Institutional Policies and Faculty Perceptions of ...

Educational Practice and Theory

Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

© 2012 James Nicholas Publishers

pp. 61-79

Institutional Policies and Faculty Perceptions of Student Academic Dishonesty Yehuda Peled Western Galilee College Casimir C. Barczyk Purdue University Miriam Sarid Western Galilee College Abstract An e-mail survey of 373 faculty members at six colleges and universities in the United States, Israel, and Germany revealed that student academic dishonesty (AD) is problematic at their institutions. Professors followed institutional policy but exercised discretion in handling specific cases of AD. They also engaged in varying levels of discussion, written communication, and actions as part of the hidden curriculum designed to address the problem of student dishonesty. Eleven scenarios of AD were posed and faculty indicated the sanction they thought was appropriate for the involved student. Repeat offenders were given the most punitive sanctions. Factor analysis revealed that the scenarios had three underlying constructs, one of which related to the use of data from another student or class. On this factor faculty from the U.S. and Germany had more tolerant attitudes toward AD, sanctioning students less severely, than those from Israel. Policy implications of these findings are addressed. Keywords: academic dishonesty, faculty, higher education, plagiarism, sanctions, university students

At some point in one’s teaching career, faculty members will face the problem of student academic dishonesty (AD). While there is no single definition of AD, Kibler (1993) views it as ‘forms of cheating and pla-

ISSN 1323-577X (print) / 2201-0599 (online) doi:10.7459/ept/34.2.05

62


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

giarism that involve students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work that is not their own’ (p. 253). In this definition students are clearly singled out perpetrators. They are the ones blamed and punished for their dishonorable conduct. For Parameswaran (2007) student dishonesty is a privileged crime because the student culprit is the only one viewed as a criminal. Faculty members who are indifferent to AD or who aid it by the way they design their courses or structure their examinations are rarely held responsible. Research shows that college faculty tend to invest little effort into detecting and holding students accountable for acts of AD, and when they do, it is done informally and lightly (Schneider, 1999; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001a). Because the problem of AD is ubiquitous, there are practical reasons to study it from both student and faculty perspectives. Coalter, et al., (2007) assert that faculty input is an important element in the overall context of AD, which requires an understanding of the related concept of academic integrity. According to Zoll (1996), academic integrity is ‘the value of independent and honest scholarship in educational endeavours’ (p. 7), which requires all constituents to be honest in their teaching and learning undertakings. Coalter, et al., (2007) provide insights into why faculty members might be indifferent to complying with institutional policies on dishonesty, in some cases taking no action when confronted with instances of student AD. Rising Incidence of Student Academic Dishonesty While college level AD is alarmingly high, there appears to be little evidence that the problem, if left unabated, will resolve itself any time soon. In an early study, Bowers (1964) surveyed approximately 5000 college students from 99 campuses and found that 82% of them admitted to one or more instances of cheating on written assignments. Almost 30 years later, McCabe and Trevino (1993) surveyed 6000 students at 31 U.S. colleges and found that 67% of them admitted to cheating at least once in their academic careers. In a survey by Dick et al., (2002), 66% of the respondents indicated that student cheating is on the rise, 30% indicated that it is about the same as in the past, and 4% thought that cheating is declining. Reacting to these statistics, Khoury, et al., (2007) asserted that cheating is rising and the problem is definitely widespread. They suggested that the problem would likely get worse given the improvements in technology, increases in students completing online courses, and growth in the number of students from other cultures attending classes.

Peled, Barczyk & Sarid, Faculty Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty

