Islamic Azad University
Science and Research, Bandar Abbas Branch
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts (M. A) In Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
Title:

The Relationship between Teacher-Student Rapport and Students Willingness to Cheat among Iranian High School Students in Bandar Abbas

Advisor:

Hajar Khanmohammad, Ph.D

Reader:

Mehrdad Zarafshan, Ph.D

By:

Zahra Kalhori

November, 2013

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who helped me make this thesis possible, especially my thesis advisor, Dr. Hajar Khanmohammad for her support, guidance, time, inspiring motivation and faith in me. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Mehrdad Zarafshan for his help and his feedback. I have benefited greatly from the comments I received from them.
I

Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my husband and parents. Without their supports and assistance I would have never achieved my goals. Thank you for helping me to complete this program.
II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents page
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..i
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of tables…………………………………………………………………………………………VI
List of figures……………………………………………………………………………………….vii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..viii
Chapter1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1.Preliminaries…………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
1.2. Statement of the problem……………………………………………………………………………..3
1.3. Significance of the study………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.4. Purpose of the study and research questions………………………………………………..5
1.5. Research question ………………………………………………………………………………………..5
1.6. Research hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………………..5
1.7. Definition of key terms ……………………………………………………………………………..6
III
1.7. Limitations and delimitations………………………………………………………………………..6

Chapter 2. Review of the related literature ……………………………………..8
2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….9
2.2. Cheating and its types…………………………………………………………9
2.3. Cause of cheating……………………………………………………………. 15
2.4. Application of cheating……………………………………………………… 18
2.5. Side effect of cheating………………………………………………………. 18
2.6. Feedback of cheating………………………………………………………… 21

2.7. Definition of rapport………………………………………………………..23
2.8. Benefits of building rapport between student and teacher……………………..23
2.9. Rapport- building strategies………………………………………………….24
2.10.Rapport, learning and teaching………………………………………………25
2.11. The relationship between student-teacher rapport …………………………35
Chapter3 Methodology………………………………………………………….37
3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..40
3.2. Design ……………………………………………………………………….40
3.3. Participant…………………………………………………………………….41
3.4. Instrument……………………………………………………………………41
VI
3.5. Rapport and cheating questionnaires……………………………………..41 3.6. Data collection procedure……………………………………………………42 3.7. Data analysis procedure………………………………………………………42 Chapter 4 Data analysis and result …………………………………………………….48
3.8. Introduction…………………………………………………………………49
3.9. Result………………………………………………………………………… Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions ……………..62
3.10. Introduction………………………………………………………………..63
3.11. Discution……………………………………………………………………63
3.12. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..63
3.13. Implication………………………………………………………………….63
3.14. Suggestion…………………………………………………………………64
Reference………………………………………………………………………….66
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………79

VII
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1. Students’ major in high school…………………………………………..45
Table 2.Students’ average in high school…………………………………………46
Table3. Item statistic………………………………………………………………46
Table4. Descriptive statistic for students’ rapport…………………………………47
Table5. Descriptive statistic for students’ cheating……………………………….48
Table6. Correlation between rapport and cheating………………………………..49
Table7. Nonparametric test for cheating and rapport……………………………..51
Table8. Kruskal-Wallis Test. Rapport ranks ……………………………………..52
Table9. Kruskal-Wallis Test. Cheating ranks……………………………………..53
Table10. Table of response frequency ……………………………………………54
Table11. Response percent………………………………………………………..54

VIII
List of Figures
Figures Page
Figure1. Correlation graph between relationship and cheating………………..50

Abstract
Cheating has become one of the major problems on many high schools and college campuses. It is most prevalent at the college level. However, there have been reports of cheating incidents occurring at high school level. This research quantitatively would study the relationship between teacher- student rapport and students willingness to cheat in English classes of Iranian high schools in Bandar Abbas, with an average of between 17-18 years of age. First, they were given two questionnaires to answer. One questionnaire about rapport and another about cheating. From data collected, using correlation coefficient it was made clear that there was not any significant relationship between teacher students rapport and students willingness to cheat( i.e.: whether it would increase or decrease cheating in exams). Studying the views of high school students on such a serious issue as cheating could be beneficial in looking at ways to prevent and address this problem in future.
Key words: academic dishonesty, rapport, cheating

