I

.* i\

lf You're Not Gheating, You're Not rrying: A Qualitative study of Learners'

Expenences or uneattng ounng tuaJor Examtnauon$

Mark Lester Geonzcn, Daphne l\llea Guido, Alexia Aira Ariza

Itllariane Angelie Pajares

Adviser: FRIEDREIK E. ESQUIERDO

ALANGALANG NATIONAL HIGI.I SCHOOL

$enror Hrgn scnool uepartrnenl

Alangalang, Leyte

January 201 I

\
TABLE OF GCINTENTS

TIT[-E PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. .. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES ".....

,rtErg I rartLr I

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

sacKgrouns oi ine bruoy." 1

Frame of the Study h

Statement of the Problem o

xesearclr uuestlons .."...".

Significance of the Study .

Scope and Limitations......

D=firltir: :f Tr::r:." o

II REVIEW OF RELATEtr LITERATURE

The Causes of Cheat.... 10

now ts uneat uune...... io

Consequences of Cheat .. 15

III METHODOLOGY

nasearun LJeStgn I I

Research Locale .,..',.17

iii
Participants of the Study and Sampling Technique 1B

ffi e$eicrcrr lr'tstt urltet I ts I U

Data Gathering Procedure............... 2A

Data Analysis .... 21

Erntcal'v0ntitcetaltQns .....".... 2r
IV RESULT$ AND DISCUSSION

The Reasons why Learners Commit Cheating

Durlng Major Examinations...,.......... !)?
-i
ire vvays Leatrrers iorrrnrn
Cheating du ring tVlajor Examinations 30

Consequences of Cheating......... JJ

V SUMMARY" CONCLUSIONS" AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Finding* 38

Conclusions 38

r \fuui r lr r l(;{ iusLtut l} ...., \rv

REFERENCES 40

APPENDICES. .44

IV
Ghapter I

ITts.SIAITUH PKUtsLhM

This chapter presents the background of the study, the framework,

f,L^ rL^ 4-'-l J4!:.€:4^!;-4- ir- ?L:^
-a^r^*^6t -t ^*^L!^*^ ^^*.^- u!,u uvl!.irI1*rlvii*, -*l
uitu ILJ ^;^-:5-^*--
t'SlrrrrIus"Y*" E rr!s
*rq.*rir*,iq u, .i ii, yivutviirl ari* vevitv

chapter also lists terms that are operationally defined to make the study
unarnbigLtous and easy to understand.

Background ofthe Study

Academic dishonesty is defined as "any type of cheating that occurs in

::lr:r:n i; : f=:=:l :c:d;n:;:)i;r:;::";h;:l =l; :n::;j: pi:;il:;:n:, fa}:i::tl:n,

deception, and sabotage" {Berkeley City College, n.d.). This is also held by Bricault

as cited by Hodges {2017) who stated that academic dishonesty is a range of

unacceptaole Denavtors emptoye0 Dy learners lo gatn an advantage on lests ano

assignments. The phenomenon has been documented across ditferent

educational settings, from basic to higher education (Mlunir, Ahmad, and Shahzadi,

za11).

Generally, the public frowns at the issue. Kohn (2007) said that "just about

everyone agrees that cheating is bad and that we need to take steps to prevent it."

luuntr eI.at" (2u11) sHIeo lnat tnr$ pnenomenon l$ seen as a premeCIlta{e0

unethical behavior and that the educated members of society share the negative

view of academic dishonesty. However, the problem of academic dishonesty

rematns to oe a growlng one as tt nas come io De -prevalent ano permanent' (luunir

et.al., 2011). Hodges (2017) stated that there is proof that learners who engage in

t
L
acadetrric dishonesty significantly outnurnber those who have never committed

aeaCIerntc otsnonesry. rrom zr-]uz Io zuu5, lucuaoe ano Ine uenter IOr Aca0emlc

lntegrig as cited by Burke (zCICI7), surveyed approximately "80,000 learners and

'12, 000 faculty members" and results showed that 24% of learners did some

sefious Torm oI cneailng. tn zu1u, Brown, vvetDle, anfi ulmo5K, as clteo Dy Jones

t2CI11), saw the grave increase of the nurnber of learners who cheat * around

1988, they recorded 49% of the learners that belonged to undergraduate classes

wno cneateo; twenty years ailer, tn zuuu, tne stuoy alreaoy recoroeo 1uu%.

Research findings stressed that the tendency of learners to engage in

academically oishonest behaviors is based on a number of reasons. Kwong, Ng,

Katpan, ano vvong (zu1ul noteo InalworKloaos ano ilme pressures, tne oeslre Io

achieve good grades, unclear instructions on academic dishanesty, as well as

social and technologicalfactors contribute to the tendency towards cheating. This

means tnal many learners gommrt acaflemrc fitsnonesty, sucn as cneaung, tG

respond to the pressures of meeting education standards, or tc plainly attain higher

grades. Further, the lack of clearly stated rule$, the small chance of detection, and

renlency wnen tI come$ io oealrng wrtn mose wno arg caugnl na$ also Deen noleo

to contrlbute to the tendency to commit academic dishonesty (Hadges, 2017).

