brings us to another point in the discussion about aiding and abetting – the suppliers or enterprising wolves who attempt to assist the sly fox learners. A plethora of web sites are willing to write papers for students at varying prices. One university library list links to over 250 internet paper mill web sites with the hopes of deterring students from using them (Coastal Carolina University, 2009). Likewise, University Maryland University College’s (UMUC) Center for Intellectual Property provides extensive plagiarism resources including a list of several detection services (Plagiarism – Center for Intellectual Property, n.d.). The notion is if the school or “big brother” is aware of the plagiaristic resource, then the student would be less likely to use it. The list is updated every 6 months and includes a warning to students about plagiarism. The institutions also try to encourage students to use their own skills and the school’s resources to produce better deliverables.
F. Falsifying Records or Official Documents
Altering any official institutional document including grade reports and transcripts is illegal. Although the small study group of online learners who responded to the Stuber-McEwen et al (2009) study did not report any instances of falsifying documents, it does not mean that it does not occur. For example, Allyne (2003) reported that the problem of forged diplomas, recommendation letters, and transcripts has grown exponentially with the advent of the Internet. It is not difficult to create bogus documents. By simply scanning in the registrar’s signature or using a printer with certain fonts, one can create a replica of an authentic document (Allyne, 2003). The problem was so rampant within the states of North Dakota and Illinois; they even considered legislation which would make it a misdemeanor crime to obtain these types of illegal document credentials (Allyne, 2003). To cover themselves, online diploma mills such as Cooldegree.com and FakeDegrees.com claim their documents are for entertainment purposes only (Allyne, 2003).
G. Illegal Access to Computerized Records
The unauthorized access to or interference of online academic systems was not performed by any online students in the Stuber-McEwen et al study (2009). Likewise, one could posit that control processes and systems play a significant role in deterring and preventing such activity. But more importantly, online learners are typically characterized as motivated to complete their studies (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Stuber-McEwen et al, 2009).
On the other hand the high school level is the academic environment in which I found that most computer break-ins occurred for academic reasons. As an example, Ayers (2008) reported that 18 year old high school student Omar Khan changed his grades in the school’s system and as a result faced up to 38 years in jail for 69 counts which includes “altering and stealing public records, computer fraud, burglary, identity theft, receiving stolen property and conspiracy.” In another incident at Golden High School in Colorado, Wolf & Garcia (2007) reported that someone broke into the school’s grading system and altered grades. As a result, students were requested to produce supporting documentation by school officials to prove the grade they should have earned. The reasons for the break-ins appear to have been motivated by the pressure on students to gain a competitive edge in order to get into the institution of their choice.
In sharp contrast, the motivations for some HE computer break-ins were noticeably different. For example some perpetrators (termed “crackers” because their acts are malicious), illegally accessed school computer systems to obtain sensitive information such as social security numbers or to propagate computer viruses (Dignan, 2004; Brocchetto, 2009; Reavis, 1999, Vamosi, 2008). In other cases, the perpetrators (also called “white hat hackers” for their nobleness) wanted to show the school that their computer systems had serious breaches by making a statement --- if they could enter the school’s computer system, then anyone could too (Reavis, 1999). Whatever the motivation for the computer break-ins, it still remains a fact that an act of academic dishonesty is still an act of academic dishonesty by any other name or circumstance.
H. Next Steps
The questions rise, What are factors, catalysts and motivators which encourage learners to cheat? And how are the mindsets of the sly fox learners shaped? Several statistics indicate that cheating often times occurs long before students enter college. For example, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) notes that 75 to 98 percent of HE students admit to having cheated in high school and that cheating may start in primary school where students first consider breaking rules in order to win competitively (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999). Moreover, academic dishonest behaviors begin to gel during the middle school years, which is clearly again before most learners typically enter a HE environment (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999). Furthermore, Groak, Oblinger & Choa (2001) cite that the majority of students who admitted to using the Internet to plagiarize would have done so any way regardless of the informational source. From this statement one could posit that the Internet does not drive the plagiarist’s behavior because the plagiarist is determined to find alternate ways to commit the act regardless of the means.
The student’s social attitudes, beliefs and background must be examined. But that is only part of the equation. There are other factors such as the nature of the pervasive culture, personal network interactions, instructor’s and institution’s attitudinal role which may contribute to the cheating culture. As such, the next section explores the behaviors and mindset of the sly fox learner in his or her ecological environment.
III. The Ecological Den of the Sly Fox Learner Basic elements of a distance learning environment include the learner, teacher, content and communications medium (the method by which teaching-learning is facilitated) at a minimum; however, the learner must be viewed in a greater social context if one is to understand the characteristics, habits and motivations that learners bring to an online learning environment (Campbell Gibson, 1998). Human ecology is the way in which we interact in interpersonal relationships, societies, and their natural, social, abstract and concrete manifested environments. Ecological system theory dictates that a learner transacts in various, overlapping and enveloping ecological environments in which he socially interacts and develops over time to form the basis for his beliefs, habits, motivation, moral and attitudinal boundaries. Gibson (1998, p. 114) writes, “This seems particularly appropriate as we consider, for example, the cognitive, intellectual, personal, and social development of our dynamic distance learners over time…as distance educators we are interested not only in learning, but also in the interaction of those properties of the person and their multiple environments which produce constancy and change in the characteristic of that person over time.”
Urie Bronfenbrenner classifies a learner’s ecological systems into 4 major categories in the order of closest proximity to the learner to furthest away within a concentric pattern (Campbell Gibson, 1998):
· Microsystem – the online learner is viewed in multiple contexts as a family member, member of a community, student and worker. (The impact of the influential personal characteristics of others is included in this ecosystem.)
· Mesosystem – this subsystem is composed of the interrelations between the ecological elements such as the family, online institution, church and extra-curricular groups described in the microsystem.
· Exosystems – formal and informal structures which influence the mesosystem such as the neighborhood, government agencies, social networks, mass media, communications and transportation systems comprise the outer ecosystem.
· Macrosystem – this enveloping ecosystem refers to the over-arching abstractions of the culture or subculture such as education, political, social and legal systems of which the aforementioned systems are the concrete manifestations.
Figure 1 provides a visual context of the learner’s interactions in his or her multiple ecological environments. In the context of academic dishonesty, the student is viewed primarily as a non-cheater or sly fox learner at the innermost, microsystem level. The ecological framework is transferable across educational levels and societies (Campbell Gibson, 1998). Therefore, the microsystem (as well as other succeeding systems) can be representative of a student at the primary or secondary level, or within a HE institution in North America, South America, and Africa etc.
