 |
|
Academic Integrity |
|
|
|
Academic Integrity |
|
Follow the links on the left to be taken to other sections of the CCSU research initiative. Follow the links above or below to return to the Academic Integrity Home Page Return to the CCSU Academic Misconduct Research Home Research into college-student academic misconduct has investigated the prevalence of the problem; individual difference variables associated with students who cheat and those who do not; situational factors that influence student cheating; and approaches to preventing academic cheating (see McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997; McCabe, Trevino, Klebe, & Butterfield, 2001; Whitley, 1998). All of these areas of investigation are both complex and controversial. Determining the prevalence of student academic misconduct and whether, as has been frequently claimed in the popular press (e.g., Donahue & Heard, 1997; Kleiner & Lord, 1999; “Your cheatin’ heart,” 1992), that this prevalence has been increasing is particularly challenging (Brown & Emmett, 2001; Spiller & Crown, 1995). Whitley (1998) reviewed 46 studies conducted between 1970 and 1996 that provided prevalence estimates of various student cheating behaviors. Estimates of student cheating in these studies ranged from 3% to 98%. Cole and McCabe (1996) and Brown and Emmett (2001) point out the difficulty of making comparisons that are meaningful from different studies conducted over time. Problems include the measurement of different academic misconduct behaviors, behaviors measured over different periods of time, and the use of different student academic misconduct and class sizes. Some authors (Nelson & Schaefer, 1986; Karlins, Michaels, & Podlogar, 1988) suggest that results are influenced by the measurement method used. These authors postulate that questionnaires return higher levels of cheating than observational methods due to a tendency of students to report higher levels of cheating than actually exist. Where those researching education agree is that student academic misconduct, whether fabrication of data, presenting the material of another as ones own, or cheating on exams, is detrimental to the educational enterprise whenever, or however often, it occurs. Academic cheating cheats the cheater out of an opportunity to learn. It also is harmful to the students who make the effort to do their academic work honestly. When undetected or unaddressed student academic misconduct rewards cheaters with credit for work they did not do and causes a relative reduction in the value of the efforts of those who work with integrity. Student academic misconduct works against the raison d’être of educational institutions. Undetected and/or unaddressed student academic misconduct reinforces behavior detrimental to the educational enterprise and undermines the positive behaviors educational institutions struggle to develop in their students. As indicated above, college-student academic misconduct refers to a variety of student behaviors. Brown and Emmett (2001) in an analysis of 31 academic dishonesty studies published between 1966 and 1999 reported that the number of academic practices included in the studies ranged from 1 to 36. According to research conducted by Ferrell and Daniel (1995), the list of academic misconduct behaviors compiled by Fass (1990) is one of the most comprehensive. It includes: (a) cheating during examinations, (b) inappropriate use of sources on papers and projects, (c) inappropriate use of writing assistance and tutoring, (d) dishonest collecting and reporting of data, (e) unethical use of academic resources, (f) tampering with the work of others, (g) questionable practices regarding the use of computers, (h) allowing misuse of one’s academic work by others, and (i) disregard of academic regulations. Student academic misconduct behaviors are, of course, affected by a number of variables (Jordan, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997; Pulvers & Diekhoff, 1999; Whitley, 1998). Research into these behaviors has investigated individual student characteristics, student attitudes toward cheating, individual student personality variables, social influences, and situational factors (e.g., stress, classroom, institutional, and instructor variables) that affect the decision to cheat or not to cheat (Whitley, 1998). Making progress toward the amelioration of the problem has been an important aspect of this research. The study of individual differences of college-student cheaters helps in understanding individual predispositions to cheat. These findings assist in determining individuals who are at risk for cheating so that programs can be developed to help them (Whitley, 1998). Overall, however, what seems to work the best in deterring college-student academic misconduct is the creation of a climate of academic integrity on the campus (McCabe & Drinan, 1999). In the creation of this environment of academic integrity individual difference variables have little importance. The understanding of social and situational factors helps the most (McCabe and Trevino, 1993). Existing research indicates that there is not one factor that by itself explains why students cheat (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Nor is there any one preventive measure that by itself can deter student academic misconduct. The most effective approaches are multi-pronged. Schools that have honor codes, in general, have rates of student academic misconduct that are less than schools without these codes (McCabe and Trevino, 1993). However, in their comparative study of colleges and universities with and without honor codes, McCabe and Trevino (1993) observed that it is not the simple existence of an honor code that is responsible for lower rates of student academic misconduct at honor code schools. An honor code can be just words on paper. What deters academic misconduct is the creation of an environment of academic integrity where students perceive that cheating is not socially acceptable. McCabe and Trevino (1993) reported that one of the lowest rates of self-reported academic dishonesty was found at a non-honor code school that was nonetheless highly committed to academic honor. Conversely, one of the higher incidences of student academic misconduct was found at an institution with a long-standing honor code that was more recently receiving inadequate attention. Two characteristics of institutions of higher education in the United States and elsewhere are the loose structure of academic administration and the relative autonomy of instructors (Williams, Gore, Brooks, & Lostoski, 1987). The tradition of loose administrative oversight and instructor autonomy reflects the priority placed on academic freedom in higher education. With limited control over faculty members, however, effective institutional change requires faculty cooperation. Research has indicated a variety of factors that influence student cheating that are directly related to faculty behavior (Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Kerkvliet & Sigmund, 1999; Pulvers & Diekhoff, 1999; Saunders, 1993; Stearns, 2001). Kerkvliet and Sigmund analyzed the results of 551 surveys of student test cheating given to students at two public universities in 12 separate classes taught by seven different instructors in the 1993-1994 academic year. Of nine variables found to be strongly correlated to student cheating on tests, three of these were under the direct control of instructors. Number of tests given was positively correlated to the amount of reported cheating. The number of versions of the examination and providing a warning immediately before the test were negatively correlated to the amount of reported cheating. Kerkvliet and Sigmund further demonstrated that rates of reported cheating varied widely by class from a probability of .32 in the worst case to a least probability of .002. Variations in cheating probability corresponded with the existence or absence of variables that promoted or deterred academic misconduct. In addition, Stearns provides evidence that students cheat less when they feel a stronger connection with the instructor. Instructors are on the front lines of the struggle to promote student academic integrity. From reviewing with students their own academic misconduct polity to preparing and policing assignments and examinations to vigilantly detecting and punishing/reporting academic misconduct, instructors are vital to the process of deterring student academic misconduct. In his review of studies of college-student academic misconduct, Whitley (1998) found past cheating to be among the strongest predictors of future cheating. This suggests the special importance of instructors reporting incidents of student academic misconduct to the administration so that the administration can keep track of repeat offenders. Yet many faculty members, for a variety of reasons, choose not to pursue cases of academic misconduct beyond the application of their own penalties, if even that (Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, & Washburn, 1998; Jendrek, 1989; Schneider, 1999; Simon et al., 2003). Understanding what faculty members think about student academic misconduct and about administrative efforts to deter or deal with it is important in order to facilitate faculty cooperation in addressing the problem. Nevertheless, investigation of faculty perspectives on student cheating has received limited attention (McCabe, 1993) and has rarely served as the focus of research into student academic misconduct (Jendrek, 1989). Go to the CCSU Student and Faculty Surveys Return to the CCSU Academic Misconduct Research Home
|
||||
|
||||