These circumstances may have led learners who take part in academic dishonesty

musl nave concluoe0 tnat rt IS a necessary course oI aclon to cope wlm

educational pressures.

Bachore i2016) noted that education is viewed as the solution to the

mulltlanous proDlems or soctely. r nls rs tne reason wny eounlnes stnve to tmprove

I
the quality of their educational systems. However, the level of difficulty associated

wlln rat$ing lne slanoaros oI eoucalron leaCIs rearners to res0ru to rnnovalrve - Dui

deviant * metheds of coping with academic pressure. This is supported by the

study hllaramark and Maline {1993) which noted how competition, pre$sure, and a

orsloneo vrew oI wnat reairy consutules orsnonesty, rnltuence lne oecrsron oI

learners to engage in academically dishonest behaviors. Academic dishonesty

stands as a formidable threat to the quality af education that has become an

rntegral pan oI mooern socrery as rt unCIermrnes {ne autnenilc acnrevement oi Ine

competencies mandated by the curriculum {Naghdipour and Emeagwali, 2013).

Today, quality education is often indicated uslng measurable standardized

test8 ramer tnan more comprex metnoos. However, wrrtlen oulputs ano tests nave

an increasing likelihood of being sublected to various forms of cheating, which in

turn degrades the quality of education (Bachore, 2016). Honsy and Fatima (2014),

rn a stuoy concucteo among unrversrry iearners, reponeo mat most learners wno

cheat in exarninations cite the difficulty of the exam and the importance of grades

as their justification, while others pointed to lack of preparation, lenient instructors,

ano nelprng Ifienos.

Thls is of interest to countries like the Philippines which give eonsiderable

weight to written tests. ln the Philippines, written works account for twenty-five to

rCIrly percent tz5% tCI 4u%J or tne quarleriy graoe oepenorng on rne suDJecI, wnile

the weight of major examinations amount to twenty to thirty percent GA% to 30%)

depending on the subject as well (Department of Education, 2015). ln a study

Con0uCteo Dy BaiDuena & Lamela (ZUlb,l, lt wa$ IOun0 tnat 6 /"/o al tearners Cneat

I
during examinations. The weight of quarterly examination in the computation of

graoes puIS tmmense pressure on tearners wnlcn reaos many 10 engage tn

cheating during rnajor examinations.

lndeed, cheating during major examinatians is an issue which brings about

$lgnlfleanl lnterest among researcners an0 nas 0ecome a not tCIptc ror rnvesilgailon

(hllunir et.al., 2a11; hrlcCabe & Trevino, 1gg7). However, research on the said

matter seem to focus on colleges and unlversities; there is a scarcity of literature

wnlcn oellneateo me proolem wrlnrn tne conrexl oI seconoary scnoots tutego,

2017). Moreover, research cn the subject of cheating centered on the rate at which

it is committed while others direct their study into the perceptions and attitudes of

Ine laculry, learners and acafrernrc rnsutuilons Icwaros tne mlsconouct. HuI inere

is still a deficit of information delineating, in "first-person perspectiye," the reasons

why learners cheat during examinations, the innovative methods and techniques

tney ernploy, ano lls efiect$ on ine personal ano soctat toenliiy oI tearners wnc

take part in such academic cheating within the context of secondary schools.

The central goai of this study is to capture the "first-person perspective"

aooul Ine expenence oI cneaung ounng maJor examtnalrons, wttntn tne conlexr or

a public high school in Alangalang, Leyte, Philippines.

The study endeavors to provide a baseline data related to individual

expenences ano perspecilves ol learners wno cneateo durrng major examtnailor]s

for the development of interventions and tc help expand the landscape of

knowledge related to academic dishonesty among secondary schools.

I
Framework of the Study

lne study 0raws tts lneoretrcal strengtn rom tne F(atlonat unclce lneory,

and the concept of the Looking-glass Self.

The Rational Choice Theory proposes that an individual chocses a course

oI actton (alternauveJ tnal could reasonaniy oilng abCIut a soctal outcome tnat

maximizes his or her utility under subjectively conceived constraints {Sato, 2013).