Figure 1: Ecological View of the Learner in Multiple Contexts
(Adapted from Egan and Cowan, 1979)
Within the next outer layer (mesosystem), the learner encounters interactions with other non-cheating and sly fox learners in various ecological dens or environments such as home, school, church, extra-curricular activities and even perhaps the penal system, which shape his moral beliefs, behaviors, and attitudinal habits. This is also where adult learners begin to encounter cunning hounds at HE institutions who submit their papers to online services which check for instances and degrees of plagiarism. Enterprising wolves (paper mill businesses and services) also exist at this level within the mesosystem to respond to buyers requests and demands for their products and services.
In the macrosystem, the learner’s over-arching cultural beliefs come into play. This is where sly fox influencers can be found. The sly fox influencers are colored “pink” because the pervasive culture sometimes unwittingly influences and introduces these beliefs to learners through contact with the mass media, home, neighborhood, school, and extra-curricular groups which are regarded as valued and trusted sources. That is, sometimes a learner’s cultural beliefs may conflict with an institution’s academic integrity policy such as in the case of the plagiarism and adulation example mentioned previously. The influencer exists as abstract manifestations or beliefs which act upon the learner within his educational environment. For example, the time old competitive phrase, “Nobody ever remembers #2” may be interpreted by the learner to mean that he must employ whatever means (e.g. plagiarizing) to remain academically ahead of the other learners. In doing so, the learner copies or lifts text from notable published sources without attributing credit to them. In this context Charles Caleb Colton’s famous quote, "Imitation is the sincerest of flattery", does not ring true but rather, “May Honor be given to whom Honor may be due.” - 1777 S. Adams Letter 29 Oct. in Collections of Massachusetts Hist. Society (1917) LXXII. 375. Moreover, this is where the cheating culture envelops and influences the other sub-systems. Younger generational students receive the message to do whatever is needed to get ahead and that little white lies don’t matter. These are mixed messages which oftentimes run against the grain of an institution’s integrity policy.
Figure 2 presents a systems view of academic dishonesty as it relates to distance education. Notice that the institution’s integrity policy envelops the DE system. Given that new students have completed high school and recalling that ETS reported that 75 – 98 percent of high school students admit to having cheated in high school at some point, both the sly fox learners and non-cheating students are depicted as entering the online HE institution in representative proportions. Academic dishonesty has occurred in different contexts and pervasively throughout education. Therefore, the sly fox learner is depicted as a returning student, dropout and even graduate. Theoretically, the sly fox learner at some institutions may be capable of gaining entrance into the materials subsystem which is responsible for producing teaching and learning material and assessments. (This would more likely occur with standardized test and data banks, rather than constructivist-type activities.) Enterprising wolves appear as other influences which sly fox learners can access through online interactions with paper mill business or employ as “ringers”. Cunning hounds, characterized as trained professionals and contracted services, are employed by the institution and utilized by professors and TAs to root out academic dishonest conduct such as plagiarism, and aiding and abetting.
In the macrosystem, the learner’s over-arching cultural beliefs come into play. This is where sly fox influencers can be found. The sly fox influencers are colored “pink” because the pervasive culture sometimes unwittingly influences and introduces these beliefs to learners through contact with the mass media, home, neighborhood, school, and extra-curricular groups which are regarded as valued and trusted sources. That is, sometimes a learner’s cultural beliefs may conflict with an institution’s academic integrity policy such as in the case of the plagiarism and adulation example mentioned previously. The influencer exists as abstract manifestations or beliefs which act upon the learner within his educational environment. For example, the time old competitive phrase, “Nobody ever remembers #2” may be interpreted by the learner to mean that he must employ whatever means (e.g. plagiarizing) to remain academically ahead of the other learners. In doing so, the learner copies or lifts text from notable published sources without attributing credit to them. In this context Charles Caleb Colton’s famous quote, "Imitation is the sincerest of flattery", does not ring true but rather, “May Honor be given to whom Honor may be due.” - 1777 S. Adams Letter 29 Oct. in Collections of Massachusetts Hist. Society (1917) LXXII. 375. Moreover, this is where the cheating culture envelops and influences the other sub-systems. Younger generational students receive the message to do whatever is needed to get ahead and that little white lies don’t matter. These are mixed messages which oftentimes run against the grain of an institution’s integrity policy.
Figure 2 presents a systems view of academic dishonesty as it relates to distance education. Notice that the institution’s integrity policy envelops the DE system. Given that new students have completed high school and recalling that ETS reported that 75 – 98 percent of high school students admit to having cheated in high school at some point, both the sly fox learners and non-cheating students are depicted as entering the online HE institution in representative proportions. Academic dishonesty has occurred in different contexts and pervasively throughout education. Therefore, the sly fox learner is depicted as a returning student, dropout and even graduate. Theoretically, the sly fox learner at some institutions may be capable of gaining entrance into the materials subsystem which is responsible for producing teaching and learning material and assessments. (This would more likely occur with standardized test and data banks, rather than constructivist-type activities.) Enterprising wolves appear as other influences which sly fox learners can access through online interactions with paper mill business or employ as “ringers”. Cunning hounds, characterized as trained professionals and contracted services, are employed by the institution and utilized by professors and TAs to root out academic dishonest conduct such as plagiarism, and aiding and abetting.
Figure 2: Systems View of Distance Education
(Adapted from Greville Rumble, 1997)
(Adapted from Greville Rumble, 1997)
All of these ecological interactions and influences help to shape the mindset of a sly fox learner. The next section presents common excuses sly fox learners give for committing such acts.
I. The Mindset of a Sly Fox Learner The tutorial, Using Sources in Your Work: A Tutorial on Avoiding Plagiarism Grade 10 – 12 ( n.d.), which was developed for upper class high school students, lists common reasons why students admit committing acts of plagiarism:
· Apathy - Students believe that no one cares if they cheat.
· Social Peer Pressure – Students feel that everyone else is doing it.
· Academic Peer Pressure – Students feel pressured to obtain good grades.
· Disinterest – Students are not interested in the assignment and therefore do not wish to exert adequate effort.
· Time Constrained – Students feel they do not have time to do the assignment right due to competing priorities.
· Ignorance – Students do not know that they have to cite their sources or how to do it.