63

Role of Faculty in Managing Student Academic Dishonesty It is believed that faculty in higher education play a critical role in molding their students’ perceptions, behaviours, and work ethic. This makes it difficult to explain why some faculty members seem to ignore dishonest actions or design their courses in ways that facilitate such actions. The intensity and prevalence of student dishonesty – coupled with the fact that faculty are not innocent bystanders in its continued occurrence – provide the basis for this study. Researchers assert that cheating is strongly correlated to student perceptions of faculty attitudes. If they perceive that their instructors pay attention and respond appropriately to dishonesty by complying with institutional policy, students are less likely to cheat (Jendrek, 1989; Hall, 1996; Wajda-Johnston et al., 2001; Zelna & Bresciani, 2004; Lim & Coalter, 2006). The purpose of this paper is to examine four research questions related to the seriousness of the AD problem, the internal policies and procedures to manage this problem, the mechanisms faculty use to communicate and implement AD policies, and whether faculty members use discretion in the way they sanction dishonest students. The paper is organized into four sections, beginning with a review of the literature. The second describes the survey methodology. The third summarizes the statistical results related to the four research questions, one of which explores sanctions associated with 11 scenarios of AD. The fourth section discusses the survey findings and limitations. Literature Review and Development of Research Questions Seriousness of the Problem In his research involving faculty response to AD, Burke examined the unique culture of a multi-campus two-year college system (1997). Using the responses from a survey of 742 faculty members, he found that they (1) did not perceive AD to be a serious problem; (2) believed that they were familiar with their institution’s policies on AD and were not concerned with their implementation; (3) believed that they had a major role in their students’ values education; and (4) did not regularly follow institutional policy in cases involving AD, but rather, handled them on an ad-hoc basis. Burke (1997) also found that 86% of the faculty suspected and 65% were certain of AD in their classrooms. Interestingly, he observes that while 86% of the faculty suspected AD in their classrooms, they did not perceive it to be a major problem. Perhaps faculty perceived AD as a problem, but not a “major” or “serious” problem. The organizational philosophy and culture, which likely affects faculty perceptions and expectations for success, is different between two and four year institutions (Klein & Takeda-Tinker, 2009). A

64


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

question could be raised as to whether the faculty at four-year institutions, because of the increased rigor associated with the courses they teach and their level of academic training, would perceive AD differently from their counterparts at two-year colleges, as studied by Burke (1997). According to Schneider (1999), university faculty complain about students who cheat and plagiarize, but many do nothing or very little about it. A relatively small number of faculty members pursue the campus judicial process against student offenders, finding the formal process overly time-consuming. This is in accord with Burke’s (1997) research and consistent with McCabe & Trevino (1993) who found that faculty preferred to handle dishonesty directly with the student offender, rather than through official institutional procedures. The first question to be addressed is: Do faculty members at four-year colleges and universities perceive that plagiarism and AD are problems at their institutions? Hidden Curriculum An early article by Lawrence Kohlberg (1978) entitled The Moral Atmosphere of the School introduced the concept of the hidden curriculum in which characteristics of crowds, praise, and power act as major influences on the development of children. Schools are the first social institution a person must deal with and the place where s/he learns how to deal with strangers. For Kohlberg, moral reasoning occurs in distinct stages facilitated by schools in general, and faculty members in particular. A teacher translates moral ideology into a working social environment that enables students to understand the hidden curriculum. Teachers base this translation on the universal principle of justice, which underlines respect for all people. Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) conclude that ‘teachers have considerable flexibility to implement [the] hidden curriculum within respective school cultures’ (p. 309). Levy and Rakovski (2006) discuss attempts at preventing dishonesty and note that ‘cheating is strongly dependent on what occurs in the classroom and the biggest factor is the instructor’ (p. 738). When students sense that cheaters will be caught, lower levels of cheating are observed. When students sense that cheating is likely to be reported, they believe that cheaters will likely be punished (McCabe, et al., 2001a,b). It is appropriate to examine student dishonesty with a consideration of moral development because it sets the tone for professors in higher education to address the hidden curriculum, which helps create a cul-


65

ture of academic integrity. The curriculum is described as hidden because considerations of morals and honesty are or should be taken for granted in an academic environment and because they are concepts relevant to courses in philosophy or religion, but substantively irrelevant to most other courses and disciplines. In fact, university instructors may not even be aware of the policies and procedures related to AD at their institutions. This lack of awareness makes aspects of the broad curriculum somewhat hidden. Through classroom activities and their influence as role models, faculty helps mold students’ moral reasoning and ethical behaviour. To test this notion, Dee and Jacob (2010) conducted a field experiment on the hidden curriculum embedded in a classroom activity. They found that having undergraduate students complete an anti-plagiarism tutorial prior to submitting their research papers is an activity that substantially decreases the likelihood of plagiarism, especially among students with lower SAT scores. As such, Kohlberg’s ideas provide an ideal basis for studying student AD from a faculty perspective. It is thought that university faculty members would engage in behaviours associated with the hidden curriculum as they developed their syllabi, allocated lecture time, and handled cases of AD. This paper examines the hidden curriculum, based on Kohlberg’s principles, and broadly defined to include the policies and procedures related to AD in a university environment. The second question to be addressed is: How familiar are faculty members with the policies and procedures related to plagiarism and AD at their academic institutions? Implementing and Communicating a Culture of Integrity Related to the hidden curriculum and to communicating it to students is the question of implementation. McCabe and Trevino (2002) believe that honor codes are deterrents to breaches of academic integrity. Institutions that have developed, implemented, and communicated such codes report fewer repeat offenders. In a later study, McCabe (2005) notes that many students perceived honor codes and integrity policies as biased against them, ‘outdated….and rarely discussed by faculty.’ Marcoux (2002) found that the responses of faculty members as to whether policies and honor codes deterred cheating varied based on awareness of the honor code. She also noted that the surveyed faculty did not receive institutional training on how to handle cases of AD. The benefit of communication in the effort to contain AD is that it enables an institution to develop a shared understanding and accept-