The theory rejects the idea that action happens with no teleological inlermediations

ano oelrnes ratronalrry rn tne restncte0 sense oT uttltty maxtmrzatron tuoleman,

1989 in Zafirovski. 1999). This means that when people make choices, they do so

purposively, and with the expectation of maximizing positive outcomes while

mrnrmrzrng negafive outcorTres. !t a rearner cneals ounng major examrnalrons, rI

may not be arbitrary or irrational but premeditated and calculated. Today, twenty

to thirty percent of a learner's final grade is constituted by the result of hisiher major

examrnafion. lnus, Iailng rt mean$ lower graoes or lailure. tn tnrs stuoy, I rs

perceived that learners choose to cheat during major examinations and that this

choice was made with the anticipation of positive results. Learners purposively

cneai ouilng rnajor examrnalror]s necause Iney oeem rt as necessary to garn

additional benefits while depreciating negative costs. Rational Choice Theory,

therefore, views cheating during major exarninations as a phenomenon born out

or a generai pursurr ol sell-rnreresr.

Moreover, the study draws from the concept of the Looking-glass self. This

concept suggests that our sense of self is affected by the opinions and perceptions
-:).
oi peopre arouno us. uoorey (1vuz). as crieo Dy Ar0raDat ano Le Navenec (zul

5
s.rggests that humans define and develop themselves in drfferent situations as a

'esult ?I processes Inal reliect Ine aurluoes ano percepltons oI orners. tnts means

that humans develop a self-image based on the messages they receive from

others.

$tatement of the Problenn

Cheating during major examinations is one key problem that educational

!ncli+l1li1n9 tlde]'t:r+ !^ lht rl3!!,"rory 1r

i::o!:ti, *dt:tttl^t Tl'i= !: ? f?l,lfe fl'aanaery
because, at present, quality education is measured through written examtnations

{Bachore, ?016). While many studies on the matter focus on cheating as it happens

rrl ttre nigrrer Euuueruurr unu JUsr. tt re statistius ur ule pnerurnEnutr, irrrie rs Knuwtr duuur.

the lived experiences of iearners who cheated during major examinations within the

context of a secondary school (Diego, 2017j. This study aims to fillthis gap. Filling this

girp rlliry FJIesetlI ritote rnit:t Irrauun auuul. tne pr uurenl or unuarung uunng InaJUi

examinations among high school !*arners, and help in the development of necessary

interventions.

Research Questions

To address the overarching problem, this study aims to delineate frorn a

r'fircf-nar*nn narqnonfir;a" fha c:rnar"ianra nf nhrratinn drrrinn mainr ayaminafinnc

Specifically, the re$earcher seeks to answer the following questions:

1. Why do learners cheat during examinations?

l. uvnat are lne learner s cneailng pracilces ounng major examtnailons'/

3. What are the effects of cheating during nrajor examinations on the personal

and social identity of learners?

C
$ignificance of the Study

lnls re$earcn lntends to supplement tne extsilng booy oI Knowleoge on

academic dishonesty by delineating how and why it happens within the
eo,ntext of
major examinations in a public high school.

tne siufiy orers t{s oeneltls to tne toltowng:

Learners. The outcorre of this study may serve as a basis for interventions

that would help mitigate the effects of cheating during major examinations
amonE
learners. Learners wlll also galn aoolltonai unoer$Ianotng oI lne pnenomenon
as rx

happens within their cantext and how it affects which can provlde a greater
appreciation of the value of honest work"

leacners. leacners wlll oeneTlt rrom Ints as li wilt provtoe tn$tgnIS On noy{

and why cheating happens during examination. This is important

because teachers
are classroom managers who are imbued with the responsibility
of preventing any
IOrm oI mlsconouct. Knowleoge oI Ine reasons wny tearners
cneat duilng major
examinations wiil also help teachers devise interventions that can
address such
academic dishonesty.

rarenrs. lne resull oi Inls researcn wili pe netplul Io Inern rn otsctpilntng

them and encouraging them to work hard without having to rely on dishonest

means.

Suiruul"irirlrririraiurv. Tiru uuiuurrrc ui iiris:riur-iy wiii

irruviile i*uigiriu iiiai
can help administrators develop interventions aimed at addressing ar mitigating

the effects of academic dishonesty.

7
Future researchers. This research can be used as a tool to direct related

stuores.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

-fh;* *4^^^e^ti Ai@^ a^ .J;^^,,^i ,.,!.,, 66/.,t i-^.r. te^*q+*+ 4!r^^+ .L,.i4- #^;^-
I lllu luuvuivlr *tl rJ urrv rivrr .Lu,rrvrv viisq( qurr!iq rirgJvr

examinations, as well as its effects on the personal and social identities of learners

who perpetrated it.

AS a qualliauve researcn, tne ltn0rngs oI Ints stuoy ts nol ln{enoeo to De

generalizable. There are thousands of secondary schools in the Philippines with

students who have their own reasons for cheating during major examinations that

mlgnt nCIt ne reporieo tn mis stuoy lI will tnvotve tearners wno nave rtrstnano

knowledge and experience on cheating during major examinations. The number

of participants will be determined by data saturation.