· Misunderstanding – Students do not understand the assignment.
Rimer (2003) concurs by citing noted Rutgers Professor, Donald McCabe, as saying that students feel that “Everyone cheats, it’s not all that important.” McCabe confirms that some undergraduate students admitted to cheating because of the pressures to get into graduate school and to secure a coveted job after college (Rimer, 2003). More importantly students feel that they are imitating what they’ve observed in society among noted leaders and professionals (Rimer, 2003). When it comes right down to it, basically through apathy, we support a cheating culture making cheating no longer a social stigma but a rite of passage. The shift from obtaining a good education to requiring top grades has changed the human ecological landscape and educational mindset of learners.
ETS notes that in past years it was the poor performing student who was more likely to cheat; they’ve been joined in the ranks by above average students who feel pressured to compete academically for coveted college entrance spots (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999). Furthermore, in order to keep up with their classmates who do cheat, learners are cheating to make the playing field even again. The difference between those who cheat to obtain an unfair advantage compared to those who do not can mean the difference in a letter grade. The old adage, “Nice guys finish last”– Leo Durocher, resonates. According to ETS (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999) the characteristics of sly fox learners are:
· From the elementary age forward, boys tend to cheat more than girls, but that gap has been closing at the HE level in recent years. The reason for this gap closure could be that more females are attending college in record numbers than ever before or women are choosing to cheat like their male counterparts in order to compete on a level playing field.
· Research indicates that elementary-age students know that cheating is wrong but they convince themselves that the practice is permissible under certain conditions.
· Math and science are the areas where cheating occurs the most. Since Business and Engineering students are the most likely to cheat, students who take these courses do so to fulfill a requirement for graduation or to be promoted to the next grade, or to achieve a requisite grade for course advancement.
· Academic dishonest misconduct begins to set in by middle school-age when students become more competitive for good grades. As an example, 2/3 of middle school students admitted to cheating on tests while nearly 90 percent admitted to copying another person’s work.
· The results of a 1998 survey of top Who’s Who American high school students show that 80% of the respondents admitted to cheating in order to rank high in their class.
· College students admit to cheating for several of the reasons mentioned previously. However, they also admitted to cheating because there was no honor code; the penalties for getting caught cheating are not severe; and support by faculty of academic integrity policies is weak.
Another phenomenon that occurred is although men tend to cheat more than women, they also tend to self-report themselves more than their counter-parts. Moreover, research shows that sly fox learners are more likely to be
· Engineering or Business majors or students who have a desire to go into business
· A member of a fraternity or sorority
· As young as elementary school-age students
· A low performing student or at the very top of their class (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999).
Research also shows that people tend to believe that computers make cheating more accessible because students are able to electronically receive ready-made term papers via the Internet (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999). But what is not mentioned are the services and measures employed by the institutions to detect plagiarism in these non-authentic papers.
Now that the profile and characteristics of sly fox learner has been examined, ways to deter and prevent acts of academic dishonesty (in particular plagiarism, and aiding and abetting) follow with a focus on teaching and learning in the online learning environment.
II. Deterring Academic Dishonesty in an Online Environment The Sloan-Consortium (2008) reports that more than 3.9 million U.S. students took at least one online course during the fall of 2007; a 12 percent increase over the preceding year. Clearly online education enrollment continues to rise. This equates to approximately 20 percent of the H.E. population participating in online education.
A. Characteristics of the Online Adult Learner
Penn State (2005) characterizes an adult learner as someone who:
· Has been out of school from school more than 4 years
· Is a member of the U.S. armed forces
· Is over 23 years of age or
· Performs multiple roles such as parenting, working, taking care of the home and/or children, studying and caring for the elderly
Adult learners usually bring a degree of work experience and maturity to their online learning environment. They are experienced with life circumstances and typically know more about themselves and interpersonal communication than their younger counterparts (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p 155). The adult online learner also exhibits a high degree of commitment and motivation to learn. According to Moore & Kearsley (1996), some adult learners enroll in online courses to gain practical knowledge through continuing education courses, while others try to make up for their neglected high school education and yet others seek to fulfill career advancement opportunities.
B. Internet Technology and Transactional Distance
Anderson (2004) cites easier access to information as a benefit to using the Internet. While the internet has undoubtedly proven helpful, it also acts as a double edged sword in the learner’s ability to lift information and not attribute credit to the originator (Anderson, 2004). But there are human and system resources available to institutions to combat that issue. Services such as TurnItIn.com, Plaigiarism.org, LexisNexis, Copyguard, and EssayRater.com electronically scan papers for degrees of plagiarism (Plagiarism – Center for Intellectual Property, n.d.). Instructors and TAs are quickly alerted as to how much text in students’ papers has been copied.
Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that transactional distance can dictate which type of teaching-learning materials and methods are best suited for an online course. The transactional distance theory is described as “the physical distance that leads to a communication gap, a psychological space of potential misunderstandings between the behaviors of instructors and those of the learners” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Bates, 1995). The anxiety experienced by learners as a result of the increased transactional distance could result in a higher degree of plagiarism if the learner doesn’t feel confident about his academic performance. Ultimately, it is the (i) design of the assessment, (ii) use of the most appropriate teaching-learning methods, (iii) sufficient teacher-student interaction (use of empathy), (iv) reminders about plagiarism and its consequences and (v) use of citation materials which can lessen and deter acts of plagiarism.
C. How Pedagogy Can Deter Academic Dishonesty
Empathy, as defined by Holmberg, is “the optimal condition for the effective presentation of learning matter and helpful student-teacher interaction” (Holmberg, 2003, p 35). Addressing students in a personal way opens up the channel of communication between instructor and students. In effect this may reduce the level of stress felt by students in the online classroom and increase learners understanding. In another regard, students who are permitted to “lurk”, meaning observe others’ dialog and interaction in the online learning environment, may also benefit. In both instances students would be less inclined to plagiarize material if an optimal level of understanding is achieved whether through active or passive learning. Moreover, achieving the right class size is also important. Students are less likely to become a statistic in a smaller online class size of 25 compared to a on-campus lecture hall numbering 200 students.
The instructor plays an important role in scaffolding material. Vygotsky’s socio-culture principle of scaffolding states that the teacher assists the learner with hints and clues in order to bridge the gap in understanding so that he or she is able to better solve a similar problem in the future (Woolfolk, 2004; Zawacki-Ritchter, 2004). The point is this type of social activity is needed at times to help a student to achieve understanding, but in no regard is it deemed a form of cheating.