IXX

Chapter I
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Academic dishonesty or cheating is not restricted to a certain country or geographical area, but it is a universal phenomenon in educational institutions. Cheating has become a major concern on many high schools and colleges and its frequency is reportedly on the rise. Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal. Johnson and Martin (2005) showed that technological advances have made academic dishonesty easier to accomplish and harder for the faculty to identify. Symaco and Marcele (2003) studied that students sometimes consider cheating as a normal incidence and something ordinary moreover, they also discuss some factors in the school, such as classroom environment facilitates academic dishonesty in student body. Educators and employers are concerned about students cheating, because it impacts on the quality of education and reliability of assessment. Murdock and Anderman (2006) suggested that cheating on academic work involves different kinds of psychological phenomena, including learning, development, and motivation. These phenomena form the core of the educational psychology. From the perspective of learning, cheating is a strategy that acts as a cognitive shortcut, whereas effective learning often involves the use of complex self-regulatory and cognitive strategies or simply because they do not want to invest on time in using such strategies. From a developmental perspective, cheating may occur in different quantities and qualities depending on student’s levels of cognitive, social, and moral development. Thus cheating occurs less in younger children than in adolescents. Anderman and Midgley (2004) believe these developmental differences are due to changes both in student’s cognitive abilities and adolescents interaction. For example, cheating may be more likely to occur in middle and high school classrooms than in elementary school classrooms, because the instructional practices used in middle schools and high schools are more focused on grades and ability than is the case in elementary schools. Murdock and Anderman (2006) indicated that from a motivational perspective, learners report many different reasons for engaging in cheating. For example, some students cheat because they are highly focused on extrinsic outcomes such as grades, while others cheat because they are concerned with maintaining a certain image to themselves or to their peers, and others cheat because they do not have the requisite self-efficacy to engage in complex tasks or because of the types of attributions they have developed. Graves (2008) claimed that students who cheat on tests are more likely to engage in dishonest activities in the workplace than those who do not. In this study, the researcher wants to be aware of what factors motivate students to cheat and what deter them from cheating.
1.2 Statement of the problem
Since cheating is obviously immoral, it provides an unfair advantage and hinders learning. As Drake (1941) pointed out, cheating can hurt instructors who may interpret such behavior as directed to themselves. The international center for academic integrity at Clemon University indicated that about 70% of the students engaged in some forms of cheating during their education process. Johnson and Martin (2005) noted that students use new techniques of cheating. Cheaters are using technology to undermine academic integrity and students are becoming innovative in their cheating methodologies. Staats, Hupp, Wallace, and Gresley (2009) stated that academic dishonesty in schools can be another form of student deviant behavior. It may harm other students and put integrity of university at risk.
1.3 Significance of the study
Nowadays, cheating has become a serious problem among high school students in society and they receive good grades by cheating. Therefore, these grades are used as a measure of how good the student is, as it can be a measure of knowledge, talent, and competency. A few researchers like Passow (2006) and Bouville (2010) expressed that acts of academic dishonesty undermine the validity of the measure of learning. Teachers do not notice of what students do not understand if there are elements of cheating among them. It will be difficult for teachers to regulate their approaches of instruction as they assume students are performing well which might not be true. Cheating hurts students and prevents teachers from providing necessary and relevant feedback to their students in the learning process. These are the reasons which motivated the researcher to conduct a study.
1.4 Purpose of the study
This study aims of investigating the relationship between teacher-students rapport and students’ willingness to cheat. Second, it purports to investigate the techniques used by students to cheat on examination and measures taken by educators and administrators to prevent them from cheating, because it is important to prepare students for college and their future life experiences through the ownership of their own ideas and actions.
1.5 Research questions
In order to fulfill the purposes of this study, the following research questions are raised:
1-Is there any significant relationship between teacher-students rapport and student’s willingness to cheat?
2-Can investigations of techniques help educators prevent cheating?
1.6 Research Hypotheses
In the present study, the hypotheses will be directional. So, the research hypotheses will be as follows:
1. There is a negative relationship between teacher-students rapport and students’ willingness to cheat.
2. By investigating of techniques, educators can find ways to prevent cheating.
1.7 Definition of key words
Rapport: It is the “ability to maintain harmonious relationships based on affinity for others” (Faranda and Clarke, 2004, p.271)

Academic dishonesty: Cizek (2003) provides a less limiting definition. He states that cheating behaviors fall into three categories: (1) “giving, taking, or receiving information,”(2), “using any prohibited materials,” and (3) “capitalizing on the
weaknesses of persons, procedures, or processes to gain an advantage” on
academic work (p. 42).
Plagiarism: Fialkoff (1993) explained that the term plagiarism is usually used to refer to the theft of words or ideas, beyond what would normally be regarded as general knowledge.
Cheating: Cheating is “to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to win some profit
or advantage” (Ehrlich, Flexner, Carruth, & Hawkins, 1980, p. 141).
1.8 Limitation and delimitation:
Certain limitations were recognized in this research. First, the researcher used a self-report measure of cheating, whereas this measure had been used successfully in other studies and it is not a direct measure of cheating yet. As noted by Anderman (1998), “it is difficult to measure actual cheating behaviors, because the nature of cheating precludes direct observation” (p.84). Although this research examines individual growth trajectories, it also investigates between-subjects differences in self-reported cheating. Thereby, future studies of cheating should be designed to account for the fact that between-subjects differences may not lead to direct conclusions about the causes of individual instances of cheating.