Definition of Terms

Academic Dishonesty. ln this study, academic dishonesty is defined as

rn,, fr^,,/.t.,1^*r r.,a*r rS +nrti*a .^^, rll^
rL .*u,r, vi vvr.,. il, r *vsiL,

Cheating activities/practices. Various deceptive methods and strateg ies

learners utilize to cheat, fabricate, and deceive during major examinations.

Malor exarnlnallGn, ln lnl$ siuoy, Inis reiers Io ine quarteny examlnauons

that constitute a significant portion of the learner's quarterly and final grades.

Personal ldentity. Here, personal identity is used to refer to a person's

DeileI anoLll Onesetl base0 on tne declstons or cnorces Iney maKe.

l
Social ldentity. ln this study, social identity refers to people's beliefs on

how others see them based on their association to a certain group, category, or

activity.

9
;1
--{

CHAPTER II

ttEVieur LrF r<ELATEu Li"r irqATiix-

This chapter presents the literature available on the research topic. it will

nresent literature dis*ussino the reascns whv students cheat durino maior
examinations. Additionally, it will examine the ways learners cheat during
examhatans. Frna{{y, it wi{l eKp{are fiaw tne pneRCImenon affec{ ffie personaf and

The Causes of Academic Dishonesty

ACAdeSS-$C r]-iSb! f ryll',-q+Ary-s ir>-ry )Lp.',,aJ).s.p*,s?..2dp.,..e).a/ad,+a.*az;*<-a-l r?o.rrr<-, <rr-rceu

other environments. Ercegovac & Richardson, Jr. (2004) presents parental pressure,

fear of failure, hefty workloads and a lack of intervention from authorities as a factor

f:: chc:tirg" \^,'hii: l',X:C:!c :t :i. (:3lg) ;d:rt;f'i p:=;:;i; t: g:i ;==* g::J::,
unfairness in the educational system, difficulty of exams, and the perception of getting

away with cheating as common reasons offered by students to rationalize academic

utsnonesly.

ln the study of Burke {2008i, poor academic standards, leniency in the handling

of cheating incidents, and technology were seen as fundamental reassns for cheating

itt sxattttrtatturru. ttte satu stuuy nuteu tnat rtre Ieruur.airce ur fdcurLy Iilerllutsrs tu geI

involved in the process required to report and punish cheating activities is a major

;contributing factor to the issue of academic nnisconduct during examinations. Burke

(lUUoJ, alsu lUullu trlirI tgullrlulugy llas iilSU pliiyeu t[s pirrr irilu LIte availiruiltry rttAKeS

it easier to cheat. Ceilphones have become an innovation of cheat sheets. lt has aiso

allowed students the convenience of noting an exam to hand out to a friend later on

rilrougrl {.ex[ rrjessautrlu ot onilfie cortlrTtuilrua,t'loil.

Academic dishonesty may also be linked to self-efficacy. Nora and Zhang

\zu iu/ IUurlu trlaa stuusllts wlati iuw tiell*etltcaL;y ate rilute ilKety Io crleat [f tan tat(]se

who identified themselves to be efficacious. ln this, cheating is linked to fear of failure,

test anxiety and doubt about one's performance - all of which could be classified as

uues iut ruw-etnuicuy drru rrruruatuu nuw sruuertts witrtruw uert-eiriuaruy gerrerares irrgrr

avoidance" meaning cheaters avoid engaging ln situations that may "overwhelm,

stress, confuse, frustrate and embarrass them." by avoiding the task (Anderman &

fvlUlUUUlt, ZUUl lll l\Uti, o( ellirtlg, lU lu). rlUWeVel, tl li5 UOeSll t Illea{l tllaI SIUUUf ltS Wtttt

low self-efficacy will most certainly going ta cheat. The strong orientation of learners

on acceptable and unacceptable behaviorduring exams also help (Whitely, 1998 as

cheating are less likely to cheat regardless of the ratio of benefits to risks. This implies

that students who have a firm orientation that cheating is bad would never cheat

rEgirrutess ur (tlE pusblure ueneuts rtliir. rui{y t,re uurdrneu wirelr cugicgrnU wrLr r

academic dishonesty"

Furthermore, statistics from the study of Jones (201 1) shows that the leading

tuspurrses itutri stuuerns werE udsuu un preriurnrilnuE icrxrery, grirutrs \vt-/o),

procrastination (83%), and lack of time g1a/o), while peer pressure rated 17o/o (Jones,

2011) The data also showed that those who are intellectually weaker would have a

tllgllel tElluelluy tu uileiit sliluc coTo teusoneu uur. UtaI tt wils i, tiruK ut uoiltpreileilStutr

and interest in the lesson that triggered cheating. Moreover. the same study found that

the lack of serious consequences for academic dishonesty is a contributory factor with

zczo rrutittg ti lar rttey cuuru ger. ilwiry wrrrr ir trrru uues uur {u.rr.r.ur r.u lne prursbsur

While the data presented by Desalegn & Berhan (2014) reported lack of preparation

(25.7%:). academic workload {16.9Y*}, and good marks (14.6%) as the top three
reasons for cheating. On the other hand, the reasons given by students who did not

utreitl wete ieerttlg uunrpetenr loc.oTol, rengrous anu rnuri* elnrus (ry.J-lor, rear ur

punishment (7.7%), and the presence of a strict supervisor (2.6%). So, it can be

inferred that students who feel less anxious about their academic performance are

iesu rrr.cry r.u uuu!unr. iaui*dernru ursr runesly urirrr uluse wnu uuuut it.

