In his book, Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty James Lang’s main premise is that students cheat mainly because of four reasons:

1. An emphasis on performance;
2. High stakes riding on the outcome;
3. An extrinsic motivation for success; and
4. A low expectation of success [3]

A large part of Lang’s advice to instructors who have creative control over their classrooms, is to take each of these contributing factors and turn them on their head. This is where educators have the strongest effect. While many researchers tried to sample and derive demographic reasons as being the cause for cheating, Lang stresses that environmental factors play a much larger role. Rather than worry about things we can’t control, spend time adjusting things we can. Lang also argues that by reducing the factors that contribute to cheating, an instructor will also increase the factors leading to learning. He writes, “the environments which reduce the incentive and opportunity to cheat are the very ones that, according to the most current information we have about how human beings learn, will lead to greater and deeper learning by your students.” [3, p.39]

Mastery versus Performance

Both the paper by Murdock and Anderson, and the book by Lang refer to mastery versus performance. Murdock and Anderson use this concept as a sort of dichotomous taxonomy of student motivations. Some students learn for a singular performance, an assessment, usually a summative exam of some sort. They learn enough to get past the exam. Usually these kinds of students forget the material quickly after the exam. The other kind of student, according to them, is the kind that studies for lifelong learning, for mastery. Students of this sort usually don’t pull all nighters in preparation for an exam, they learn or practice in regular intervals because they want to truly master the material.

Lang takes the same dichotomy, but extends it to the broader classroom. His view is that the classroom environment can focus on scores and grades which are extrinsic motivations, or it can focus on skill mastery and learning itself. Although none of these authors mentioned grading on a curve, such a class policy would greatly stress competition amongst students versus becoming knowledgeable for the sake of knowing.

CTL has previously offered specific advice on cultivating student motivation in a teaching tip [4] and a related resource page on student engagement [5]. The advice there is still valid.

Grounded Assessments

According to his coined term “grounded assessments” that he introduces in chapter 4, Fostering Intrinsic Motivation, Lang says that “You will not find a more effective means of eliminating cheating in your courses than grounding your assessments, by which I mean that you design assessments that are unique to each specific course you teach, each semester.”  [3, p. 74]. While encouraging his reader not to be fearful of the workload, Lang offers several examples of grounded assessments in which students interact within their locality, the timeframe of the semester, their personal lives and their other studies. 

The idea is that if an assessment is grounded so thoroughly, it cannot be copied from another source, because it is unique to the student. There is no other place to copy material from. This idea has a strong intersection with another teaching tip which was offered recently on Place Based Learning [6].

Lowering Stakes

How does one lower the stakes of assessments in a university course? Let’s first think about what a high stakes assessment would look like. A high stakes assessment is usually only offered once in the course. A midterm or final which holds the majority of grade weight would fit into this description. Such assessments measure not only how much a student knows on a particular date, but might also reflect their physical health on the day of testing. Alternatively, a low stakes assessment does not count as an all or nothing portion of a course. If a student does not do well on a particular exam, they might have a chance to retake the exam with similar questions later in the course. Perhaps a course offers students multiple avenues to display their competency with course material. Perhaps a student is provided the opportunity to select which assessments they will undertake. 

A series of low stakes exams in which students can take as many times as they wish has the potential to increase competency and knowledge the more times a student takes an exam. To be clear, what’s being suggested is the same kinds of questions and course material, not the same exact questions and material. In a study conducted at Washington University in St. Louis, three researchers drew this conclusion [7]. Students experienced enhanced retention after taking an initial test compared to students who only took one final exam. The key is that repeated studying in intervals, spaced out over time, was more effective than a late night single study session.

Self Efficacy

Lang offers two factors that contribute to student self efficacy in his fourth and final bit of advice for instructors looking to transform their classes. The first is to concentrate on improving students’ metacognition skills as it relates to their level of course material understanding and of their study habits. Lang first came across this idea by watching some videos produced by a Cognitive Psychology professor at Samford University, Stephen Chew [8]. Lang later interviewed Chew and featured him in a Chronicle of Higher Education column. The best way to accomplish augmenting students’ metacognitive skills is through formative assessment. Formative assessment is an assessment, but it usually has little or no grade weight. The purpose of the test or assignment is to gauge the level of understanding and identify areas for further study. Formative assessment can help a student understand how well they know something, and ideally, if their preparation for the assessment was sufficient.

The second factor that affects student self efficacy is faculty communication. The kind of communication that Lang advocates for goes beyond the mechanics of running a course. The kind of communication that Lang says is most effective is that which talks about the importance of the material, the timing of the course, and the required effort of students. Additionally Lang highlights the relevance of each particular student in the course, their connection to the material and the wider world. Lang suggests that it is critical to have several periodic communications with students on these matters, not just a few paragraphs on a welcome page or buried somewhere in the syllabus. Taken together these communications can help students get motivated.

Cultural Academic Integrity

The very last bit of advice Lang has on reducing cheating in the university setting is something that needs to happen outside as well as within the classroom. Lang writes:

“So one of the most important tasks we have as a campus community is to speak with a clear and powerful voice to students about academic integrity, and to clarify for them as much as possible the ways in which it manifests itself both in the broader environment and in individual classes” [3, p. 166].

Lang also urges members of the university community to consider how often conversations about academic integrity should occur. He cites research that indicates that the temporal proximity of such conversations help mitigate cheating. A quick chat to students who are about to take an exam is more effective than the same communication given at the beginning of the semester or at the start of freshman year.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks does have formal definitions and procedures in place to address academic misconduct [9]. You should, at the very least, have a reference to this policy in your syllabus and take the time to familiarize yourself with it. In cases of suspected misconduct the Office of rights, Compliance and Accountability can be of assistance.

Conclusion

Cheating, plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct are not new phenomena. We should be aware of the potential for this to occur, but not be so fearful of it that we reduce the quality of our teaching or our assessments. The good news is that good teaching, and good learning reduce and can even eliminate cheating. If you’d like further advice on moving your course towards a cheating free environment, any of the instructional designers at UAF’s Center for Teaching and Learning would be happy to assist you.

References

[1] Murdock, T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational psychologist, 41(3), 129-145.

[2] McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. JHU Press.

[3] Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons. Harvard University Press.

[4] Fournier, E. (2023, August 28). Support student motivation with Universal Design for Learning. UAF Center for Teaching and Learning. https://ctl.uaf.edu/2023/08/28/support-student-motivation-with-universal-design-for-learning

[5] UAF Center for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Student Engagement. https://ctl.uaf.edu/student-engagement

[6] Cureton-Hazard, Z. (2024, September 25). Learning in Context: How Place-Based Learning Fosters Deeper Connections. UAF Center for Teaching and Learning. https://ctl.uaf.edu/2024/09/25/learning-in-context-how-place-based-learning-fosters-deeper-connections

[7] McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(2), 200-206.

[8] Samford University. (2011). How to Get the Most Out of Studying: Part 1 of 5, “Beliefs That Make you Fail… Or Succeed”. YouTube. https://youtu.be/RH95h36NChI?si=ySKV0KwG2eFdLJkn

[9] UAF Office of Rights, Compliance and Accountability. (n.d.). Academic Misconduct Policy. https://www.uaf.edu/orca/student-conduct/academic-misconduct.php