By Winnie Tam, Centre for University and School Partnership, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
An honor code system comprises rules that govern the conduct of members in an academic community to promote academic integrity, fair play, and discourage cheating. Zhao and colleagues conducted two double-blind randomized studies to investigate the prevalence of cheating under different scenarios during unproctored exams.
Second-year undergraduate students enrolled in the same introductory psychology course at a university in eastern China were recruited for a midterm quiz. Quiz booklets with different forms of honor code reminders were randomly distributed to participants during the quiz. In study 1, students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) No Reminder condition (n=82); (2) Policy Reminder condition (n=85) with a description of academic honesty policies without mentioning consequences of cheating; and (3) Exemplar Reminder condition (n=93) with two real-life examples illustrating the consequences of academic cheating, including recording the misdemeanor on a student’s file and denial of a degree.
In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to the following conditions: (a) Consequence Reminder only (n=128); (b) Trust Exam and Consequence reminder (n=125); (c) Policy and Consequence reminder (n=129); and (d) Exemplar Reminder (n=128). In study 2, all conditions included a description of the negative consequence of academic cheating. Moreover, conditions (b) to (d) informed students that the quiz was a trust exam. Researchers measured the extent of cheating by counting the number of target questions answered correctly. The cheating rate indicated whether a student had cheated or not. The findings of both studies are shown below.
In study 1, the cheating rates were: No Reminder condition 54.2%; Policy Reminder condition 31.8%; and Exemplar Reminder condition 22.6%. In study 2, the cheating rates were: Consequence Reminder 26.6%; Trust Exam/Consequence Reminder 24.0%; Policy and Consequence Reminder 17.1%; and Exemplar Reminder 15.6%.
Unproctored exams without an honor code reminder or consequence of cheating reminder had the highest cheating rate (54.2%). Reminding students of the trust exam policy significantly reduced cheating extent compared to the No Reminder condition. However, providing negative consequences for academic dishonesty, through adding a statement or telling actual examples, had an even greater effect in reducing cheating. The authors noted that mentioning negative consequences of academic cheating may imply a threat, contradicting the principles of the honor code system. However, the research results provided evidence that this strategy effectively reduces cheating during unproctored exams. Despite various reminders, approximately 20% of students still cheated on average. The authors speculated that the honor code system has not yet become fully integrated into university academic culture.
Best Evidence in Brief Index 