Then the study cenducted by Sarita (2015) listed peer pressure, home

environment, school environment, learning styles, and academic anxiety as reasons

lot utleatltlg uurlrlg exirilililatiulr$. AL:uUrUIrg t(J rile sictu sruuy, peef s ate ttlutvruuiils

that may affect a student's decision making. lf one of his/her peers decide to commit

academic dishonesty, then helshe is likely to do the same. The pressure that comes

wlil I eve,yuuuy uulllg lr. ciluuulirgcS Ute stuuetir tu utreirt. Auuil.tuttirIy, Utu nuiltts,

environment indicates the conditions to which a student might be living with. When

helshe is encouraged to do well in everything by hislher parents, it might induce

pt eubute irttu ieau rire reirnrcr tu uuea[ rn urucr r,u r(reer irre slicrru.rrus ur llsisq,r

parents. The school environment, as the place where cheating occurs, may have

different aspects in it that can fully influence academic dishonesty. lt includes

uutrtpetiilurt insrue i, urirutir uurn, ure rrrutnuub reiruuers use [u ureirsl]{E aru il}bsus

performance, and the policies impiemented as a consequence of academic

dishonesty. The ways teachers implement learning may have an impact on the

stuuellt. ll a leirullel luuul,cs rllute uli Iile tevel ut leicilililg ei 5luueilt Itirs eiilileu tirlilet

than the level of recognition he has then the learning enviranment would be more

positive than if the latter is used (Anderman & Midgley, 2004). The different

pletE!Etlueu ur sr"uuents rrt redurng rndy nul gu witrr rrre leiruuu]U sryre wnrut r wrrr rirerr

iead to misconduct. Lastly, educational anxiety comes because of a common

aspiration cf a student to always b* cn top Even with the knowledge that cheating is
aa

I
an insolent act, they do so thinking that high gracles hold a higher importance tha^
-/

acatjerrric rr rregr i ty.

Closely related to the above-mentioned findings, a Filipino study by Balbuena &

l*amela (2015) found three major reasons for cheating - the identified reasons list
auiri'jellltu p! uutirsr.rrrirr.rurt, ieurrtrrtg urrriuutrreu, iJru nrsrnury ursuruet s irs tEilsuls tur

cheating. Here, acadernic precrastination is defined as the suspension of academic

work that results from the lack of time to study, laziness, or workload. While learning

ulllluully ls e{ Stiite trt wtticrtSluuEnts are urtaute tu utluurstirne ute tessun ot tlte [eiru,et

for a number of factors, and such difficulty leads students to adopt innovative
techniques - like cheating - to cope with class work. Lastly, the study suggests that
riurne siucierlts wi to uileat niay i.re suifer rrrg il urrr !lrerrrury ciisuruers. iirese sluuetrrs

may have had the tirne to prepare for tests, but their condition may have forced them

to resort to cheating because they forget most if not all of the things they studied about.

Fut tttcttrlul e, uttler reasurrs urrneu [u ri re act ur iruauerrriu oiulrunebly ilc r.riE

motivation to get high grades or pass the subject and the exam.

ln the literature presented above, it can be said that students commit academic

ulSllutlesly lul it Ilullluel ut !e;csuil!i. iltg leirbulls Stirteu, iluwevet , uuttvEtgEs uil

coping with academic pressures which are born aut of factor"s which may be social or

individual in nature.

Cheating Practices and Activities

The ethics of cheafing is very situational for many students (McCabe, 200Si.

This means that students emplov different tvoes of cheatino nractices which denends

on the careful consideration situation during examinations.

1"3
Davis (1993) stated that the students used hand and feet positions, corner of

I [rtu uesn teprcbenurrg n, b. u anu u, steilring i, uupy ui ti rc reb[ drru ruuneu up ure

answers ahead of time and memorize them, hiding calculators down their pants,

trading papers during the test, comparing an$wers, opening the book during

exatrtrrrirtruu, rridrrrU srnun vyrur u iirsterteru ilr rnc uuur^s. wr rurg rinswcr b rrr tns uuuy

and making a paper flower with the answer written in it.

