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)47
• 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 students611
• Self-reported surveys examining the frequency of
  behaviors
• Most focus on activities such as looking off
  anothers 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, 1214
• 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 reports14
• 57 natural science and 64 engineering majors
  report falsifying lab data15

5
Cheating in Science Classes

• Studies of the Classroom Laboratory1620
• 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 atmosphere2224

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 individuals
  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 students 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 real20

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