The respondents comprised 84% females and 16% males. First languages of the respondents were Xhosa (51%), Afrikaans (37%), English (9%) and other (3%). Most (45%) were in their second year, 22% in their third year and 33% in the fourth year of training. The mean age of the respondents was 25 years, with most (46%) in the age group 21 – 25 years and only one respondent in the 46 year – 50 year age group.
Incidence of academic dishonesty The majority of respondents (88%) indicated that they had committed one of the surveyed cheating activities at least once; only 12% reported that they had never been involved in any form of cheating. These findings were congruent with those of past studies carried out with students in courses other than nursing. For example, Lim and See (2001:267) reported that almost all of the students had committed one form of cheating at least once. Lambert et al. (2003:12) found an overall involvement in cheating behaviour of 83%. However, the involvement in cheating practices by pre-registration nursing students in the current study is considerably higher when compared to previous research amongst exclusively nursing students. McCabe (2009:617) found that 58% of undergraduate nursing students were engaged in at least one of the surveyed cheating behaviours, whereas Brown (2002:7) reported that only 8 – 13% of nursing students admitted to being involved in cheating behaviour. Table 1 illustrates the forms of cheating behaviour exhibited and witnessed by the respondents, from most to least frequently occurring. It is noteworthy that cheating behaviours tantamount to plagiarism (60% and 57%) and dishonesty related to assignments (45%) were the two most common forms of cheating committed by students in this study. These findings are generally consistent with previous research; most researchers also identified paraphrasing of material without acknowledging the source as one of the most common cheating behaviours (Hilbert 1985:231; Lim & See 2001:268; McCabe 2009:617; Newstead et al. 1996:231). Dishonest behaviour related to assignments also features high on the frequency rate in previous studies (Hilbert 1985:231; Lim & See 2001:268; McCabe 2009:617; Newstead et al. 1996:232). Researchers have acknowledged that the high incidence of plagiarism might be due to the fact that students possibly do not understand plagiarism (Paterson, Taylor & Usick 2003:157), or do not understand the seriousness of it (Park, 2003:483). Previous research has also indicated that students often regard plagiarism and cheating in assignments as less serious acts of academic dishonesty (McCabe 2009:620).
1Incidence of cheating behaviours. http://curationis.org.za/index.php/curationis/article/downloadSuppFile/27/92
The least common cheating behaviour (3%) reported by respondents was using unauthorised crib notes in a test or examination. This was also the least witnessed (15%) cheating behaviour (Table 2). However, a comparison of the respondents’ awareness of cheating by other students (30%) (Table 2) with their self-reported personal engagement in cheating (6%) in tests and examinations indicated that it is possible that personal dishonesty was under-reported. The same trend was found amongst respondents who indicated awareness of other students bringing unauthorised crib notes into a test or examination (16%) (Table 2), compared to only 4% who admitted to engaging in this behaviour themselves. Similarly, more respondents were aware of other students using unauthorised crib notes (15%) than the 3% of respondents who admitted that they had been involved in this behaviour (Table 2). Brown (2002:7) also found that a large number of students reported that they had seen other students cheat, whilst a much smaller number admitted to cheating themselves.
2Awareness of cheating behaviours by others. http://curationis.org.za/index.php/curationis/article/downloadSuppFile/27/93
A large number of respondents (34%) reported dishonesty in completion of their practical workbooks, and 56% of the respondents reported that they had witnessed other students being dishonest when completing them. This finding has implications for their competency as future independent nursing practitioners. A possible explanation for the dishonesty in recording the practical sessions could be that pre-registration nursing students fail to see the importance of the practical component of their nursing studies. This suggestion is supported by the following response of a student to an open-ended question regarding their feelings about students getting away with cheating: ‘For the practical book I don’t feel bad because some things they expect us to do are impossible, e.g. third-year (practical) book we all have cheated.’ Factors influencing academic integrity Individual factors The relationships between academic dishonesty and gender, home language, current level of training and age were explored. The results pertaining to gender indicated that males were significantly more likely to cheat than females. An appropriate ANOVA revealed a probability value of p=0.02 (smaller than the significance level of 0.05). This finding is supported by previous studies that also found that males cheated more than females (Burns et al. 1998:596; McCabe & Trevino 1997:388; Newstead et al. 1996:233; Nonis & Swift 2001:72; Lim & See 2001:270; Olasehinde-Williams et al. 2003:76; Whitley 1998:242). On the other hand, several studies found no significant difference between the cheating behaviour of males and females (Blankenship & Whitley 2000:6; Hilbert 1987:42; McCabe 2009:618). Only one study was identified where it was found that females cheated more than males (Hilbert 1985:231). It seems from the divergent results of previous studies that the significance of gender as a predictor of cheating behaviour is still contentious. No significant relationship was found between academic dishonesty and home language, current year of study, or age. Although the non-significant finding relating to age is supported by two previous studies conducted exclusively amongst nursing students (Daniel, Adams & Smith 1994:286; Hilbert 1987:43), most previous studies suggest that younger first- and second-year students display more cheating behaviour than mature students (McCabe & Trevino 1997:388; Newstead et al. 1996:233; Nonis & Swift 2001:72; Whitley 1998:239). Contextual factors Academic success: Pressure to succeed academically (84% of respondents) was indicated as a major factor influencing the decision to engage in cheating behaviour (see Table 3). This corresponds with previous research where pressure to achieve high marks was also identified as one of the most important reasons for cheating (Hilbert 1987:42; Newstead et al. 1996:233; Whitley 1998:243).