Chapter II
Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction
According to literature, academic dishonesty has become a serious problem among college and high school students. In this chapter we will review some of the literature concerning the relationship between teacher student rapport and students willingness to cheat.
2.2 Cheating and its types
Anderman and Midgley(2004) explained that students cheating relates to both individual and situational variables, such as motivational, moral, and developmental factors. The motivational and academic environment may cause different types of cheating behavior. Students who like to show their abilities to others may use cheating methods that reflect this particular goal orientation. As a result, a student with a high performance might engage in cheating behavior, such as coping off another student’s exam, plagiarizing a term paper, or using unauthorized sources to complete graded work, but likely he/she would not help others with cheating behaviors. Murdock, Miller, and Kohlhardt (2004) suggested that as well as this competent, situational goal orientation can influence student’s attitudes toward certain cheating behaviors. Murdock, Hale, and Weber (2001) proved that when middle school students believe their school environment fosters a performance goal orientation, they are more likely to report engaging in cheating behavior in course work. Maehr (1991) stayed that perhaps appearing competent during relation to others is stronger than engaging in the cheating behavior. Anderman, Griessinger and Westerfield (1998) claimed that if school environment is calm and stress free, students will have less incentive to cheat. Kohlberg (1985) recommended that theory of moral development investigate the moral aspects of cheating. Malinowski and Smith (1985) believed that “there is an inverse relationship between moral development level and cheating behavior in male undergraduates” (p.1016). When students are under the pressure by situation they cheat more.
Eisenberg (2004) proposes a relationship between cheating behavior and the extent to which students believe cheating is a moral issue. Researcher controlled both individual differences in moral perspective and the effects of situational variables on attitudes toward cheating during exams. In conclusion there were two kinds of cheatings: active (coping off another person’s exam) and passive (allowing someone to copy off your exam).Cheating is more moral rather than a convention based issue. Although Eisenberg (2004) examined attitudes, his findings have important implications for discussion of individual and situational factors related to both active and passive cheating attitudes.
McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2001) asserted that contextual factors may affect student’s choice of cheating technique. They reviewed the cheating literature and reported that disapproval of cheating behavior, and perceived penalties for cheating influenced cheating behaviors in college students significantly more than individual factors such as age and gender. McCabe et al. (2001) declared the amount of serious cheating behaviors in different contexts and showed that a serious test cheater is defined as someone who admits to a student to copy from another student on exam or to use unauthorized crib or cheat notes on a test or exam. On the whole, serious cheating on written work includes plagiarism, fabricating or falsifying a bibliography, using others work, and copying a few sentences of materials without footnoting them. McCabe and colleagues explained serious cheating can be prevalent on college without penalty. Houston (1986) emphasized that other factors as the physical characteristics of the classroom, and the seating arrangement, may also influence the student’s method of cheating. He confirmed students cannot copy off another’s paper when they are in the back of the room .However, they are more likely to cheat when are seated next to a partner.
Brandes (1986) reported that cheating in elementary school is more prevalence, but how do students cheat in elementary school level? According to statistics in California, some students cheat in elementary schools, middle schools and high schools. But it seems that high school students are engaged in cheating more than elementary school ones. Anderman and Midgley (2004) remarked academic cheating between high school and middle school which showed an increase in cheating in high school. Brandes (1986) also found the methods used by high school students differed from that of younger students. Although both younger and older students copied from others on test, only older students reported using crib notes during tests. Younger students reported plagiarizing, more as the method of cheating. It is important to consider that cheating behaviors are directly related to the demands of the academic task. To put it differently, the behavior is enacted to help the student meet important outcomes of the assignment. Syer and shore (2001) suggested that having a science fair project can reduce cheating behavior because students will find cheating methods are more complex and sophisticated over the grade levels in direct relation to increasing complexity of learning and assignments among high school students.
According to Anderman (2006), it is important to know that differential understanding of what constitutes cheating can be problematic. Evans and Craig (1990) commented differences in middle and high



قیمت: تومان


پاسخ دهید