At UMUC, each specialized faculty member is responsible for designing his or her course content and teaching it. Many of the courses in the distance learning program were developed with the underpinnings of the constructivist learning theory; characterized as the most popular learning theory today and allows the greatest student involvement in their own learning (Bates, 1995). Naidu (2004) describes five instructional design methods which require constructivist-type skills on the part of the learner. They are: (i) story-centered learning, (ii) problem-based learning, (iii) critical incident-based learning, (iv) design-based learning and (v) role play-based learning. When students are required to participate more in their own learning and create a unique deliverable, academic dishonesty is less likely to occur.
Areas of concern in some online educational environments are the use of multiple choice questions, data banks and poorly designed assessments. While they may be easier to grade systematically, opportunities are left open in the system for cheating and guessing. For example, students may be able to purposely interrupt the test taking process and re-initiate the assessment even after having seen some of the material. In effect, they’ve achieved an unfair advantage. Also, by providing a finite list of answers to choose from, the assessment designer has unwittingly given students an advantage. If students can eliminate choices, (even if they don’t know the answer) they can increase their odds of selecting the right choice. In this case, a student becomes better at taking multiple-choice assessments rather than truly demonstrating proficient knowledge and mastery in the subject matter being tested.
III. Recommendations The following recommendations are suggested to lessen acts of academic dishonesty:
· The instructor should become familiar with the online learner’s writing style, mannerisms and habits. For example if a learner’s writing is not consistent, does not look like his own work, seems too perfect or the fonts within his paper varies, it could be an indication of plagiarism. Also, the lack of citations with quoted material, and references to material not included in the paper can also point to plagiarism.
· The online institution should encourage learners to share personal biographies and a photo of themselves in order to make the experience more personable.
· The instructor should require students to submit a rough draft or works in progress as evidence of progress before turning in their final copy. This way, plagiarism and abetting is deterred when progressive works are required for submission.
· Instructors should design constructivist-type assessments which require students to create critical pieces of work rather than allowing them to choose multiple choice answers or providing short responses.
· Students should be required to keep a reflective journal as evidence of their online participation.
· Institutions should keep class sizes to a reasonable size (e.g. 25 students) so as to maintain optimal student-teacher interaction and learning.
· Students should be required to regularly participate in online group discussions and synthesis elements of the discussion into summaries.
· The institution should require all incoming students to take an online course and assessment in the use of proper citation, plagiarism, copyright law and fair use.
· Students should use student writing services to proof their work.
· Instructors should spot check students’ paper resources for authenticity and correctness.
· Online institutions should have a strong, enforceable academic integrity policy. Faculty members should be engaged in reminding students about the policy and its consequences.
· Instructors should quickly correct false information purported by any student in the online learner environment so as to prevent other students from following the student’s lead.
· Students must be reminded that they should not discuss the assessment until testing is complete because it could affect their grade.
· All purported academic records and degrees should be checked out. A transcript with an official seal should be required. Transcripts should be requested directly from the institution and not handled by a third party
· Computers, portals and processes should have adequate security and require ID and passwords when applicable in order to prevent unauthorized access.
· Instructors should include adequate assessments that can help build a student’s academic self-confidence in order to lessen the likelihood of panic cheating.
· Institutions and instructors should consider using an online service such as TurnItIn.com to systematically detect plagiarism in papers. Also, they should take every opportunity to promote the use of the service on their website and within courses. Once students are introduced to such a service, they become aware that plagiarizing is more difficult.
· Institutions should receive transcripts only from trusted, secure sources.
· Companies should perform a check on an individual’s degree credentials as well as follow up on their references.
Conclusion Cheating does not occur in greater numbers in the online environment when compared to the on-campus environment for a variety of reasons. To recapitulate the major points, the typical adult online learner in a HE learning environment is a mature individual who is committed and motivated to learn. Moreover, most adult learners juggle multiple roles so there is little forethought for planned cheating. Taking all of this into consideration, online learners do not fit the typical profile of students who commit acts of academic dishonesty as reported by ETS.
Additionally, for the mere fact that many students are individually separated by distance and can be grouped into relatively small online classes; opportunities to cheat are less likely to occur in comparison to a large body of students in an on-campus lecture hall who are simultaneously taking a paper assessment. More importantly, constructivist-type assessments along with achieving optimal teacher-student interaction help to deter cheating because online learners are required to (i) synthesize information, (ii) create unique deliverables, and (iii) interface with the instructor and other students. It is during this exchange that online instructors get to know their online learners’ characteristics, habits and abilities at a distance. And lastly, use of online services such as TurnItIn.com, which can check for plagiarism in papers, is on the rise by HE institutions. The increased usage and visibility of such services coupled with institutions requiring new students to take and pass a course in proper paper citation, has helped to deter plagiarism at UMUC for example.
All learners must take responsibility for their own learning process (Zawacki-Richter, 2004). Some learners who perform dishonest academic acts such as plagiarism, fabrication, and aiding and abetting do so at their own risk and may face a range of consequences. And as mentioned previously, there are numerous ways cheating can be detected, deterred and prevented. If sly fox learners are not immediately caught cheating, then they have cheated themselves anyway in the end. Because even if they pass the test during the course, but are unable to apply the knowledge and skills (which they should have learned) at a later date then the sly fox learners really aren’t so cleaver after all. Their cheating has become rather meaningless and their name is deemed more of a misnomer. For this very reason, sly fox learners remain more of a myth of lore than a substantiated fact.
I. The Mindset of a Sly Fox Learner The tutorial, Using Sources in Your Work: A Tutorial on Avoiding Plagiarism Grade 10 – 12 ( n.d.), which was developed for upper class high school students, lists common reasons why students admit committing acts of plagiarism:
· Apathy - Students believe that no one cares if they cheat.
· Social Peer Pressure – Students feel that everyone else is doing it.
· Academic Peer Pressure – Students feel pressured to obtain good grades.
· Disinterest – Students are not interested in the assignment and therefore do not wish to exert adequate effort.
· Time Constrained – Students feel they do not have time to do the assignment right due to competing priorities.
· Ignorance – Students do not know that they have to cite their sources or how to do it.
· Misunderstanding – Students do not understand the assignment.
