Effects of examination malpractice on Nigeria educational system

ABSTRACT

The educational system has for long had serious hit from examination malpractice and this has brought into focus the need to tackle this issues in order of finding ways to eradicate such problems. In the light of the above the study looked at examination malpractices in Apa local government area with the view to achieve the following objectives.

1. To find out the causes of examination malpractice in the local government area.

2. To find out the various means by which students use to cheat during examination

3.To investigate the effect of examination malpractice to both the students and educational system in general

4. To profound possible solutions, which could be use to eradicate the problem of examination malpractice.

To achieve these objectives the problem of examination malpractice. To achieve these objectives the survey method was used for data collection, we used questionnaire to elicit information from chose school students, the result of the data analysis showed that the main causes of examination malpractice is the strong desire to acquire a certificate well labeled and most parents encourage them on it and the method commonly used is spying and copying of answers to examination questions from fellow students and examination malpractices has brought disastrous effect on students and the educational system in Nigeria and finally, some measures to adopt in eradicating this problems is:

1. Punishing students or whoever is involved in the act.

2. Spacing of students in the hall

3. Higher payment and regular payment of salaries to supervisors and lecturers

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Examination malpractice is the major clog on the wheel of the educational system in Nigeria. Maduemezia (2003) reported that the first examination malpractice in Nigeria occurred in 1914 during the Senior Cambridge Local Examination papers which were leaked before the scheduled date of examination. Thus, examination malpractice which started at a low trend became more pronounced in 1970, involving persons other than the candidates. Since then examination malpractice became more advanced and sophisticated. However, 1977 marked a watershed in the history of examination malpractice as there was an outcry in Nigeria on the credibility of West African Examination Council (WAEC), which was the only organ saddled with the responsibility of conducting public examination in Nigeria. Consequently, a Judicial Commission of enquiry headed by Justice Sogbetun was set up to look into the affairs of the WAEC in relation to the problems of efficient conduct of examinations and prompt release of results. The report acknowledged the excessive workload of WAEC and recommended reduction of its workload by establishing other examination bodies to take over some of its examinations.

Examination is defined as a formal test of one's knowledge or ability in a particular subject especially by means of answering questions or practical exercises. Therefore, it is through examination that students are evaluated or tested to find out the quality of knowledge they have acquired within a specific period. Thus, examination could be either internal, external, oral, written or both. Continuous assessment scores, terminal, semester, annual or promotion examinations are examples of internal examinations, (Bernard, 1988). The external (public) examinations include Common Entrance Examinations for admission into Secondary Schools, School Certificate Examinations which are conducted by West African Examination Council (WAEC), National Examination Council (NECO). The Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB) now conduct the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME).

The National Teachers' Institute (NTI), National Business and Technical Examination Board (NABTEB) conduct examinations for teachers and technicians respectively. Although students' performance in examination may not be the true reflection of their ability, till date however, examination still remains the best tool for an objective assessment and evaluation of what a learner has achieved after a period of schooling/training. In fact, it is one of the most reliable indicators used to determine the extent of students' performance in a given training.

According to Awanbor (2004) therefore, defined examination malpractice as an illegal act committed by a single student or in collaboration with others like fellow students, parents, teachers, supervisors, invigilators, computer operators or secretarial staff and anybody or group of people before, during or after examination in order to obtain undeserved marks or grades. The study in this regard wishes to determine the effect of examination malpractice on the educational system

1.2 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

The education system in Nigeria has being under continuous revolution with several infrastructural development in most secondary and tertiary institution in Nigeria but the issue of examination malpractice has become a clog on the wheels of the growth and development of the educational system in Nigeria. Some of the causes of examination malpractice include; poor socio-economic background of students, peer group, the fear of failure factor and lack of confidence among students. Secondly there have been several studies on examination malpractice but not even a single study has been carried out on the effect of examination malpractice on the educational system in Nigeria; hence a gap in the literature.