Moreover, the study Sarita (2015) revealed that there are many ways to cheat

uullrlg examtttariutls. rIUan ue ur to rloles. tooKrng ovet sunleoiles siluutuer uuilfig ail

exam or any forbidden sharing of information between students regarding an exam or

exercise, hiding notes in the bathroom toilet tank or up their sleeves, storing

trlrurtrtirr.rutt ittgratr;ititrg uaruuiatu! >, LraUers. usu pnunEb, anu urrrer Ereur.runru uevrueb.

Also, secretly signaling the answer are quite varied, ranging frorn coded sneezes or

pencil tapping to high-pitched noises beyond the hearing range of most teachers.

usirrg a Eyslettt ut tcpeuttvs uuuy bignars rrire ttauu n]uvErirEnr$ ur iuutlcr Krng. ul urgurg

notes to class and having information written on water bottles, pens, and gum

wrappers, using a cellphone to get information, communicate with others outside the

exallr f uuaIl.

ln addition, the published study by Diego {2A17}, wherein he interviewed

sixteen (16) informants, found out that the students used different ways of cheating

uulltlg tllirJul exirlillllarlulrS. tt uiirl ue [Jeillg ]neiluty LU L;tirsstItaLes, wilufig tile ailSwgt5

on their hand and desk, cheating frorn friends, sign language, giving and receiving

crumpled paper containing answers on the exam, look for the answers on their pocket

uEVlue, IeUUI Ulliu lllull dllSwElli l.u rriEil ue!ruidt pttuilES acilu ils[eililtg uil UTts|IIt vt:r

headset while taking the exann, having picture of the answer on their cellular phones,

t4
9Qitr61s at a!}d asking dassmates' answer and going out to look for answ*rs while

l-he lrterature presented above shows that students have different innovative

rap b ctleat during examinations while avoiding possible consequences.

l: rseq uences of Cheating

Consequenco$ on the social level" On the social level, a study which looked

'to oeer disaonroval of cheatino found that veru few (29%) had a neoative view of

tnose who cheat. The rest are divided between those who have a neutral and positive

attitude towards those who cheat (41o/o and 30o/o r€spectively). lnterestingly, some of

ii ru pei li;iyaiii. o"ii- v,Go,s*,i ;i ,ooL-G p-;iiir=iy r'+gnia ii ,;;,, *s ;;,;a; i a; ,"i i;la"o (i,i-la

and Zhang,2010)"

The work of Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff (2007) that ouflined what they

tourici to lJe tne [riust uuulntr'lu ueretrerns ir.r auauelrric oiuirorresry sired iigirt inru rrre

perpetrators' thoughts on the consequences of doing the act. The study listed
six
common deterrents which placed ennbarrassment of being caught by a faculty member

as titst atlu iotelttust, lurroweu uy lne iear ur uerng uruppuu, ruuuweu uy Irle lei* ur 11e

university's response. Guilt ranked fifth, and the fear of disapprovalfrom friends came

last. This means that learners who comnrit acadernic dishonesty see it as something

tllirt uirf I Ileuirtlvely alleul Iluw uUlers see rt!eilt, Utuugil coilstuetauuils un Iluw Itteilus

would see them ranked last. The fact that guilt was also listed as a comrnon deterrent

also irnplies that cheating affects the perpetrators on the personal or individual level,

r-oltsequeltces otl [rle persuilar revet. ,fi LilE SLUUy Ut Utegu (zu t /,,. tr wils

stated that his informants reported that when they cheat, their conscience "haunt them

throughout the ciay". This implies that even with the positive effects of cheating (e.g.

1E
I

passir.! the subject, good grades, etc.), students are bothered by the moral
irrrpirciatiutrs ui ti tert truuuns. itt iluuirrun, rne s[uuy icrsu brareu [nar Irrusr. ur ure

informants also noted how copying means showing a lack of confidence in their own

answers which may even lead to a decreased passion for learning. This may mean

lilat Uuut usutlry uurrsurure5 ure uneL;t ut uiteiattrtg un r.Irc luulvruuitr rEVer.

Summary

Given the iiterature and studies oresented. academic dishonestv durino

examinations are based on various reason$. lt was also clear that there are various

ways in which students cheat, and that these cheating practices affect how
yoi y-i.i .rLviS i,r;* i.l ru,liislvu-, iri'r. i-,-*";li ,e,S oss'ii ruill.

Subsequently, the researcher subrnits that there is very limited literature

regarding the effects of cheating on personal and social levels. Still, this study draws

lluIIl Llle cvlueilcE rlrirr tilc$e rllelature irilu tituures ptuvtue tu ueilileate tlte Ittst-f ]ailu

experience of learners who committed academic dishonesty during major

examinations to addre$s gaps in knowledge on why it is done, how it is carried or.rt,

icnu rn€ efr'er-:ts utr ure per peilarur s. ulr:i researun arsu errueavurs (o Flruvrue userur

data on academic dishonesty during examinations within the context of the school it

was conducted.

