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

1. Lessons from the Lab: Students’ Thoughts on ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ Dawn Del Carlo University of Northern Iowa 19th BCCE, Purdue University Aug 31, 2006

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Acknowledgements • George Bodner • Full paper accepted and in press for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education