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main aim of the research work is to examine the effect of examination malpractice on the education system in Nigeria. Other specific objectives of the study include:

1. To determine the effect of examination malpractices on the academic achievement of secondary school students in Nigeria

2. To determine the causes of examination malpractices in secondary schools and tertiary institutions in Nigeria

3. To investigate on the factors affecting student academic performance in secondary school and tertiary institutions

4. To proffer solution to above stated problems

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study came up with research questions so as to be able to ascertain the above stated objectives of the study. The research questions for the study are stated below as follows:

1. What is the effect of examination malpractices on the academic achievement of secondary school students in Nigeria?

5. What are the causes of examination malpractices in secondary schools and tertiary institutions in Nigeria?

2. What are the factors affecting student academic performance in both secondary school and tertiary institutions?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The study on the effect of examination malpractice on the educational system in Nigeria will be of immense benefit to the entire secondary schools in Nigeria, the state and the federal government and other researchers that wishes to carry out similar research on the above topic as the findings from the study will educate the government on the effect of examination malpractice on the educational system in Nigeria, the study will also reveal the causes and effect and solution to examination malpractice in the Nigeria educational system

1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY

The study on the effect of examination malpractice on the educational system in Nigeria is limited to secondary schools in Benue state. The study will cover the effect of examination malpractice on the educational system in Nigeria and also the causes and effect and solution to examination malpractice in the Nigeria educational system

1.7 OPERATIONAL DEFINITATION OF TERMS

Malpractices: It is the action of any person usually not in conformity with laid down rules and regulations whether internal or external examination.

Local Government Area: A group of towns and villages delimited as a result of the Local Government Edict No 13 of 1976.

Educators: As used here implies school principals, administrators and teachers sampled.

WAEC: West African Examinations Council

NECO: National Examination Council

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter gives an insight into various studies conducted by outstanding researchers, as well as explained terminologies with regards to examination malpractice in institutions in Nigeria. The chapter also gives a resume of the history and present status of the problem delineated by a concise review of previous studies into closely related problems.

2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A number of studies have been carried out as found in the literature. Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper (1992) interviewed some American economics undergraduates and concluded that many students cheat; that the brighter the student, the less likely it is that he or she has cheated; and that there is a higher probability attached to having cheated once if the student believes others to be cheating. Whereas Bunn, et al. covered only the cheating-once case, Mixon (1996) was interested in habitual cheating. His main conclusion was that the determinants of habitual cheating are much the same as those that relate to having cheated once.

Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper (1992), on one hand, and Mixon (1996) on the other hand, the analogy between cheating and crime (especially theft).Kerkvliet (1994), also using U.S. data, concludes that about one-third of students had cheated on at least one occasion. Nowell and Laufer (1997) found that non-tenure track faculty, large classes, poor performance in the class, and being employed all lead to more cheating. Kadane (1999) assessed whether data over eleven (11) examinations supported an accusation of copying multiple-choice answers. Finally, Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999) explored the determinants of source-specific cheating behaviour, including student characteristics and deterrent measures. They conclude that large alcohol consumption and low grade point average (GPA) increase the probability of cheating. Interestingly, they found that the further along a student was in his or her academic career, the more likely he or she was to cheat. The most striking result was the difference in student cheating between students who were taught by teaching assistants and those taught by faculty; students taught by teaching assistants were 32 percent more likely to cheat than students taught by faculty. In response to this problem, a great deal of research has been performed in education and psychology. Most studies deal with: Demographic and personal characteristics of cheats.

The situational factors involved in a student's decision about whether or not to cheat.

The contextual factors

The ethical factors

The reasons students often give for cheating

These five areas are vitally important in determining why cheating occurs.

2.2.1 WHY STUDENTS CHEAT IN EXAMINATION

Rooted in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, and the standard economic model of rational and selfish human behaviour (i.e., homo economics) is the belief that people carry out dishonest acts consciously and deliberatively by trading off the expected external benefits and costs of the dishonest act (Becker 1968; Allingham & Sandmo 1972). According to this perspective, people would consider three aspects as they pass a petrol station: the expected amount of cash they stand to gain from robbing the place, the probability of being caught, and the magnitude of punishment if caught in this act.

On the basis of these inputs, people reach a decision that maximizes their interests. Thus, according to this perspective, people are honest or dishonest only to the extent that the planned trade-off favours a particular action (Hechter 1990; Lewicki 1984). In addition to being central to economic theory, this external cost-benefit view plays an important role in the theory of crime and punishment, which forms the basis for most policy measures aimed at preventing dishonesty and guides punishments against those who exhibit dishonest behaviour.

In summary, this standard external cost-benefit perspective generates three hypotheses as to the forces that are expected to increase the frequency and magnitude of dishonesty:

The higher magnitude of external rewards,

The lower probability of being caught and

The lower magnitude of punishment.