1C
I

CHAPTER III

lVlE I H\JUL,,LtJ(, T

The aim of this chapter is to present the rnethodological approaches used in

this studv. This chanter nresents the research desion. locale of the studv. the
participants of the study, the sampling technique, the method used for data collection,

and the process for data analysis.

Research Design

The i"esearchers employed phenomenology ac their research design.

Moustakas (1994) said that phencmenology is sulted if the goal is to capture and

describe perceived realities within a given context. Wa-lt/{baleka (2018) further states

that phenomenology is the most suitable approach if the goal is to understand human

representation of people's experiences as it requires them to set aside their

preconceived notrons and biases during data collection and analysis {Morrow, et al.

lu ro). ltte ueuigtt is ttaluraly uonneL:teo wrrn rne p{eserlI stuoy pecause rr rs rirrgeiy

based on how cheating during major examinations is experienced firsthand by those

who are involved.

Research Locale

This research was conducted in a public high school, niangalang, Leyte. The

nublic hioh school is offerina both "Junior and Senior Hish Schoo!. The school has a

total of 4, 570 enrolled learners for the second semester of S.Y. 2A18 - 2019.

I
Participants of the Study and Sampling Technique

itre 6.ratltutpailrs u[ rrlts sruuy wete z I tsatilets uutiltilg Itotn uiltet Ent grirue

ievels of school year 2018-2019 in the public high schoolthat served as the research

locale. The researchers used the Snowball Sampling Technique in order to search for

tl le liirll.lL;lpiirlts wtto uittl ptuvruE trilut tilattun iruuur ute pnettontettul ueirtg

investigated^ The criteria in selecting these participants rivere as follow: 1) bona fide

students of the public high school that served as the research locale; 2) and have

irll Eiiuy uutlttltitteu iluicuetlllu ursrionesty piit uuutirt ty uneaung uur tng rnd1UI

examinations.

According to Wa-ltflbaleka {2018), in rnany qualitative designs, a predetermined

llullluEl ol Suujeuts is ttut ttEUsSSatity rleeueu. ut rnts sruuy, tlu teseirruttets welr wlrri

data saturation {a point where data beconres repetitive). To reach this, the researchers

just interviewed so many participants untilthey reached the point of saturation (Kvale,

lvvz+i. uieti* siatutallullwdri aulltevgu wil.il z. I tilietvtewS uilu wa5 uunililileu uy LilE lirst

three (3) interviews.

Table 1
Prafile a{the
A**J^ t -..^

7 12 E
I P05
7 la
F P09
12 M P1S
7 t<+ k1
6 13 F P03
I lr+ idi P16
o
o 14 t\fi P01
v 15 tr P02
15 F P04
I 4i
!J F P10
c t5 F Pl1
1t
P15
I ,IE
M P13
I 1E
M P17
10 16 F P14
'10
tvt ruo
10 16 M ?12
11 io Id
P20
1'
17 M P07
IL 17 F ?21
12 1B IVI ruo
1A
Research lnstrument

lne lessalL;llel wlll use 5€llli-Erlustureu trttelview$ ru girtilef att lf te ttEue$$dty

data for this study" lnterviews offer rich and rnore extensive data than surveys which

is consistent with the purposes of qualitative case studies {yin, 2012}.

Jrte uttelvruw qugsriurrs aru tue uuur rrEu uunserrr rur In wur uunbuture ure

interview protocol of this study. The first part of the interview protocol will be the

informed consent form which will explain to the participants the aims of the research,

its ttrttetiitltle, trls prrviluy anu uunrrLlenr.rarr[y uerHus. r.nu vururi[i*y nirLure ur lnerr

participation, the absence of physical or emotional risks, the use of audio recorders,

and the importance of honesty. This is to ensure that the participants will have full

wtttltlUttusu Lu taKc pitr t ttt ti ru rnrervrEw. ruc pdr rruipanrs rnusr brgn urE irr!ur nreu

consent form before the interviews begin.

The second part of the interview protocol are the researcher made interview

questiuttu. itre tu;catunet wut prepirre quu>riutrs urarr, witr uuver rt rE rusear ur ttu1.riu, rr re

researcher may give follow up questions based on the responses of the participants

so as to pnovide more depth to the information given"

-itre
reseidtuiret-rrtaue irtterview prurur-;oi wur pe varrc;rreci oy riuee io; uxper rs,

two (2) of whom have expertise in the behavioral sciences, while the other one
{1} has
expertise in qualitative research" Preferably, the first two experts are a guidance

uuurlsstur attu i, sucrlli wor Ker. rney wul utrter rnrnu wneurer a L{uesuon is IJnruseu rn

a sensitive manner that the participants might fail to give truthful answers. The third

expert is a qualitative researcher who will ascertain the alignment of the interview

guiuc I'u ttle tesedtutt Llucbr.tuiis irnu r.ne uver aruning ptuurent rn gEtrerdr.