66


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

ance of integrity policies. McCabe and Trevino (1993) found that this ‘has a significant and substantive impact on student perceptions of their peers’ behavior . . . Thus, programs aimed at distributing, explaining, and gaining student and faculty acceptance of academic integrity policies may be particularly useful’ (pp. 533-534). Burke’s (1997) research, as previously noted, examined a two-year community college system. His findings and those of others raise a question as to how faculty members at four year institutions implement and communicate their policies on AD. The third question examined is: How do faculty members at four year academic institutions implement and effectively communicate policies and procedures related to AD? Faculty Response to Scenarios of Student Dishonesty Another manner in which faculty members communicate is through their actions when confronted with students who commit acts of dishonesty. Those actions constitute a powerful symbol (Pfeffer, 1981) of their position on ethics and academic integrity. This is important because not all faculty members have the same view of their role as classroom teachers. In a study by Angelo and Cross, humanities faculty accept responsibility for student development and values education, whereas math and science faculty are far less likely to accept such responsibility (1993). The manner in which faculty handle AD is an action symbol and a critical aspect of teaching, which has implications for students’ ethical development and the role it plays in avoiding the scandals of companies such as Arthur Anderson, Enron, and World Com. When faculty adopt a do-nothing attitude in situations involving AD, it communicates a symbolic message that dishonesty is acceptable, a notion contrary to the position of numerous researchers (Parameswaran, 2007; Coalter, et al., 2007). Effectively dealing with students who violate the academic honesty policies is part of a faculty members’ responsibility and a legally-enforceable contractual requirement. Many faculty members believe they have the right to handle AD the way they see fit. They ground their belief to personally ‘deal with’ AD as part of their academic freedom (Daniell, 1993). The manner in which faculty exercise this right to deal with AD can be thought of as their right to use discretion, similar to a judge’s power in a court of law to pronounce a minimal or a harsh sentence on a person convicted of a crime. In that context the judge exercises judicial discretion. Howard (2000) provides examples of faculty discretion when


67

she asserts that all over the country ‘students were and still are being upbraided, reprimanded, given F’s on papers, flunked in courses, and expelled from universities’ for plagiarism and other acts of AD (p. 473). Faculty members’ discretionary sanctioning of a student for AD can take many forms. Sometimes it contravenes what the faculty members’ institution considers acceptable. By exercising discretion, faculty may be opting for a more educational as opposed to an adversarial disciplinary approach to dealing with AD (Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Indeed some faculty members want to ‘handle identified cheating as a learning experience’ and have devised an assignment as an alternative to the academic disciplinary procedure (Nath & Lovaglia, 2009). Professorial discretion in cases of AD can be taken to the extremes when faculty members ‘ignore even strong evidence of cheating’ (KeithSpiegel, et al., 1993: 61). These authors assert that faculty may choose to do nothing when confronted with student dishonesty because (1) contending with it may be too onerous or (2) pursuing the case may be too difficult if the student denies the charge (p. 61). While some faculty members choose to do nothing in cases of AD, others may go in the opposite direction and sanction students severely. The sanction they apply to specific scenarios is the matter addressed by the last question: Do faculty members at four-year institutions use a wide degree of discretion when sanctioning students who commit various acts of AD? Methodology Survey Instrument The questionnaire contained 32 questions. Seven items were multiple-choice in nature, designed to collect demographic data on the survey respondents. There were 13 yes/no items related to policies at the respondents’ academic institutions. They were revised versions of questions developed by Burke (1997). In addition, there were 11 items describing scenarios of AD that allowed the respondents to select sanctions that varied on a scale of 1-7, which corresponded to degree of punitiveness. Those items contained a modified version of the response categories developed by Coalter, et al. (2007). Procedure The survey instrument, cover letters, and description of the experimental design were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the colleges and universities participating in the study. A cover letter, which explained the purpose of the study and invited participation in