3Opinion of respondents regarding contextual influences on cheating behaviours. http://curationis.org.za/index.php/curationis/article/downloadSuppFile/27/94
Consistent with the findings of Harding et al. (2004:315), Newstead et al. (1996:233); and Tanner (2004:291), the current research also identified the limited time available to study (74% of respondents) as a major influence in students’ cheating behaviour. Status amongst peers: Most respondents (71%) indicated that the fear of losing status amongst peers would cause them to engage in cheating behaviour. This finding is similar to previous research on the influence of peer behaviour on academic dishonesty (McCabe et al. 2006:300; McCabe & Trevino 1997:391). An interesting finding in the current study was that peer pressure made respondents more willing to assist friends with their assignments illegally (49%) than to allow them to copy their assignments (19%), or let friends copy their answers in tests or examinations (15%). This may be related to the notion that students regard certain forms of academic dishonesty as more serious than others. Impact of ‘successful’ cheating: Most (71%) were of the opinion that the realisation that students got away with cheating would cause other students to engage in cheating behaviour. However, 85% indicated that if other students got away with cheating, it would not cause them to cheat. Although Jordan (2001:244) found a strong positive relation between cheating and witnessing other students cheat, it was difficult to relate this finding to the current study because of the above-mentioned contradictory views of the respondents. In summary, it can be concluded that all of the contextual factors portrayed in Table 3 played a major role in the cheating behaviour of the nursing students. Knowledge of institutional policies regarding academic dishonesty Most respondents indicated that they were aware of the institutional policies regarding referencing of sources (71%), student conduct in assessment venues (92%), and the penalties for academic dishonesty (71%). They were generally better acquainted with the policies guiding conduct in assessment venues than those related to referencing of sources or penalties for academic dishonesty. Jordan (2001:243) found that students who had more knowledge of institutional policy cheated less, and vice versa. Therefore the above findings might explain why transgressions related to plagiarism were found to be more common than those related to examinations and tests. Students’ understanding of plagiarism and referencing Most of the respondents indicated that they knew what plagiarism was (83%), and they displayed fairly good understanding in their explanations of the term ‘plagiarism’. Replies to the questions related to referencing displayed a greater uncertainty from the respondents, with 72% indicating that they knew how to reference ideas from other authors, and 64% indicating that they knew how to reference direct quotations. The responses to these questions revealed that students are not ignorant about the meaning of plagiarism or referencing. However, the researcher’s experience at the setting where this study was conducted is that most students did not reference their sources at all, or did so very poorly. The reason for this may be tolerance on the part of faculty combined with laziness, and in some cases a lack of knowledge on the part of the student, rather than intentional cheating. Students’ attitudes towards cheating The fact that most of the respondents felt that there is no justification for cheating suggests a general attitude of intolerance towards cheating. This finding corresponds with previous research on justifications for academic dishonesty (Jordan 2001:242). However, the finding that 25% of respondents felt that cheating might be justified in certain circumstances is significant in the light of other research findings. Lambert et al. (2003:14) found that there is a significant relationship between justification and the level of cheating. Whitley (1998:245) also found that students with so-called ‘neutralising attitudes’ (beliefs that cheating can be rationalised and justified) were more likely to cheat than students who felt that there is no justification for cheating. Respondents were also asked to explain in their own words how they felt about the fact that some students got away with cheating. Some responses portrayed insight by indicating that cheating behaviour could extend into future practice and cause future practitioners to have inadequate knowledge. However, the majority of the respondents showed poor insight, with responses indicating that cheating does not matter, or that cheating was unfair towards other hardworking students. The following are some examples of the less insightful comments in response to the open-ended question (quoted verbatim): ‘I could honestly say it’s their luck. I don’t find any reason to be emotional about it because in the end it’s their choice.’ ‘It’s unfair towards the students who are struggling hard to become something in life.’ These responses led the researcher to question the motivation behind the respondents’ apparent attitude of intolerance towards cheating. Were they intolerant of cheating because of the ‘unfairness’ of cheating towards others, or were they intolerant because cheating is unethical behaviour? It is worth mentioning that although the respondents were of the opinion that cheating is ‘unfair’ towards other students, they were not willing to report them. Most respondents indicated that they would not report another student to the lecturer if they witnessed them cheating in tests and examinations (66%) or with their assignments (72%). A possible explanation could be the influence of peer pressure. These findings are generally consistent with those from previous research on students’ willingness to report their peers. Lim and See (2001:271) found that only 1.7% of respondents would report someone found cheating. McCabe et al. (2006:301) also reported that the vast majority of respondents were unwilling to report cheating amongst their peers. A high percentage of respondents (92%) indicated that they would feel guilty if they had cheated. This finding is significant in view of the high cheating rate and the apparent indifference towards academic dishonesty reflected in the above discussion. It can be concluded that there is ambivalence in the respondents’ attitudes toward cheating. On the one hand, most of the respondents indicated that there was no justification for cheating, suggesting intolerance of cheating. On the other hand, an indifference towards cheating is evident from their responses regarding students getting away with cheating, as well as their unwillingness to report cheating by other students that they witnessed. Once again, this may be more indicative of misplaced loyalty than indifference. Prevention of cheating In the light of the high cheating rate reported by the respondents, some interesting findings were that 83% of respondents indicated that students were afraid of being caught cheating; 75% believed that cheaters would get caught; and 73% were of the opinion that students are severely penalised when caught cheating. It seems that despite their fear of being caught and their belief that they would be severely penalised, students still persist with cheating behaviour. Most of the respondents (79%) were of the opinion that severe penalties would prevent students from cheating, and in the open-ended questions they also suggested strict application of punitive measures to prevent cheating. Other researchers also identified fear of being caught and imposition of severe penalties as major deterring factors with regard to engagement in cheating behaviour (Burns et al. 1998:595; Harding et al. 2004:315; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield 2001:222). Respondents also called for other preventative measures, such as searching students for unauthorised crib notes, maintenance of large spaces between desks, and strict invigilation during tests and examinations. Researchers in previous studies identified similar interventions to prevent cheating during tests and examinations (Brown 2002:7; Hilbert 1987:43). A large number of respondents were in agreement that monitoring of peer behaviour (66%) and introduction of a code of honour (65%) would prevent students from cheating. This is strongly supported by previous research, which indicated that the prevalence of cheating behaviours was significantly reduced by proper implementation of codes of honour as well as monitoring by peers (Hall & Kuh 1998:10; McCabe & Trevino 1997:393; McCabe et al. 2001:224; Turner et al. 2003:1127). Eight respondents were of the opinion that nothing should be done to prevent cheating. Although a very small minority, this is an alarming finding in the light of the high premium that is placed on honesty and integrity in the nursing profession. Previous research strongly supported the promotion of academic integrity amongst students by lecturers setting and applying ethical standards and modelling ethical behaviour in the classroom. This would help with the process of character building and moral fortification of the nursing student (Gaberson 1997:17; Lewenson, Truglio-Londrigan & Singleton 2005:91; Nonis & Swift 2001:75). Some of the other strategies that respondents identified in responses to the open-ended question as ways to minimise cheating and plagiarism were: reduction of the workload of students; more time for students to study for tests and examinations; teaching proper referencing techniques to students; offering extra classes; and lecturers ensuring that students understand the work. In summary, students generally recommended disciplinary, punitive and strict control measures during tests and examinations as major deterring strategies for cheating. The majority were also in agreement that institution of academic integrity policies and a code of honour would play an important role in curbing academic dishonesty. Limitations of the study A limitation of the study was the vulnerability to socially desirable response bias because of the sensitive nature of the topic. This may have resulted in under-reporting of cheating during tests and examinations. The researcher attempted to avoid this problem by guaranteeing complete anonymity and emphasising the importance of honest answers to the questions. A limitation arising from the use of a self-reported questionnaire was that some respondents provided incomplete demographical data, did not complete all the closed-ended questions, and did not answer the open-ended questions. Recommendations The main recommendations that emerged from the findings of this study are as follows: Faculty together with students should develop and implement a code of honour to change the attitudes of students regarding academic dishonesty and promote integrity in the academic environment of this institution. A judicial system that manages incidents of academic dishonesty should be established. A system of peer monitoring and peer reporting of academic dishonesty must be developed and implemented. Academic integrity policies must be formulated with exact definitions