2.2.2 Psychological Characteristics of Those Who Cheat

People are often torn between two competing motivations: gaining from cheating versus maintaining their positive self-concept as honest individuals (Aronson 1969; Harris, Mussen, & Rutherford, 1976). If they cheat, they could, for example, gain materially or financially, but at the expense of an honest self-concept. In contrast, if they take the high road, they might forego material or financial benefits but maintain their honest self-concept. This seems to be a win–lose situation; choosing one path involves sacrificing the other.

From a psychological perspective, and in addition to material or financial considerations, another set of important inputs to the decision of whether to be honest or not is based on internal rewards. Psychologists shows that as part of socialization, people internalize the norms and values of their society (Campbell 1964; Henrich ,et al. 2001), which serve as an internal benchmark against which a person compares his/her behaviour. Compliance with the internal values system provides positive rewards, whereas non-compliance leads to negative rewards (i.e. punishments).

Applied to the context of dishonesty, one major way in which the internal reward system exerts control over behaviour is by influencing people’s self-concept, that is, the way individuals view and perceive themselves (Aronson 1969; Baumeister 1998; Bem 1972). It has been shown that people typically value honesty (i.e., honesty is part of their internal reward system), that they have very strong beliefs in their own morality, and that they want to maintain this aspect of their self-concept (Griffin and Ross 1991; Sanitioso, Kunda, and Fong 1990; Greenwald 1980; Josephson Institute of Ethics 2004). This means that if a person fails to comply with her internal standards for honesty, she will have to negatively update her self-concept, which is aversive. On the other hand, if a person complies with her internal standards, she avoids such negative updating and maintains her positive self-view in terms of being an honest person. Interestingly, this perspective suggests that in order to maintain their positive self-concepts, individuals will comply with their internal standards even when doing so involves investments of effort or sacrificing financial gains

2.2.3 Demographic and Personal Characteristics of Those who Cheat

Extensive studies have found that no personal characteristics correlate well with cheating, that is, there are no people "born to cheat" (Mcabe& Trevino, 1997). Indeed, one experiment found that there was no relationship between how a student performed on a morality test and his likelihood of cheating that is, students at a pre-conventional stage of morality are as likely to cheat as those at a post-conventional stage (West, Ravenscroft &Shrader, 2004). Demographic variables are also generally not strongly correlated with cheating, with a few minor exceptions. While men cheated slightly more often than women in the 1960s, that gap has disappeared in recent years (Mcabe& Trevino, 1997); they further observe that another demographic variable that affects cheating behaviour is academic achievement, in that students who perform poorly tend to cheat more than students who perform well. For instance, low grades and low Scholastic Assessment Test, (SAT) scores have a correlation with high levels of cheating (Carroll, 1992) and in the same study it is found that parental education shows a weak but positive correlation with cheating; students whose parents received college degrees are slightly more likely to cheat than students whose parents did not attend college. One of the strongest demographic correlations with academic misconduct in the Nigeria is with language. Students who speak English as a second language have been shown to commit academic dishonesty more and are more likely to be caught than native speakers, since they will often not want to rewrite sources in their own words, fearing that the meaning of the sentence will be lost through poor paraphrasing skills.

Hartshorne and May (1928) states that students who associated with cheats were more likely to cheat than were students who associated with none cheats. Thus, the degree of closeness to others in the class seems to affect cheating behaviour. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) inferred that cheats were more neurotic than non-cheats. Brownell (1928) supports their findings and added that cheats were more extraverted as well. Keehn (1956), states that cheating should be "more related to either extraversion alone or to extraversion and neuroticism than to neuroticism alone". His research found more cheating among students scoring high on both extraversion and neuroticism scales, but he said that it was impossible to find a relationship between cheating and extraversion alone because most of his subjects who scored high on the extraversion scale also scored high on the neuroticism scale. In a 1967 study White, Zielonka, and Gaier reported that cheaters were more "tense, irritable, anxious, and in turmoil" than none cheaters.

