Acceso usuarios
Presentamos los resultados de una investigación en la que describimos el fenómeno del fraude académico en la Universidad de los Andes e identificamos factores asociados con su ocurrencia. Encuestamos a 1.194 estudiantes de pregrado con un instrumento que les pide identificar conductas fraudulentas, calificar su nivel de gravedad, identificar qué fraudes han cometido, calificar razones para cometer fraude o no hacerlo y evaluar diversos argumentos frente a dos dilemas morales. El 94% de los estudiantes admitió haber realizado por lo menos un fraude en la universidad. Encontramos diferencias entre facultades en cuanto a la frecuencia y los tipos de fraude. Dentro de las razones para cometer un fraude, la carga académica y las características de las formas de evaluación tienen especial relevancia. Aunque el dar importancia a razones heterónomas para no hacer fraude se relaciona con un mayor número de fraudes admitidos y asignar importancia a razones autónomas con menos, un análisis más detallado de la relación entre el fraude y el desarrollo moral no arrojó resultados concluyentes. Los resultados obtenidos nos llevan a pensar que el problema es muy grave de lo considerado previamente y que debe ser abordado, entre otras formas, desde un punto de vista pedagógico. Proponemos algunas ideas al respecto.
In this article we present the results of a research project in which we describe academic cheating at Universidad de los Andes and identify possible factors associated with the students' decision to cheat or not to do it. The participants were 1.194 undergraduate students who answered a survey in which they identified cheating behaviors, rated them according to how serious they considered them, admitted types of cheating committed, rated reasons that would make them cheat or stop them from doing it and evaluate different arguments related to two moral dilemmas. Ninety four percent of students admitted having committed at least one type of cheating.We found differences in types and frequencies of cheating across academic departments. Academic overload and specific types of evaluation were among the reasons most commonly mentioned for cheating. While those who rated highly heteronomic arguments were more prone to cheating, those who rated highly autonomic arguments were more prone to not cheating. However, a closer look at the relation between cheating and moral development did not lead to definite conclusions. The results made us realized that it is a severe problem that needs to be addressed, among other approaches, from a pedagogical perspective.We suggest some ideas about it.