Rimer (2003) concurs by citing noted Rutgers Professor, Donald McCabe, as saying that students feel that “Everyone cheats, it’s not all that important.” McCabe confirms that some undergraduate students admitted to cheating because of the pressures to get into graduate school and to secure a coveted job after college (Rimer, 2003). More importantly students feel that they are imitating what they’ve observed in society among noted leaders and professionals (Rimer, 2003). When it comes right down to it, basically through apathy, we support a cheating culture making cheating no longer a social stigma but a rite of passage. The shift from obtaining a good education to requiring top grades has changed the human ecological landscape and educational mindset of learners.
ETS notes that in past years it was the poor performing student who was more likely to cheat; they’ve been joined in the ranks by above average students who feel pressured to compete academically for coveted college entrance spots (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999). Furthermore, in order to keep up with their classmates who do cheat, learners are cheating to make the playing field even again. The difference between those who cheat to obtain an unfair advantage compared to those who do not can mean the difference in a letter grade. The old adage, “Nice guys finish last”– Leo Durocher, resonates. According to ETS (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999) the characteristics of sly fox learners are:
· From the elementary age forward, boys tend to cheat more than girls, but that gap has been closing at the HE level in recent years. The reason for this gap closure could be that more females are attending college in record numbers than ever before or women are choosing to cheat like their male counterparts in order to compete on a level playing field.
· Research indicates that elementary-age students know that cheating is wrong but they convince themselves that the practice is permissible under certain conditions.
· Math and science are the areas where cheating occurs the most. Since Business and Engineering students are the most likely to cheat, students who take these courses do so to fulfill a requirement for graduation or to be promoted to the next grade, or to achieve a requisite grade for course advancement.
· Academic dishonest misconduct begins to set in by middle school-age when students become more competitive for good grades. As an example, 2/3 of middle school students admitted to cheating on tests while nearly 90 percent admitted to copying another person’s work.
· The results of a 1998 survey of top Who’s Who American high school students show that 80% of the respondents admitted to cheating in order to rank high in their class.
· College students admit to cheating for several of the reasons mentioned previously. However, they also admitted to cheating because there was no honor code; the penalties for getting caught cheating are not severe; and support by faculty of academic integrity policies is weak.
Another phenomenon that occurred is although men tend to cheat more than women, they also tend to self-report themselves more than their counter-parts. Moreover, research shows that sly fox learners are more likely to be
· Engineering or Business majors or students who have a desire to go into business
· A member of a fraternity or sorority
· As young as elementary school-age students
· A low performing student or at the very top of their class (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999).
Research also shows that people tend to believe that computers make cheating more accessible because students are able to electronically receive ready-made term papers via the Internet (Cheating is a personal foul, 1999). But what is not mentioned are the services and measures employed by the institutions to detect plagiarism in these non-authentic papers.
Now that the profile and characteristics of sly fox learner has been examined, ways to deter and prevent acts of academic dishonesty (in particular plagiarism, and aiding and abetting) follow with a focus on teaching and learning in the online learning environment.
II. Deterring Academic Dishonesty in an Online Environment The Sloan-Consortium (2008) reports that more than 3.9 million U.S. students took at least one online course during the fall of 2007; a 12 percent increase over the preceding year. Clearly online education enrollment continues to rise. This equates to approximately 20 percent of the H.E. population participating in online education.
A. Characteristics of the Online Adult Learner
Penn State (2005) characterizes an adult learner as someone who:
· Has been out of school from school more than 4 years
· Is a member of the U.S. armed forces
· Is over 23 years of age or
· Performs multiple roles such as parenting, working, taking care of the home and/or children, studying and caring for the elderly
Adult learners usually bring a degree of work experience and maturity to their online learning environment. They are experienced with life circumstances and typically know more about themselves and interpersonal communication than their younger counterparts (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p 155). The adult online learner also exhibits a high degree of commitment and motivation to learn. According to Moore & Kearsley (1996), some adult learners enroll in online courses to gain practical knowledge through continuing education courses, while others try to make up for their neglected high school education and yet others seek to fulfill career advancement opportunities.
B. Internet Technology and Transactional Distance
Anderson (2004) cites easier access to information as a benefit to using the Internet. While the internet has undoubtedly proven helpful, it also acts as a double edged sword in the learner’s ability to lift information and not attribute credit to the originator (Anderson, 2004). But there are human and system resources available to institutions to combat that issue. Services such as TurnItIn.com, Plaigiarism.org, LexisNexis, Copyguard, and EssayRater.com electronically scan papers for degrees of plagiarism (Plagiarism – Center for Intellectual Property, n.d.). Instructors and TAs are quickly alerted as to how much text in students’ papers has been copied.
Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that transactional distance can dictate which type of teaching-learning materials and methods are best suited for an online course. The transactional distance theory is described as “the physical distance that leads to a communication gap, a psychological space of potential misunderstandings between the behaviors of instructors and those of the learners” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Bates, 1995). The anxiety experienced by learners as a result of the increased transactional distance could result in a higher degree of plagiarism if the learner doesn’t feel confident about his academic performance. Ultimately, it is the (i) design of the assessment, (ii) use of the most appropriate teaching-learning methods, (iii) sufficient teacher-student interaction (use of empathy), (iv) reminders about plagiarism and its consequences and (v) use of citation materials which can lessen and deter acts of plagiarism.
C. How Pedagogy Can Deter Academic Dishonesty
Empathy, as defined by Holmberg, is “the optimal condition for the effective presentation of learning matter and helpful student-teacher interaction” (Holmberg, 2003, p 35). Addressing students in a personal way opens up the channel of communication between instructor and students. In effect this may reduce the level of stress felt by students in the online classroom and increase learners understanding. In another regard, students who are permitted to “lurk”, meaning observe others’ dialog and interaction in the online learning environment, may also benefit. In both instances students would be less inclined to plagiarize material if an optimal level of understanding is achieved whether through active or passive learning. Moreover, achieving the right class size is also important. Students are less likely to become a statistic in a smaller online class size of 25 compared to a on-campus lecture hall numbering 200 students.
The instructor plays an important role in scaffolding material. Vygotsky’s socio-culture principle of scaffolding states that the teacher assists the learner with hints and clues in order to bridge the gap in understanding so that he or she is able to better solve a similar problem in the future (Woolfolk, 2004; Zawacki-Ritchter, 2004). The point is this type of social activity is needed at times to help a student to achieve understanding, but in no regard is it deemed a form of cheating.