Other investigators have concerned themselves with a diversity of other behavioural characteristics and their relationship to cheating. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) found cheating more common among students who were less self-sufficient and who exerted little effort in their studies. Boodish (1962) notes that cheat were often good, but overambitious, students. Vitro (1971) found that cheats generally had parents who punished them severely or not at all. Thus, his results suggest that a moderate degree of discipline results in children who internalize moral values and are thus honest in their school work. Black (1962) states that there were no significant differences in the cheating behaviour of students who attended class regularly and those who frequently cut class. Hartshorne and May (1928) found a relationship between age and cheating with older students cheating slightly more often, although Black (1962) found no significant differences in various age groups. Drake (1941) published some findings suggesting that interest in a course content influenced cheating behaviour. In his study 20% of the cheats and 90% of the non-cheats enrolled in further courses in the department in which they had cheated. He added that lack of success may have also accounted for part of the difference. Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) found a definite relationship between lack of meaningfulness of courses and cheating. Zastrow (1970), in contrast to all these findings, found no significant personal differences in cheating and non-cheating students. In most cases though, these research studies do suggest that there are differences in the personal and behavioural characteristics of those who cheat and those who do not cheat.

2.2.4 Situational Factors in the School

Several investigators have determined that particular characteristics of a situation have a great influence on whether or not a student cheats. McQueen (1957) reported that situational factors were a very important determinant of cheating. Rogosin (1951) interpreted some of the studies in the area to mean that the situation was more important than behavioural characteristics as a determinant of whether or not cheating occurred. Other researchers, though, have merely identified characteristics of a situation that influence cheating without making any judgments about the relative influence of personal or situational characteristics.

The moral climate of the school influences the amount of cheating. Steiner (1930) indicated that the moral tone of the school can have a positive effect on the characters of students as well as on the incidence of cheating in the school. Atkins and Atkins (1936) found that a good emotional tone in the classroom and instruction about not cheating before taking a test and great difficulty in cheating led to less cheating. Thus, the tone of the classroom seems to have an influence. In a related study, Fischer (1970) examined five classroom situations in an attempt to determine when students would be most likely to cheat. The five conditions were:

 A "control" condition in which students were given instructions for the test,

 An "informative appeal to honesty" condition in which students were given the instructions and were also told that their being honest on the test was important in providing results that could be used in helping the teacher assess her teaching techniques,

 A "public affirmation of value" condition in which a pretest discussion was held about cheating and the students were asked to state why they would not cheat on the upcoming test,

 A "value-relevant threat of punishment" condition in which students were told prior to the examination that if they were caught cheating they would have to write fifty times a sentence about cheating and

 A "non-value-relevant threat of punishment" condition in which students were told that their punishment for cheating would be writing numbers repeatedly.

Under the first two conditions, Fischer reported that approximately two-thirds of the control and three-fourths of the informative appeal groups cheated. The incidence of cheating was lower in the other three situations, but no significant differences in incidence of cheating were found between the three; these were significantly lower than the second group. Thus, punishment conditions appear equally as effective as non- punishment conditions in their influence on cheating behaviour. It would seem that these researchers have shown, in different ways, that cheating is influenced by the moral climate of the school.

The chances of success in cheating were another situational determinant that some researchers dealt with. The literature seems to indicate that students are less likely to cheat if the chances are greater that they may get caught. Vitro and Schoer (1972) found that the highest incidence of cheating occurred among students who were:

unlikely to do well on the test;

who were unlikely to get caught;

And to whom the particular test was very important.

Ludeman (1938) lent support to the findings of likelihood of success as a determinant when he reported that one of the two major reasons that students cheated was the fact that they had seen others get away with it. Atkins and Atkins (1936) reported that "the amount of individual dishonesty increased with the ease of dishonesty". Uhlig and Howes (1967) found that a large percentage of college students would cheat even in a no pressure situation, if the opportunity was present. On the other hand Williams (1969) reported that "cheating does not increase with the number of opportunities". Nevertheless, the literature indicates the likelihood of success as an important determinant of cheating behaviour.

Personality and teaching style of the teacher have been found to be other situational determinants. Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) found that poor teachers produced more students cheating. Shirk and Hoffman (1961) theorized that a teacher who was very authoritarian, indicating to the students that he knew all the answers, that they were inferior beings, and that the grades he gave were an adequate and accurate measure of the students' intelligence frequently led students to cheat more. Weldon (1966) underscored this argument with her discussion of the relationships between amount of cheating and the democratic or totalitarian characteristics of teachers. She suggested that students cheated much less frequently when they were freer to voice their opinions about their work and were not tested by totalitarian procedures. According to Montor (1971), students felt that negative attitude of teachers towards inquisitive students was a factor in encouraging some students to cheat. In a related study, Johnson and Klores (1968) found that a dissatisfying classroom situation was judged by students as producing a greater amount of cheating. Woods (1957) mentioned teachers giving work that was too difficult and teachers who were too busy as factors that might contribute to cheating. Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) suggested the giving of excessively difficult tests by a teacher as a situation which may increase cheating. Excessively difficult tests may lead to feelings of hopelessness in students. Finally, the Montor, (1971) and Whitley (1998) reported that some students saw a teacher's grading on a curve as an inducement to cheating because under such a grading system poor students would have to cheat or would be doomed to get a low grade. Thus, there seems to be a relationship between teaching style and the amount of cheating that occurs.