68


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

the voluntary confidential survey, was sent to the faculty respondents at each institution by email. It instructed the respondents to access the questionnaire by clicking on the link furnished in the letter. Each respondent was sent an individual ID and password to access a central WebCT site. E-mail messages in Microsoft Outlook were sent to faculty members in batches of 40 to avoid spam filtering software at each institution. WebCT at one of the participating institutions hosted the survey instrument and faculty members were able to access it with their ID and password. After emailing the initial cover letter, two reminder messages asking faculty members to complete the survey were sent at weekly intervals. Respondents Faculty members at six medium-size public colleges/universities situated in three countries – Germany, Israel, and the United States – were invited to participate in this study. While these countries had distinct national cultures, it is believed that faculty would have homogeneous attitudes with respect to academic dishonesty. A total of 1621 faculty members from all ranks and seniority were sent cover letters requesting them to complete the confidential survey. The researchers received 373 usable questionnaires, representing a 23% response rate. Results Demographics The data indicate that faculty from all academic ranks responded to the survey. The greatest percentage of responses came from assistant professors (33.9%), followed by associate (22%), and then full professors (18.2%). The remaining 25.9% of the respondents were adjunct faculty or in other classifications. The data also indicate that the greatest percentage of faculty respondents were either tenured (47.9%) or on the tenure track (22.3%). Some faculty members did not respond to the question on gender. Of the 267 respondents to that question, 50.9% were male and 49.1% were female. The greatest percentage of respondents (34.1%) received their terminal degrees more than 15 years ago, while 24.4% graduated between 5 and 10 years ago. Research Question 1: Seriousness of the Problem Overall, the data suggest that there is a widespread problem with AD on university and college campuses, and it exists in faculty-respondents’ academic units. Table 1 (see appendix) summarizes the seriousness of the problem.


69

The data indicate that 73.2% of the respondents perceived dishonesty as a problem at their colleges and universities, while 26.8% did not perceive it to be a problem. They also indicate that 76.0% of the respondents perceived dishonesty as a problem within their departments or schools. The data show that a vast majority of faculty members have considerable leeway in handling instances of AD violations involving students within their institutions. This is noteworthy because of all survey questions, this item on perceived leeway in handling student AD had the highest level of agreement (93.8%). Research Question 2: Hidden Curriculum Overall, the data show that institutions have policies and procedures in place enabling faculty as well as students to understand the hidden curriculum on academic integrity. Table 2 (see appendix) summarizes the number and percentage of faculty having familiarity with their AD policies. The data indicate that 83.4% of the respondents have a published institutional policy on AD. The data also indicate that 72.7% of the respondents did not have an individual tracking student dishonesty. In addition, it was found that 61.0% of the respondents indicated that their institutions did not record a guilty finding on the students’ transcripts. Lastly, 73.4% of the respondents reported that students who committed acts of AD were charged with their offense according to published procedures. Research Question 3: Implementing and Communicating a Culture of Integrity In the aggregate, it appears that faculty members use some, but not all, approaches available to them to communicate a culture that values academic integrity. Table 3 (see appendix) summarizes the data showing how faculty members communicate and implement a culture of integrity. The data indicate that 78.4% of the respondents included a warning about academic integrity in their syllabi. Fifty seven percent of the respondents reported that a student’s past history of AD influenced their decision about punitive measures to a current infraction. The data are split on the question of issuing a failing grade. Specifically, 52.4% of the respondents reported failing a student guilty of AD in their courses. However, the data reveal that only 29.4% of the respondents allocated at least 30 minutes of lecture time to discuss AD in their courses. A rather interesting finding is that 16.4% of the respondents allowed students to avoid punishment for AD because of cultural or family pressure.

