Chapter II

Review of Related Literature and Related Studies

Cheating on examinations in academic institutions is a worldwide

issue (Berhan & Desalegn, 2014). Adolescents are at a time in their lives
where peer influence and peer pressure are high (Rettinger & Kramer,
2009). Student habits and views on cheating are developed in high school
(Mccabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2012). In the advent of the twenty first
century generation, one of the most disturbing and alarming problems in
education is underpinned by students’ ways of cheating.
Cheating occurs when a student obtains or attempts to obtain
some advantage or extra marks by any dishonest or deceptive means.
This can include lying; copying from another's test or examination;
interacting with other students during assessments and taking any
unauthorised material into an examination venue (Jordan, 2001, McCabe
et al., 2001, Northumbria University, 2013).
Zimmerman (1999) aggregated the two groups of students to
study negative cheating attitudes of students and its effect on the
prevalence of cheating. She concluded that negative cheating attitudes,
such as institutions’ inconsistent responses to student cheating and the
lack of instructor diligence at catching cheaters, was significantly
correlated with cheating prevalence. The detachment of students from the
university system may be a result of misperceptions about student
cheating by the faculty and administration or an unspoken conflict
between student and institutional views of the severity of academic
dishonesty on an ethical level. Additionally, the lack of student
involvement in leadership and code implementation may play a role in
the prevalence of student cheating.
 Anzivino (1997) found that among undergraduate students,
student membership to groups was significantly related to increases in
cheating behaviors. Still, other researchers claim student-instructor
relationships to be influential in the occurrence of cheating among
students.

Related Studies

“Cheating or academic misdemeanor is not a new phenomenon” (Taradi et

al., 2012, p. 14), but a long-familiar problem not only in many European
countries but in the Philippines in particular. This is a kind of misconduct in
such a way that it undermines students’ capability to master lessons and
achieve excellence in their performance and learning competencies as embedded
in the curriculum guide provided by the Department of Education. Academic
dishonesty can be defined as the students’ use of illegal activities, techniques
and forms of fraud during their examination or evaluation processes, usually
for the purpose of achieving better grades (Manar & Shameem, 2014).

(McCabe, 1999 as cited by Sarita, 2015) If peers in their peer group are
choosing academic dishonesty, then they are more likely to do the same.
Adolescents are influenced by what their peers do and they form their peer
groups around similar interests.

In the study of Kwong et al. (2010), he found that students participate in

academic misconduct because of their workloads and time pressures, their
desire to achieve good grades, and unclear instructions from teachers about
what constitutes academic misconduct. (Ma, et al. 2006) Societal and
technological factors that may contribute to increased tendency towards
cheating include: lack of awareness, peer culture, lack of punishment, absence
of risk and pressure to achieve.
 (Razera et al., 2010) Classrooms that stresses high grades and test scores
may lead the learners to cheat. Situational factors also contribute to the
students’ tendency to cheat. For instance, some students find their work
challenging or boring, fear failure, lack training and may be pressured by
insufficient time to study and heavy workloads.

Foreign

Studies show that faculty significantly underestimates their

students’ rates of cheating (Wajda-Johnston et al., 2001). While students
claim that 10-20% of them commit acts of academic dishonesty, faculty
members perceive these rates to be much lower, around 0-10% (Wajda-
Johnston et al.). The research also indicates a significant difference
between student and faculty severity ratings of academically dishonest
behaviors such as studying old versions of exams or the instructor
manual and collaborating on work that was intended to be individual
projects (Wajda-Johnston, et al.).
McCabe and Trevino (1997) reported findings from their study on
academic integrity suggest contextual factors have more influence on
student cheating behaviors than individual or personal characteristics.
One such contextual factor is the students’ perceived pressures to
succeed. Similarly, Daniel, Adams, and Smith (1994) reported that the
potential to obtain great rewards with the least amount of effort was
strongly related to cheating behaviors among nursing students. Therefore
more external reasons such as stress, course and program requirements,
and expectancies to graduate could be considered external or
contextually perceived reasons for academic dishonesty at any level of
student education.
(Brown, 1995) In some studies, graduate students admit to cheating as
much as undergraduates do, graduate students have reported
themselves as being more ethical than undergraduates when it comes to
academic integrity.
(Stearns, 2001) Studies have shown that students’ perceptions of
student-instructor relationships have an impact on admitted rates of
cheating in the classroom. Negative evaluations of the instructor were
significantly linked with committing academic dishonesty while students
who did not admit to committing academic dishonesty were associated
with more positive instructor evaluations. Results from Graham and
colleagues’ research on perceived teacher fairness supports this notion,
revealing that 25% of the students studied endorsed that they would be
more likely to cheat if they thought the teacher was being unfair (1994).