At UMUC, each specialized faculty member is responsible for designing his or her course content and teaching it. Many of the courses in the distance learning program were developed with the underpinnings of the constructivist learning theory; characterized as the most popular learning theory today and allows the greatest student involvement in their own learning (Bates, 1995). Naidu (2004) describes five instructional design methods which require constructivist-type skills on the part of the learner. They are: (i) story-centered learning, (ii) problem-based learning, (iii) critical incident-based learning, (iv) design-based learning and (v) role play-based learning. When students are required to participate more in their own learning and create a unique deliverable, academic dishonesty is less likely to occur.
Areas of concern in some online educational environments are the use of multiple choice questions, data banks and poorly designed assessments. While they may be easier to grade systematically, opportunities are left open in the system for cheating and guessing. For example, students may be able to purposely interrupt the test taking process and re-initiate the assessment even after having seen some of the material. In effect, they’ve achieved an unfair advantage. Also, by providing a finite list of answers to choose from, the assessment designer has unwittingly given students an advantage. If students can eliminate choices, (even if they don’t know the answer) they can increase their odds of selecting the right choice. In this case, a student becomes better at taking multiple-choice assessments rather than truly demonstrating proficient knowledge and mastery in the subject matter being tested.
III. Recommendations The following recommendations are suggested to lessen acts of academic dishonesty:
· The instructor should become familiar with the online learner’s writing style, mannerisms and habits. For example if a learner’s writing is not consistent, does not look like his own work, seems too perfect or the fonts within his paper varies, it could be an indication of plagiarism. Also, the lack of citations with quoted material, and references to material not included in the paper can also point to plagiarism.
· The online institution should encourage learners to share personal biographies and a photo of themselves in order to make the experience more personable.
· The instructor should require students to submit a rough draft or works in progress as evidence of progress before turning in their final copy. This way, plagiarism and abetting is deterred when progressive works are required for submission.
· Instructors should design constructivist-type assessments which require students to create critical pieces of work rather than allowing them to choose multiple choice answers or providing short responses.
· Students should be required to keep a reflective journal as evidence of their online participation.
· Institutions should keep class sizes to a reasonable size (e.g. 25 students) so as to maintain optimal student-teacher interaction and learning.
· Students should be required to regularly participate in online group discussions and synthesis elements of the discussion into summaries.
· The institution should require all incoming students to take an online course and assessment in the use of proper citation, plagiarism, copyright law and fair use.
· Students should use student writing services to proof their work.
· Instructors should spot check students’ paper resources for authenticity and correctness.
· Online institutions should have a strong, enforceable academic integrity policy. Faculty members should be engaged in reminding students about the policy and its consequences.
· Instructors should quickly correct false information purported by any student in the online learner environment so as to prevent other students from following the student’s lead.
· Students must be reminded that they should not discuss the assessment until testing is complete because it could affect their grade.
· All purported academic records and degrees should be checked out. A transcript with an official seal should be required. Transcripts should be requested directly from the institution and not handled by a third party
· Computers, portals and processes should have adequate security and require ID and passwords when applicable in order to prevent unauthorized access.
· Instructors should include adequate assessments that can help build a student’s academic self-confidence in order to lessen the likelihood of panic cheating.
· Institutions and instructors should consider using an online service such as TurnItIn.com to systematically detect plagiarism in papers. Also, they should take every opportunity to promote the use of the service on their website and within courses. Once students are introduced to such a service, they become aware that plagiarizing is more difficult.
· Institutions should receive transcripts only from trusted, secure sources.
· Companies should perform a check on an individual’s degree credentials as well as follow up on their references.
Conclusion Cheating does not occur in greater numbers in the online environment when compared to the on-campus environment for a variety of reasons. To recapitulate the major points, the typical adult online learner in a HE learning environment is a mature individual who is committed and motivated to learn. Moreover, most adult learners juggle multiple roles so there is little forethought for planned cheating. Taking all of this into consideration, online learners do not fit the typical profile of students who commit acts of academic dishonesty as reported by ETS.
Additionally, for the mere fact that many students are individually separated by distance and can be grouped into relatively small online classes; opportunities to cheat are less likely to occur in comparison to a large body of students in an on-campus lecture hall who are simultaneously taking a paper assessment. More importantly, constructivist-type assessments along with achieving optimal teacher-student interaction help to deter cheating because online learners are required to (i) synthesize information, (ii) create unique deliverables, and (iii) interface with the instructor and other students. It is during this exchange that online instructors get to know their online learners’ characteristics, habits and abilities at a distance. And lastly, use of online services such as TurnItIn.com, which can check for plagiarism in papers, is on the rise by HE institutions. The increased usage and visibility of such services coupled with institutions requiring new students to take and pass a course in proper paper citation, has helped to deter plagiarism at UMUC for example.
All learners must take responsibility for their own learning process (Zawacki-Richter, 2004). Some learners who perform dishonest academic acts such as plagiarism, fabrication, and aiding and abetting do so at their own risk and may face a range of consequences. And as mentioned previously, there are numerous ways cheating can be detected, deterred and prevented. If sly fox learners are not immediately caught cheating, then they have cheated themselves anyway in the end. Because even if they pass the test during the course, but are unable to apply the knowledge and skills (which they should have learned) at a later date then the sly fox learners really aren’t so cleaver after all. Their cheating has become rather meaningless and their name is deemed more of a misnomer. For this very reason, sly fox learners remain more of a myth of lore than a substantiated fact.
References
Adkins, J., Kenkel, C. & Lim, C.L. (2008). Deterrents to online academic dishonesty. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from Web site: http://jwpress.com/JLHE/Issues/v1i1/Deterrents%20to%20Online%20Academic%20Dishonesty.pdf
Allyne, K. (2003). Use of false diplomas, transcripts increasing. Retrieved November 11, 2009 from the Daily Helmsman Online Website: http://media.www.dailyhelmsman.com/media/storage/paper875/news/2003/02/18/News/Use-Of.False.Diplomas.Transcripts.Increasing-1753655.shtml
Anderson, T. (2004). Student services in a networked world. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp 95 – 108), Germany : Bibliotheks – und Informationsystem der Carl von Ossientzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Ayers, C. (2008). Schoolboy hacker Omar Khan who upped his grades faces 38 years in jail. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from Times Online Website: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4168112.ece
Baggaley, J. & Spencer, B. (2005). The mind of a plagiarist. Learning, Media & Technology, 30(1), 55-62. Retrieved on September 26, 2009 from the ERIC Database.
