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

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

Cheating in Science Classes Surveys of all students 6–11  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

Cheating in Science Classes Surveys of Science Students 5, 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 notes 13  62% of engineering students copied “homework or laboratory reports” 14  57% natural science and 64% engineering majors report falsifying lab data 15

Cheating in Science Classes Studies of the Classroom Laboratory 16–20  High School Students Four types of cheating behavior: making results fit, checking with classmates, excluding anomalies, and making up data 16, 18 18% report copying or fudging data 17 21% report making up or data or results at science fairs 19  College Students 20 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

Theories Relevant to Cheating Classroom Goal Structure  Social-cognitive theory pertaining to student motivation 9, 21  Goals determined by: What the student perceives is considered “successful” Views on consequences of mistakes Motivation toward classwork Perception of atmosphere 22–24

Theories Relevant to Cheating Classroom Goal Structure 22  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

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 cheating 7, 14, 26  More cheating reported in highly performance- based mathematics classrooms 9, 21  Students who feel their teachers are “unfair” cheat because it is the only means they have of controlling their situation 28, 29  Mastery-based classroom by definition has an internal locus of control

Theories Relevant to Cheating Attitude of Neutralization 30  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

Theories Relevant to Cheating Neutralization and Cheating  Self-reported surveys measuring frequency of cheating and neutralizing attitude 31, 32  Students with higher neutralizing attitudes were more likely to engage in cheating behaviors Goal Structure, Neutralization, and Cheating 33  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

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 labs 34, 35  Consistent with efforts of the NSF to bring authentic research experiences into undergrad curriculum 36  Another alternative is project-based laboratories (i.e. long term, student-guided, novel projects) and tend to be considered by students to be more “real” 20

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 knowledge 43, 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 style 46-49

Implications for the Classroom Laboratory Pedagogical Practices  Develop a reflective practitioner approach 50  Only insightful and organized educators know how their students are learning and what specific practices work best for all

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