Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)


As an alternative to disciplinary suspension, Louisiana State University implemented an educational intervention program for students found guilty of charges of academic dishonesty as defined by the Code of Student Conduct. The purpose of this study was fourfold: (a) to describe the characteristics of 68 cheaters who participated in the intervention programs over four different semesters, (b) to describe the psychosocial and environmental factors that were perceived by identified students as influencing their decisions to cheat, (c) to determine the extent of change in selected psychological measurements of cheaters upon completion of the program, and (d) to describe cheaters' summative evaluation responses to the program. The educational intervention program was a twelve-week course that met for a two-hour period weekly and was repeated each semester. The curriculum, which employed a combination of group counseling and lecture-discussion methodologies, included the topics of values, ethical reasoning, locus of control, problem-solving, study skills, time management, and procrastination. Single-sample chi-square tests revealed that among the cheaters there were significantly more males, students between the ages of 20-23, sophomores through seniors, business and engineering majors, fraternity/sorority members, and international students than were typical of the undergraduate population. Most subgroups of cheaters had lower grade-point averages than relative groups of undergraduates. Psychosocial factors perceived by cheaters to influence cheating differed according to subgroups, but environmental influences were similar for all cheaters. Cheaters' characteristics were described according to the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979), I-E Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1976), Personal Orientation Inventory (Shostrum, 1974), Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973), Student Developmental Task Inventory (Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1979), and the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (Brown & Holtzman, 1964). At the conclusion of the program, the inner directed subscore on the Personal Orientation Inventory was observed to increase significantly for males and the total group. Other pre-posttest differences were not significant. Cheaters evaluated the program positively and recommended its continuance to enhance other students' development.