Barry, D., Barstow, D., Glater, J.D., Liptak, A. & Steinberg, J. (2003). Correcting the record: times reporter who resigned leaves long trail of deception. Retrieved November 5, 2009 from The New York Times Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html?pagewanted=1
Baron, J., & Crooks, S. M. (2005). Academic integrity in web based distance education. TechTrends linking research and practice to improve learning, 49(2), 40-45. Retrieved September 27, 2009 from the ERIC Database.
Bates, T. (1995). Technology, e-learning and distance education. New York :
Routledge.
Boehm, D.C. & Taggett, L. (1998). About Plagiarism, Pixels and Platitudes. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from the Texas Tech University English Department’s Web site: http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/3.1/coverweb/boehm/pixels.htm
Brocchetto, M. (2009). University of florida records hacked. Retrieved November 6, 2009 from ABC News Blogs Website: http://blogs.abcnews.com/campuschatter/2009/02/university-of-f.html
Campbell Gibson, C. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C. Campbell Gibson (Ed.), The distance learning in context (pp 113 – 125). Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing.
Cheating culture (n.d.). Stephen Glass. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from the Cheating Culture Website http://www.cheatingculture.com/stephenglass.htm
Cheating is a personal foul. (1999). Educational Testing Service. 28 paragraphs. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.glass-castle.com/clients/www-nocheating-org/adcouncil/research/cheatingfactsheet.html
Coastal Carolina University (2009). Cheating 101: Internet paper mills. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from Kimbel Library Website: http://www.coastal.edu/library/presentations/mills2.html
Coastal Carolina University (2009). Cheating 101: Internet paper mills. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from Kimbel Library Website: http://www.coastal.edu/library/presentations/mills2.html
Copyright Law (2009). Retrieve October 10, 2009 from the Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office website: http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.shtml
Copyright Law (2009). Retrieve October 10, 2009 from the Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office website: http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.shtml
Definitions of academic violations (2006). Northwestern University. 8 paragraphs. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.northwestern.edu/uacc/defines.html.
Dignan, L. (2004). Hack to school. Retrieved November 13th, 2009 from Baseline Magazine Website: http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Intelligence/Hack-To-School/
Edu Center (2009). How to avoid plagiarism – online distance learning program. Retrieved on October 1, 2009 from http://edu-center.org/how-to-avoid-plagiarism-%E2%80%93-online-distance-learning-program.htm/
Gerdeman, R. D. (2000). Academic dishonesty and the community college, ERIC Digest. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from ERIC Digest Web site:http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/college.htm
Grijalva, T., Nowell,C. & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College Student Journal. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_40/ai_n16346361/pg_4/?tag=content;col1
Groark, M., Oblinger, D. & Choa, M. (2001). Term paper mills, anti-plagiarism tools, and academic integrity. Educause Review, 36(5), 40. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from Educause Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0153.pdf
Groark, M. & Oblinger, D. (2001). Academic plagiarism in the networked environment. Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 1(1). Retrieved October 10, 2009, from Educause Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ECRB0101.pdf
Holmberg, B. (2003). Distance education in essence. An overview of theory and practice in the early twenty-first century. Oldenburg : Carl von Ossientzky Universitat of Oldenburg
Lathrop, A. & Foss K. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the internet era: a wakeup. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
Mertz, D. L. (n.d.). Is plagiarism on the rise or just being disregarded at online universities? Retrieved October 4, 2009 from WorldWideLearn Website: http://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-articles/plagiarism.htm
Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Naidu, S. (2004). Supporting learning with creative instructional designs. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp 109 – 116), Germany : Bibliotheks – und Informationsystem der Carl von Ossientzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Penn State University (2005) Adult learners. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from Outreach Magazine Website: http://www.yk.psu.edu/Documents/YK/adultlearn.pdf
Plagiarism – Center for Intellectual Property. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2009 from University of Maryland University CollegeWebsite:http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.shtml
Plagiarism Tutorial. Using Sources in Your Work: A Tutorial on Avoiding Plagiarism Grade 10 - 12. (n.d.). [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved September 28, 2009 fromhttp://www.mtlsd.org/highschool/stuff/10%20plagiarism%20tutorial.ppt
Promoting Academic Integrity (2009). Retrieved November 15, 2009 from Instructional Development University of California, Santa Barbara Instructional Development Website at http://oic.id.ucsb.edu/faculty-handbook-teaching/promoting-academic-integrity
Reavis, J. (1999). A psychological profile of hackers. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/1101sec1.html
Rimer, S. (2003). A campus fad that’s being copied: Internet plagiarism. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/plagiarism/docs/Plagiarism_on_campus__NYT_.pdf
Roach, R. (2001). Safeguarding against online cheating – distance education standards and plagiarism – brief article. Retrieved October 6, 2009, from Black Issues in Higher Education Website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_8_18/ai_76651873/
Rumble, G. (1997). The Costs and economics of open and distance learning. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sloan-Consortium (2008). Staying the course – online education in the united states, 2008. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
Sloan-Consortium (2006). Making the grade: online education in the united states, 2006. Retrieved October 24, 2009 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/making_the_grade.pdf.
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P. & Hogatt S. (2009). Point, click and cheat: frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3). Retrieved September 22, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/stuber123.html
Varvel, V., Jr. (2005). Honesty in online education. Pointers and clickers, 6(1), 1-20. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/pointersclickers/2005_01/VarvelCheatPoint2005.pdf.
Vamosi, R. (2008). Harvard student database hacked posted on bittorrent. Retrieved November 6, 2009 from CNET News Website: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-9893174-57.html
Wolf, J. & Garcia N. (2007). Students hack into school system, change grades. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from 9News.com Website: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=63092
Woolfolk, Anita. (2004). Educational Psychology. (9th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Zawacki-Richter, O. (2004). The growing importance of support for learners and faculty in online distance education. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp 51 – 70), Germany : Bibliotheks – und Informationsystem der Carl von Ossientzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Allyne, K. (2003). Use of false diplomas, transcripts increasing. Retrieved November 11, 2009 from the Daily Helmsman Online Website: http://media.www.dailyhelmsman.com/media/storage/paper875/news/2003/02/18/News/Use-Of.False.Diplomas.Transcripts.Increasing-1753655.shtml
Anderson, T. (2004). Student services in a networked world. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp 95 – 108), Germany : Bibliotheks – und Informationsystem der Carl von Ossientzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Ayers, C. (2008). Schoolboy hacker Omar Khan who upped his grades faces 38 years in jail. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from Times Online Website: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4168112.ece
Baggaley, J. & Spencer, B. (2005). The mind of a plagiarist. Learning, Media & Technology, 30(1), 55-62. Retrieved on September 26, 2009 from the ERIC Database.