70


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

Research Question 4: Faculty Responses to Scenarios of AD This question probed whether faculty members exercised discretion when sanctioning students for acts of AD. Eleven scenarios were posed and the respondents could choose sanctions on a scale that varied the degree of punitiveness, where 1 corresponded to ‘don’t check’ for plagiarism or academic dishonesty and 7 corresponded to ‘dismiss from school’. Table 4 (see appendix) presents the means and standard deviations associated with the sanctions that faculty members imposed on students in the 11 scenarios. Overall, the means for the 11 scenarios of AD are widely dispersed, indicating that faculty use discretion when sanctioning students. The act receiving the most punitive sanction (M = 5.03) involved a student found guilty of AD, with a past history of dishonesty in another course. The act receiving the second most punitive sanction (M = 4.61) involved a student who submitted a written assignment beyond his/her capability that contained all the text and ideas in a slightly reworded fashion from a non-cited Internet source. This is contrasted with the act receiving the least punitive sanction (M = 2.64), which involved group members listing a non-contributing member as an equal contributor to an assignment. To better understand the data, 10 of the 11 scenarios of AD were examined using exploratory factor analysis. One scenario related to a group situation (Question 31) was excluded from the factor analysis because it dealt with sanctioning several members of a student group, rather than a single individual. This analysis reduced the number of scenarios and facilitated a better understanding of the identity of the underlying constructs faculty members use when they sanction students for acts of AD. The results of the factor analysis are summarized in Table 5 (see appendix). Mean scores for the three factors were calculated by averaging the sanction ratings for each question that made up the respective factor. A series of ANOVAs was performed to determine whether there were response differences related to academic rank, tenure status, and number of years since graduation. No differences were found. A t-test was performed to determine if there was a gender effect. None was found. A final ANOVA was performed to determine whether there were differences in the means for each factor between the three cultural groups of faculty responding to the survey. The data were coded to identify respondents from Germany, Israel, and the U.S. Table 6 (see appendix) summarizes the factor means associated with the three cultural groups.


71

The data indicate that groups differ on factor number 2 – using data from another student or class. A post-hoc (Tukey) test revealed that the faculty from the U.S. and Germany had more tolerant attitudes toward AD involving the use of data from another student or class than faculty from Israel (F = 14.19, df = 2, 250, at p < .001). Discussion The results associated with the first research question indicate that faculty members perceive AD to be problematic both in their academic departments/schools (76%) and in their universities/colleges (73%). This is in accord with the studies showing a rising incidence of AD at institutions of higher education (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Dick et al., 2002; and Khoury, et al., 2007). However, these results run counter to those found by Burke (1997) who surveyed faculty in a two-year college system and noted that AD was not perceived to be a serious problem. It could be that faculty members at four-year institutions are more willing to admit the obvious – that AD is a serious problem at their institutions, as contrasted with their community college counterparts. This is noteworthy because the vast majority (93.8%) of faculty surveyed indicated that they had considerable leeway in handling instances of AD, unlike the faculty in Burke’s (1997) study. Having this leeway may give faculty members the courage to admit that there is an AD problem at their institutions, but that it is under control. While faculty in the current study would likely agree that student cheating is a corrosive problem in educational organizations (Paldy, 1996), they are in a position to do more to address this problem. Many faculty members are familiar with institutional policies and practices aimed at curtailing the rising incidence of AD. But not all of them have this knowledge, so there is room for improvement by further educating faculty in the institutional policies designed to manage AD. The second research question touched upon the ‘hidden agenda’ and the extent to which faculty members are familiar with their institutional policies and procedures. Faculty appear to be familiar with the institutional structures established within their colleges and universities. They indicated that there are published policies (83.4%) on AD and that violations are handled through a procedure that is widely disseminated (73.4%). However, only a small percentage of faculty members indicated that there is a mechanism designed to track students who commit acts of AD (27.3%). In addition, violations of the institution’s policy on AD are not recorded on students’ transcripts (39.0%). While some of these structures designed to illuminate the institution’s ‘hidden curriculum’ (Kohlberg, 1978) are less than perfect, there are a number of well-functioning policies and procedures in place. This helps translate the moral ideology of academic integrity into a working social