2.2.5 Contextual Factors

Academic misconduct is more easily traced to the academic and social environment of the student than to his or her background. These contextual factors can be as broad as the social milieu at school to as narrow as what instructions a teacher gives before an exam.

Contextual factors that individual teachers can affect, often makes the least difference on cheating behaviour. A study found that increasing the distance between students taking an exam has little effect on cheating, and that threatening students before an exam with expulsion if they cheat actually promotes cheating behaviour (Kerkvliet and Sigmund,1999). Indeed, increased exam invigilation and other methods of detecting cheating in the classroom are largely ineffective. As teachers invent more elaborate methods of deterring cheating, students invent even more elaborate methods of cheating (sometimes even treating it as a game). Increased punishment for academic misconduct also has little correlation with cheating behaviour. It has been found that students with markedly different perceptions of what the severity of the punishment for cheating were all equally likely to cheat, probably indicating that they thought that increased penalties were immaterial since their cheating would never be discovered (Bunn, Caudill and Gropper, 1992).

Teachers can, however, accidentally promote cheating behaviour. A study found a correlation between how harsh or unfair a teacher is perceived and academic misconduct, since students see cheating as a way of getting back at the teacher ( Bushway and Nash, 1977).

The most important contextual causes of academic misconduct are often out of individual teachers' hands. One very important factor is time management. One survey reported two-thirds of teachers believed that poor time management was the principal cause of cheating (Carroll, 2002).

Another important cause of academic misconduct is the contextual factor of an environment of peer disapproval of cheating, that is, peer pressure. Psychologists note that all people tend to follow the norms of their peer group, which would include norms about academic dishonesty (Power, Higgins and Kohlberg, 1989). Thus, students who believe that their peers disapprove of cheating are less likely to cheat. Indeed, multiple studies show that the most decisive factor in a student's decision to cheat is his perception of his peers' relationship with academic dishonesty (Mcabe and Trevino, 2002). Peer pressure works both ways, as a study found that there is a 41% increase in the probability of a student cheating if he/she has seen someone else cheat (Bunn Caudill and Gropper, 1992). However, even if most students strongly disapprove of cheating, there has to be a community in order for those norms to be enforced via peer pressure. For instance, larger schools, which usually have much higher cheating rates than small schools, tend to have a weaker community, being more split up into different peer groups that exert little social pressure on each other (Bowers, 1964).

2.2.6 Ethical Factors

No matter what the demographic or contextual influences are on a student who decides to engage in cheating behaviour, before he/she can cheat, he/she must overcome his/her own conscience. This depends both on how strongly someone disapproves of academic dishonesty and what types of justifications the student uses to escape a sense of guilt. For instance, students who personally do not have a moral problem with academic misconduct can cheat guilt-free. However, while many students have been taught and have internalized that academic dishonesty is wrong, it has been shown that on average a third of students who strongly disapprove of cheating have in fact cheated (Bowers, 1964). People who cheat despite personal disapproval of cheating engage in something called "neutralization", in which a student rationalizes the cheating as being acceptable due to certain mitigating circumstances (Bernadi, et al, 2004). According to psychologists of deviant behaviour, people who engage in neutralization support the societal norm in question, but "conjure up" reasons why they are allowed to violate that norm in a particular case (Smith, Davy and Easterling, 2004). Neutralization is not a simple case of ex-post facto rationalization, but is rather a more comprehensive affair, occurring before, during, and after the act of cheating (LaBeff, et al., 1990). Researchers have found four major types of neutralization of academic dishonesty, which they categorize by type of justification:

Denial of responsibility - that is, the accusation that others are to blame or that something forced the student to cheat

Condemnation of condemner - that is, that the teachers are hypocrites or brought it on themselves.

The appeal to higher loyalties - where the student thinks his/her responsibility to some other entity, usually his/her peers, is more important than doing what he/she knows to be morally right.

Denial of injury - that nobody is worse off for the cheating.

