Lessons from the Lab: Students’ Thoughts on ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’

Dawn Del CarloUniversity of Northern Iowa19th BCCE, Purdue UniversityAug 31, 2006

Overview

Small but growing number of reports on issues of academic dishonesty within the context of the classroom laboratory

More cheating occurs in science, math technology and engineering classes than any other (except business)4–7

Presentation today will include: Overview of existing literature (references available) Explanation of possible theories used to explain cheating

behaviors Implications for the classroom laboratory

Cheating in Science Classes

Surveys of all students6–11

Self-reported surveys examining the frequency of behaviors

Most focus on activities such as looking off another’s exam or copying homework

Some included items specific to data manipulation (i.e. fudging or falsifying) Frequency of cheating ranged from 8.6% to 48% Cheating on “science work” reported at 80% but specific

tasks not delineated

Cheating in Science Classes

Surveys of Science Students5, 12–14

Survey instruments limited to items specific to science classroom but often excluded aspects of the laboratory

Over 75% science students reported copying or using crib notes13

62% of engineering students copied “homework or laboratory reports”14

57% natural science and 64% engineering majors report falsifying lab data15

Cheating in Science Classes

Studies of the Classroom Laboratory16–20

High School Students Four types of cheating behavior: making results fit,

checking with classmates, excluding anomalies, and making up data16, 18

18% report copying or fudging data17

21% report making up or data or results at science fairs19

College Students20

Students described goal of lab was to get “good” data Consequently, obtaining data from another group or

changing anomalous data were simply part of the process

Theories Relevant to Cheating Classroom Goal Structure

Social-cognitive theory pertaining to student motivation9, 21

Goals determined by: What the student perceives is considered “successful” Views on consequences of mistakes Motivation toward classwork Perception of atmosphere22–24

Theories Relevant to Cheating Classroom Goal Structure22

Performance-based goals Students awarded for high grades compared to

classmates (Bell curve) Students driven to compete with one another Mistakes elicit anxiety Usually perceived to be out of an individual’s control

Mastery-based goals Grades determined by an absolute or criterion scale Rewards given for mastery of material Mistakes treated as learning events

Theories Relevant to Cheating Goal Structure, Locus of Control, and Cheating

Factors out of a student’s control (external locus of control) often cited as reasons for cheating7, 14, 26

More cheating reported in highly performance-based mathematics classrooms9, 21

Students who feel their teachers are “unfair” cheat because it is the only means they have of controlling their situation28, 29

Mastery-based classroom by definition has an internal locus of control

Theories Relevant to Cheating Attitude of Neutralization30

Based in sociological deviance theory and used to explain why delinquents demonstrate a sense of guilt but repeat deviant behaviors

Neutralizations (as opposed to rationalizations) occur before deviant behavior, deflecting social norms of “right” and “wrong”

Consequently, the behavior is seen by the individual as acceptable

Theories Relevant to Cheating Neutralization and Cheating

Self-reported surveys measuring frequency of cheating and neutralizing attitude31, 32

Students with higher neutralizing attitudes were more likely to engage in cheating behaviors

Goal Structure, Neutralization, and Cheating33

Correlated teacher pedagogical skill, goal structure, and target of blame to acceptability and likelihood of cheating (i.e. attitude of neutralization) through hypothetical vignettes

Poor pedagogical skill resulted in high acceptability and likelihood of cheating regardless of goal structure

Goal structure of the classroom only became a factor when good pedagogical skills were illustrated by teacher

Implications for the Structure of the Classroom Laboratory Cookbook laboratory exercises with pre-

determined “right answer” establish a performance-based classroom Supports moving to truly open inquiry labs34, 35

Consistent with efforts of the NSF to bring authentic research experiences into undergrad curriculum36

Another alternative is project-based laboratories (i.e. long term, student-guided, novel projects)36-42 and tend to be considered by students to be more “real”20

Implications for the Structure of the Classroom Laboratory

Assessment practices also tend to contribute to a performance-based atmosphere Traditionally formal lab reports or worksheets but

neither has been shown to contribute to construction of knowledge43, 44

Suggest alternative assessment practices focused on the process rather than the end result

Science writing heuristic can be used as first step in transition from cookbook labs to inquiry style46-49

Implications for the Classroom Laboratory Pedagogical Practices

Develop a reflective practitioner approach50

Only insightful and organized educators know how their students are learning and what specific practices work best for all

Acknowledgements

George Bodner

Full paper accepted and in press for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education