Barry, D., Barstow, D., Glater, J.D., Liptak, A. & Steinberg, J. (2003). Correcting the record: times reporter who resigned leaves long trail of deception. Retrieved November 5, 2009 from The New York Times Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html?pagewanted=1
Baron, J., & Crooks, S. M. (2005). Academic integrity in web based distance education. TechTrends linking research and practice to improve learning, 49(2), 40-45. Retrieved September 27, 2009 from the ERIC Database.
Bates, T. (1995). Technology, e-learning and distance education. New York :
Routledge.
Boehm, D.C. & Taggett, L. (1998). About Plagiarism, Pixels and Platitudes. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from the Texas Tech University English Department’s Web site: http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/3.1/coverweb/boehm/pixels.htm
Brocchetto, M. (2009). University of florida records hacked. Retrieved November 6, 2009 from ABC News Blogs Website: http://blogs.abcnews.com/campuschatter/2009/02/university-of-f.html
Campbell Gibson, C. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C. Campbell Gibson (Ed.), The distance learning in context (pp 113 – 125). Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing.
Cheating culture (n.d.). Stephen Glass. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from the Cheating Culture Website http://www.cheatingculture.com/stephenglass.htm
Cheating is a personal foul. (1999). Educational Testing Service. 28 paragraphs. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.glass-castle.com/clients/www-nocheating-org/adcouncil/research/cheatingfactsheet.html
Coastal Carolina University (2009). Cheating 101: Internet paper mills. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from Kimbel Library Website: http://www.coastal.edu/library/presentations/mills2.html
Coastal Carolina University (2009). Cheating 101: Internet paper mills. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from Kimbel Library Website: http://www.coastal.edu/library/presentations/mills2.html
Copyright Law (2009). Retrieve October 10, 2009 from the Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office website: http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.shtml
Copyright Law (2009). Retrieve October 10, 2009 from the Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office website: http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.shtml
Definitions of academic violations (2006). Northwestern University. 8 paragraphs. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.northwestern.edu/uacc/defines.html.
Dignan, L. (2004). Hack to school. Retrieved November 13th, 2009 from Baseline Magazine Website: http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Intelligence/Hack-To-School/
Edu Center (2009). How to avoid plagiarism – online distance learning program. Retrieved on October 1, 2009 from http://edu-center.org/how-to-avoid-plagiarism-%E2%80%93-online-distance-learning-program.htm/
Gerdeman, R. D. (2000). Academic dishonesty and the community college, ERIC Digest. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from ERIC Digest Web site:http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/college.htm
Grijalva, T., Nowell,C. & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College Student Journal. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_40/ai_n16346361/pg_4/?tag=content;col1
Groark, M., Oblinger, D. & Choa, M. (2001). Term paper mills, anti-plagiarism tools, and academic integrity. Educause Review, 36(5), 40. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from Educause Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0153.pdf
Groark, M. & Oblinger, D. (2001). Academic plagiarism in the networked environment. Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 1(1). Retrieved October 10, 2009, from Educause Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ECRB0101.pdf
Holmberg, B. (2003). Distance education in essence. An overview of theory and practice in the early twenty-first century. Oldenburg : Carl von Ossientzky Universitat of Oldenburg
Lathrop, A. & Foss K. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the internet era: a wakeup. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
Mertz, D. L. (n.d.). Is plagiarism on the rise or just being disregarded at online universities? Retrieved October 4, 2009 from WorldWideLearn Website: http://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-articles/plagiarism.htm
Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Naidu, S. (2004). Supporting learning with creative instructional designs. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp 109 – 116), Germany : Bibliotheks – und Informationsystem der Carl von Ossientzky Universitat Oldenburg.
Penn State University (2005) Adult learners. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from Outreach Magazine Website: http://www.yk.psu.edu/Documents/YK/adultlearn.pdf
Plagiarism – Center for Intellectual Property. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2009 from University of Maryland University CollegeWebsite:http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.shtml
Plagiarism Tutorial. Using Sources in Your Work: A Tutorial on Avoiding Plagiarism Grade 10 - 12. (n.d.). [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved September 28, 2009 fromhttp://www.mtlsd.org/highschool/stuff/10%20plagiarism%20tutorial.ppt
Promoting Academic Integrity (2009). Retrieved November 15, 2009 from Instructional Development University of California, Santa Barbara Instructional Development Website at http://oic.id.ucsb.edu/faculty-handbook-teaching/promoting-academic-integrity
Reavis, J. (1999). A psychological profile of hackers. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/1101sec1.html
Rimer, S. (2003). A campus fad that’s being copied: Internet plagiarism. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/plagiarism/docs/Plagiarism_on_campus__NYT_.pdf
Roach, R. (2001). Safeguarding against online cheating – distance education standards and plagiarism – brief article. Retrieved October 6, 2009, from Black Issues in Higher Education Website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_8_18/ai_76651873/
Rumble, G. (1997). The Costs and economics of open and distance learning. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sloan-Consortium (2008). Staying the course – online education in the united states, 2008. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
Sloan-Consortium (2006). Making the grade: online education in the united states, 2006. Retrieved October 24, 2009 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/making_the_grade.pdf.
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P. & Hogatt S. (2009). Point, click and cheat: frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3). Retrieved September 22, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/stuber123.html
Varvel, V., Jr. (2005). Honesty in online education. Pointers and clickers, 6(1), 1-20. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/pointersclickers/2005_01/VarvelCheatPoint2005.pdf.
Vamosi, R. (2008). Harvard student database hacked posted on bittorrent. Retrieved November 6, 2009 from CNET News Website: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-9893174-57.html
Wolf, J. & Garcia N. (2007). Students hack into school system, change grades. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from 9News.com Website: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=63092
Woolfolk, Anita. (2004). Educational Psychology. (9th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Zawacki-Richter, O. (2004). The growing importance of support for learners and faculty in online distance education. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments (pp 51 – 70), Germany : Bibliotheks – und Informationsystem der Carl von Ossientzky Universitat Oldenburg.