2.3.7 Reasons Given for Cheating

Related to the situational influences as determinants of cheating are the reasons students give for their dishonesty in the classroom. In the relevant literature, investigators have cited numerous reasons for cheating. Concern about grades was most frequently mentioned. Drake (1941), Ludeman (1938), Montor (1971), Schab (1969), Smith, Ryan, and Diggins (1972), Trabue (1962), and Woods (1957) all states that pressure to get grades to gain admittance to college or pressure to maintain their existing average caused many students to cheat. Related to all these studies are the findings of Cornehlsen (1965), whose results showed that any kind of pressure from administrators, teachers, and/or parents frequently influenced cheating. Boodish (1962), Montor (1971), Woods (1957), and Uhlig and Howes (1967) reported on the perceived relationship of morality and cheating. Boodish indicated that one type of cheat could not see any relationship between cheating and morality. Montor stated that students cheated because they did not understand why it was wrong, whereas Woods claimed, on the basis of his findings, that "a large amount of cheating occurs where students are ignorant of or indifferent to the immediate and ultimate consequences" of their behaviour. Uhlig and Howes suggest that some students were confused about what is considered to be dishonest behaviour. Thus, their research seems to indicate that cheating is more frequent when students do not understand the relationship of cheating and morality.

Other reasons for cheating reported in the literature are found in the studies of Cornehlsen (1965), Woods (1957), and Zastrow (1970). Cornehlsen studied 200 high school seniors and found that "33% of the girls and 55% of the boys felt that cheating was justified when success or survival was in jeopardy". Woods similarly reported fear of failure as a reason. Zastrow reported "handicaps," such as extracurricular activities or a job, and being unprepared for a test as reasons given by some students. It is obvious that there are numerous reasons for cheating, a fact which may explain why cheating is so widespread. In Nigeria, some of the reasons cited by the ministerial committee appointed to investigate the WAEC irregularities in the year 2000 (Ambassador Kisilu Report) included:

 Stiff Competition This is as a result of too many people chasing too few opportunities either for employment, higher education or training.

 Poor preparation Teachers who have not done their work well and who fear that their failure will be revealed by the poor performance of their students may look for opportunities to assist their students during the examinations. On the other hand, students who have not prepared well for the examinations may be tempted to cheat in order to perform well during the examinations.

 Poor Supervision /Invigilation The main objective of invigilation during examinations is to prevent cheating. If invigilation is poor or lax or the people involved lack integrity, then cheating may occur.

 Pressure to "Pass" Examinations An obvious reason why many candidates cheat in examinations is due to the pressure to perform well in examinations. The pressure could stem from the candidates own desire to excel, or to please other significant people like parents, guardians, mentors, friends, peers etc. When this pressure to pass examinations is too high, it generates a consequent desire to succeed by any means - orthodox or unorthodox.

 Inadequate Facilities in Examination Centre Inadequate facilities, for example: classrooms, laboratories, halls, chairs, desks, working tables and equipment in some examination centres may enable cheating to occur. Lack of adequate space in examination rooms leads candidates to sit close to one another which can easily lead to copying from each other. Situations where candidates sit for their examination in shifts especially in science practicals can make control and supervision of candidates very challenging. If supervision of candidates in such situations is lax or ineffective, examination malpractices can occur.

2.3 SUMMARY

2.3.1 EFFECTS OF CHEATING IN EXAMINATIONS

2.3.1.1 Effects on the Student

Cheating in academia has a host of effects on students, on teachers, on individual schools, and on the educational system itself. For instance, students who engage in neutralization to justify cheating, even once, are more likely to engage in cheating in the future, potentially putting them on a road to a life of dishonesty (Smith, Davy and Easterling, 2004). One study found that students who are dishonest in class are more likely to engage in fraud and theft on the job when they enter the workplace (Nonis and Swift, 2001). Students are also negatively affected by academic dishonesty after graduation. Moreover, a case of cheating often will cause emotional distress to faculty members, many considering it to be a personal slight against them or a violation of their trust.

2.3.1.2 Effects on the Institutions

Academic misconduct can also have an effect on an institution’s reputation, one of the most important assets of any school. An institution plagued by cheating scandals may become less attractive to potential donors and students and especially prospective employers. Alternately, schools with low levels of academic dishonesty can use their reputation to attract students and employers. Ultimately, academic dishonesty undermines the academic world. It interferes with the basic mission of education, the transfer of knowledge, by allowing students to get by without having to master the knowledge (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 1998).