72


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

environment that enables students to understand the curriculum and the expectations of faculty and the university. The third research question touched upon the implementation and communication of a culture of academic integrity through policies and procedures at four-year institutions. The results indicate that faculty members do not engage in all activities to the same extent so as to effectively promote a culture of integrity. They provide warnings about AD in their syllabi (78.4%) and consider a student’s past history of AD when sanctioning a current offender (57.7%). Faculty used their power to issue a failing grade to students found guilty of AD (52.4%). These actions served to communicate a culture of integrity. However, faculty did not overwhelmingly discuss AD issues for at least 30 minutes in their courses (29.4%). Some even allowed a guilty student to escape charges of AD because of family pressure or culture (16.4%). Unfortunately, these communicate the wrong message to students. The actions taken by faculty members to communicate and implement a culture of integrity are important because ‘notwithstanding outside influences, cheating is strongly dependent on what occurs in the classroom and the biggest factor is the instructor’ (Levy & Rakovski, 2006, p. 738). Their classroom actions symbolically explain the ‘hidden curriculum’ to students, including their expectations concerning academic integrity. Burke (1997) found that faculty at two-year colleges do not regularly follow institutional policy in AD cases, but rather, handled incidents of plagiarism and cheating on an ad-hoc basis. In this study faculty at four-year institutions also handle incidents of AD on an ad-hoc basis. It cannot be claimed with certainty that faculty did not follow institutional policy inasmuch as they provided warnings about AD in their syllabi, exercised their right to fail students who were guilty of dishonesty, and considered past history of AD when sanctioning a student’s more recent act of dishonesty. It is significant, however, that only 29.4% of faculty discuss AD issues for at least 30 minutes in their courses because it is an instructor’s responsibility to create a classroom culture of trust (Gostick & Telford, 2003). Lim and Coalter (2006) argue that instructors must include clear AD policies in their syllabi and take the added step of discussing these policies in class. This helps create a trusting environment where faculty members can take the lead and students can effectively follow a path toward academic integrity.


73

Of interest is that 16.4% of the faculty surveyed would allow a guilty student to avoid charges of AD because of family pressure or culture. This contravenes Gostick and Telford’s recommendation that every incident of dishonesty should be officially addressed. Lim and Coalter (2006) argue that ‘even minor cheats should be called out so that students know deviant behaviours are intolerable’ (p. 158). When instructors start differentiating between reasons for AD, they jeopardize integrity itself. According to Lim and Coalter (2006), the challenge to renew students’ sense of honor, regain trust in academic institutions, and maintain a culture of integrity is an instructor’s ethical obligation. The fourth research question addressed whether faculty exercised discretion in sanctioning students for AD. It was found that faculty members consider the facts surrounding each instance of AD as they formulate sanctioning decisions. The most severe sanction for AD was associated with students who were repeat offenders (M = 5.03). The least severe sanction was associated with a group of students who allowed a non-participating member to receive the same amount of credit on a group assignment as the participating members (M = 2.64). A factor analysis revealed that 10 of the scenarios related to AD could be reduced to three factors, which explained approximately 53% of the variance in the dependent variable. Those factors were (1) failure to cite or to give proper credit (21% explained), (2) using data from another student or class (17% explained), and (3) cheating with data (14% explained). An analysis of variance using the mean scores for each of the three factors resulted in no difference for any demographic variable tested, except cultural group. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for factor 2 (using data from another student or class) revealing that Israeli faculty were more punitive (M = 4.13) in sanctioning their students as compared to American (M = 3.29) or German (M = 2.69) faculty. It could be that faculty at newer institutions such as those in Israel are more rule bound and punitive because of a need to prove their legitimacy, as compared to older, more mature institutions in the U.S. and Germany. The findings associated with the fourth research question are in accord with early studies examining how faculty members sanction students guilty of AD. Nuss, for example, found that faculty members sanctioned students taking into account the severity of the offense (1984). This approach is grounded in justice, making it easily defensible. It allows faculty members the opportunity to confront AD fairly and equitably, rather than to simply turn their backs on their ethical obligation.