Recognizing that it is vital that the interviews yield data based solely on the

perspective of the participants, th* researcher will do "bracketing". To do this, the

researcher will take into account his preconceived notions about the phenomenon

uerrrg rtlveuttgiiteu auu pur. urerrr ilr ;rucyanue \LEvlr,r., vver [2. rvrur.ursKy, ivrurruw. arru

Ponterotto, 2016). Specifically, the researcher wiil rnake a list (bracketing diary) of all

his expected outcomes prior to doing the interviews and resolve to set them aside.

Itte rcscatut tet wrri irrsu nnut nlb pr uurrg uuEstluils tu une$ [natseeK L;rirrnui?r.runs.

Bata Gathering Procedure

The researchers used semi-structured interviews to carrv out this studv lt

featured open * ended interviewing which allowed the participants to eiaborate and

expfain their answers which provided more depth to their responses. The questions

;;td ;;*i- aii Lo;;.I uii i.i ,s i,",La, , ia"t g;,"i= yi up&i o.i Ly '.i,* r si,sqi ui rCis. Ti,e iiit;, ,,oro

guide was validated by three (3) senior high school teachers, two (2) of whom have

expertise in the behavioral sciences, while the other one (1) has expertise in research.

nitel ttre ttltervicw Uurus was vdnuirleu, ri ru reuurueu urrcr vicws uegdr. Gurucu uy urtr

chain referral prCIcess of snowball sampling, the researchers identified, asked for

consent, and int:rviewed the research participants. The researchers informed the

pirttrcrpirrts l.nirtuterr rgspuf rses tllustue reuurueu. ane rnirt urey irte r'tee towrtuurirw

if they disagree.

ln this study, it is vital that the interviews yield data based solely on the

perspeuttve ut ure fJar ut-;i5-rattrs. io uu trris, a pr uuess ui*reu uraL;neung w.cb

employed. ln it, the researchers took into account their preconceived notions about

the phenomenon being investlgated, and put them in abeyance (Levitt, Wertz,
rviutuiuny, ivtur rr.rw, i{nu runlsrot(o. lu ro,t. opeuirruauy. rnu Iesearuner $ rnicue ij llsr,

(bracketing diary) of all their expected outcomes prior to doing the interviews, and

1U
agreed to set them aside. They also agreed to limit their probing questions to

urat tllcat,uil"

Data.Analysis

The data oathered were analvzed and described usino Colaizzi's method of

data analysis.

After the interviews, all of the audio recordings were transcribed. Transcripts

vvr:i * r*ra..i a;,,..i ii ,= iso*&r;i ,.,,o ii.ie; ,liil'r'".i ii re oig,,iiia..,,i. pai i:;i Li r,= sioic;rrr€riio ti reri.

are of direct relevance to the study. ln this stage, the researchers noted any
perspecti'res, thoughts or beliefs arising from their presuppositions about the

significant statements, the researchers formulated more general statements or

meanings. Meanings were then clustered into themes that are common across all the

irilrlsullp(S (lvlulluw, nuultquEZ. & nrilu, tv tc). tile t(Jt iltutdtuu ilteicilillg5 irilu utusttsts

of themes were then incorporated into an exhaustive description of the phenomenon.

This inclusive description was then reduced into a simple and dense statement that

uaPtulBS tlle Iufluulllelltal bUuur.ure ul rile pilErlutilenuil uiluut [ile stuuy [AUitlus,

Rivera, Rozzano, and Schoenhofer, 2016). Finally, a copy of the interview transcripts

and exhaustive descriptions were returned to the participants to find out whether it

uiipr.ures tnEtt expettettue (tvtut tuw et rfl., 4u ta).

Ethical Considerations

The oarticioants of the studv were identified throuoh a chain referral orocess.

This rneans that no discrimination happened based on demographics, and that the

researchers only followed the stated inclusion criteria. The cbjectives of the study were

*r'lrioitr*oj lu ii i* yerii,-,ipa*i.., err* i.i ,u*i -*,ro.,*i vv*is o*ogi,i. t=it,s -u;rru.rii,ry ii ,o

Z1
interyiews. The researchers also assured the participants that they are free to

wrti rutdw, ar:u urdt suurt wirrrorirwitr wlr nut ue uEru iruitrust ri tcttt. ilr auuruun. rne

researchers assured all participants tnat their rcjentitres wili be kept confidential, and

that all recordings, transcripts, and notes will be used only for the purpCIses of this

stuuy. Frrr.riry, ule rrirrrre ur rr re puuuu urgu sunuui r'tri rers rng utuuy wd; uunuuuicu rS

kept confidential because the study investigated a sensitive matter which might

damage the individuals involved and the institution itself.

22

-\