Furthermore, academic dishonesty creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to the learning process, which affects honest students as well (Bowers, 1964). When honest students see cheats escape detection, it can discourage student morale, as they see the rewards for their work cheapened. Cheating also undermines academia when students steal ideas. Ideas are a professional author's "capital and identity", and if a person's ideas are stolen, it retards the pursuit of knowledge (Mallon, 2004).

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter covers the description and discussion on the various techniques and procedures used in the study to collect and analyze the data as it is deemed appropriate.

It is organized under the following sub-headings:

· Research Design

· Area of the Study

· Population of the study

· Sample and Sampling Technique

· Instrument of Data Collection

· Validation of the Instrument

· Reliability of the Instrument

· Method of Data Collection

· Method of Data Analysis

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

According to Asmakurdi (2009), research designs are often referred to as the structuring of investigation aimed at identifying variables and their relationships to one another. In this study, questionnaire serves as useful guide to the effort of generating data for this study. The questionnaire is a survey method and it is an exploratory research.

3.3 AREA OF THE STUDY

The study will be conducted in Benue State, Nigeria. Benue State is a state in the mid-belt region of Nigeria with a population of about 4,253,641 in 2006 census. It is inhabited predominantly by the Tiv and Idoma peoples, who speak the Tiv language and Idoma language respectively.

Benue is located in the central North of Nigeria; its inhabitants are predominantly farmers with little or no industry. The state is bounded in north by Nasarawa state, in the west by Kogi and Enugu states, in the south Crossriver state, and in the east by Taraba and Kaduna states. The people of Benue produce crops like yam in quantum, rice, guinea-corn, cassava, millet, maize, etc.

3.4 POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The target population for this study consists of secondary school teachers in Makurdi, Benue State. The number of population adopted for this study comprises all the members of staff the totaled to staff is estimated for the study. The rationale behind restricting the population to the members is to enhance effective participation of all the staff.

3.5 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

Sample or sampling is the fractional unit of the universe or population selected for the study or observation which conclusions are drawn. It serve as the true representative of the population as regard to conclusion drawn about it.

Therefore, from the above population, a sample size of the study is 50. The sample random technique is used to choose the staff that represented the subject of the study. The need for accepting this sample size rest on the premises that researcher carries out the study by studying on the other entire population.

3.6 INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION

These are the tools or methods used in getting data from respondents. In this study, questionnaires and interview are research instruments used. Questionnaire is the main research instrument used for the study to gather necessary data from the sample respondents. The questionnaire is structured type and provides answers to the research questions and hypotheses therein.

This instrument is divided and limited into two sections; Section A and B. Section A deals with the personal data of the respondents while Section B contains research statement postulated in line with the research question and hypothesis in chapter one. Options or alternatives are provided for each respondent to pick or tick one of the options.

3.7 VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT

Reliability means the accuracy of precision of a measuring instrument while validity means the extent to which the research instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. In order to determine the reliability and validity of the study, the test-retest method was used. To have a valid instrument, the questions in the questionnaire will be free from ambiguity (i.e the questions will not be too complex). To have reliable instrument, the questionnaire will be followed with interview of sample of respondents to know their view on the subject.

3.8 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

The researcher used questionnaires and interview to collect his data for the research. 200 questionnaires were sent out and 160 were collected immediately. Interviews were also conducted to get more fist hand information on the research. Structured interview were used.

3.9 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS

Having gathered the data through the administration of questionnaire, the collected data will be coded, tabulated, and analyzed according to the research question and hypothesis.

In order to analyze the data collected effectively and efficiently for easy management and accuracy, the simple percentage method was the analytical tools used for this research project and a sample size of fifty (50) will be represented by 100% for easy analysis of the responses.

Also, Pearson correlation method will be used in the research work in testing of hypothesis so as to predict what the relationship between two variables should be. It is used in drawing and reaching conclusion by collecting the observed values from the questionnaire administered to respondents, testing the degree of freedom and carrying out a decision in determining the critical value of the hypothesis.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is devoted to the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data gathered in the course of this study. The data are based on the number of copies of the questionnaire completed and returned by the respondents. The data are presented in tables and the analysis is done using the Pearson correlation method.

4.1 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

The data presented below were gathered during field work:

BIO DATA OF RESPONDENTS

Table 1 gender of respondents
			Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	male	30	60.0	60.0	60.0
	female	20	40.0	40.0	100.0
	Total	50	100.0	100.0