that spell out unacceptable academic behaviour. These policies should reflect a zero tolerance approach, tempered where necessary by a progressive disciplinary process to academic dishonesty, thereby affirming academic integrity as a core institutional value (McCabe & Pavela 2004:12). Special attention should be given to educating students about plagiarism and referencing through introduction of an academic development programme that gives pertinent, rigorous attention to the issues of plagiarism and in particular the referencing of sources, from first year onwards. Students should be required to complete a declaration of authenticity when submitting assignments. Assignment topics must be changed on a regular basis. Combat plagiarism with appropriate disciplinary action when persistent, deliberate transgression occurs. Create awareness amongst students that integrity regarding completion of the practical requirements of the programme is a prerequisite for development of the necessary skills to be a safe nurse practitioner. Recommendations for further studies Similar studies could target a variety of nursing education institutions in the country. This would allow generalisation of findings to nursing education in South Africa. Furthermore, the ethical socialisation of nursing students, whereby they internalise the ethical values of honesty, integrity and professional morality of the nursing profession, could be explored. ConclusionThe findings revealed that academic dishonesty - particularly related to plagiarism and the completion of assignments – is a reality amongst pre-registration nursing students. An alarming finding is that academic dishonesty is not restricted to the classroom, but also affects the practical component of nursing education. Furthermore, the discrepancy between observed and self-reported episodes of cheating behaviour indicates that the incidence of cheating behaviours is probably higher than that revealed by the self-reporting. These findings are a cause for concern in view of the expectation that nursing students should always behave in an ethical manner, and that they should not lack the necessary knowledge and skills to provide high- quality patient care. Acknowledgements The following contributions to the study are acknowledged: I. Smith, Study leader and co-author; M. Kidd, research statistician; and A. Meyer, language editor. Competing interest There were no competing interests and no inappropriate financial or personal gain resulted from this study. Authors’ contributions C.J.T. (Stellenbosch University ) was the researcher. I.S. (Stellenbosch University) was the study leader and promoter. 1.BabbieE2007The practice of social research2.BaileyA.P2001Academic misconduct: Responses from deans and nurse educators403124131113025403.http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/105574.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1001_15.BrinkH2006Fundamentals of research methodology for health care professionals6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006223-200201000-00010118400637.BurnsS.RDavisSFHoshinoJMillerR.L1998Academic dishonesty: A delineation of cross-cultural patterns3245905978.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/8755-7223(94)90053-19. http://dx.doiorg/10.3928/01484834-20090401-051944163310.GabersonK.B1997Academic dishonesty among nursing students3231421viewed 7 June 200911.HallT.LKuhG.D1998Honor among students: Academic integrity and honor codes at state-assisted universities361121812.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0027-31515285713.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(85)80160-514.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(87)80026-115.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3 16.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.02.0041662445517.LambertE.GHoganN.LBartonS.M2003Collegiate academic dishonesty revisited: What have they done, how often have they done it, who does it, and why did they do it?74viewed 8 June 200918.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.01.0061580650619.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_520.LogueR2004Plagiarism: The internet makes it easy1851404321.http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090716-071965060822. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2006.2269701823.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0009138040960557424.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:102495422467525.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_226.MoutonJ2001How to succeed in your master’s and doctoral studies: A South African guide and resource book27.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.22928.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0883232010959905229.Olasehinde-WilliamsF.A.OAbdullahI.O.EOwolabiH.O2003The relationship between background variables and cheating tendencies among students of a federal university in Nigeria61687930.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293030167731.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1473-6861.2003.00047.x32.PoggenpoelM1998Data analysis in qualitative research33.SchmidtS.D2006Cheating: An ethical concern for nursing educators8111234.SearleC2000Professional practice: A Southern African nursing perspective35.1978Nursing Act36.TannerC.A2004Moral decline or pragmatic decision making? Cheating and plagiarism in perspective43729129237.TurnerS.PBeemsterboerP.L2003Enhancing academic integrity: Formulating effective honor codes6710112211291458767738.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018724900565