74


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

Limitations This study has two potential limitations. The first is that the survey methodology relied on self-report measures. Even though the faculty respondents completed the questionnaire confidentially, self-report has the potential of creating a social-desirability bias in which study participants want to respond in a way that makes them look positive. The nature of the questionnaire and its electronic administration likely prevented the faculty respondents from knowing the research questions or desired responses. As such, the probability that this effect would impact the study’s findings is relatively low. The second limitation is the use of a single survey instrument, which could potentially create a common method bias. For this study a survey was an economical means of collecting data. Future research should investigate the possible use of interviewing. A mixed method approach would reinforce the survey results and lessen the threat to validity occasionally observed in organizational research (Donaldson & GrantVallone, 2002). Implications While many professors have experienced student AD in their courses, knowing what is normative and how to manage it is difficult. When they elect to teach at the college or university level, faculty members hope to make a difference in students’ lives and help them learn. What they do not prepare for is having students violate their trust. To have a student plagiarize or engage in other acts of AD, which results in a faculty member having to expend a significant amount of time and energy following the policies to charge and sanction them, is enough to make a professor reconsider teaching in higher education as a career choice. It would be inappropriate and ethically indefensible for a professor to turn his/her back on academic dishonesty. Professors must emphasize ethical behaviour and engage in those symbolic actions that create a culture of trust. They must shed light on the ‘hidden curriculum’ through their communication, fairness in action, and willingness to follow the policies and procedures that foster academic integrity. Doing so can be difficult, especially when there are many role models and societal pressures that encourage and reward cheating. Additional research could explore how faculty members respond to colleagues that are highly punitive or entirely lax in their approaches to sanctioning students guilty of AD. Future studies could also explore whether attitudes of faculty and institutional AD practices are consistent across cultures.


75

References Bowers, W. (1964) Student Dishonesty and its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research. Burke, J. (1997). Faculty perceptions of and attitudes toward academic dishonesty at a two-year college. Ph.D. dissertation, Athens, Georgia. Retrieved from Eric database (ED 431486). Coalter, T., Lim, C. & Wanorie, T. (2007). Factors that influence faculty actions: A study on faculty responses to academic dishonesty. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 1(1), 1-19. Daniell, S. (1993) Graduate teaching assistants’ attitudes toward and responses to academic honesty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Dee, T. & Jacob, B. (2010) Rational ignorance in education: A field experiment in student plagiarism. Working paper No. 15672, NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, found at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15672. Dick, M. et al. (2002). Addressing student cheating: Definitions and solutions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 32(2), 172-184. Donaldson, S. & Grant-Vallone, E. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology. 17(2), 245-260. doi:10.1023/A:1019637632584 Ercegovac, Z. & Richardson, J. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: A literature review. College & Research Libraries. 65(4), 301-318. Gallant, T. & Drinan, P. (2006). Organizational theory and student cheating: Explanation, responses, and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education. 77(5), 839-860. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0041 Gostick, A. & Telford, D. (2003) The Integrity Advantage: How Taking the High Road Creates a Competitive Advantage in Business. Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs Smith Publishers. Hall, T. (1996). Honor among students: Academic integrity and student cultures. Dissertation Abstracts International. 57(7), 2960A. Howard, R. (2000). Sexuality, textuality: The cultural work of plagiarism. College English. 62(4), 473-491. doi:10.2307/378866 Jendrek, M. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development. 30, 401-406. Keith-Spiegel, P., Wittig, A., Perkins, D., Balogh, D. & Whitney, B. (1993) The Ethics of Teaching: A Casebook. Muncie, IN: Ball State University Khoury, S., Lahoud, H. & Batts, D. (2007) Academic dishonesty: The need for prevention and control. Proceedings of the Mountain Plains Management Conference. Kibler, W. (1993). Academic dishonesty: A student development dilemma, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. NASPA Journal. 30(4), 252-267. Klein, J. & Takeda-Tinker, B. (2009). The impact of leadership on community college faculty job satisfaction. Academic Leadership Journal. 7(2), 32-37. Kohlberg, L. (1978) The moral atmosphere of the school. In P. Scharf (Ed.) Readings in Moral Education. Minneapolis, MN: Winston. Levy, E. & Rakovski, C. (2006). Academic dishonesty: A zero tolerance professor and student registration choices. Research in Higher Education. 47(6), 735-

76


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

754. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9013-8 Lim, C. & Coalter, T. (2006) Academic integrity: An instructor’s obligation, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 155-159, retrieved June, 2012 from: http://isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/ IJTLHE17(2).pdf#page=84. Marcoux, H. (2002) Kansas state university faculty perspectives, opinions, and practices concerning undergraduate student academic dishonesty and moral development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan. McCabe, D. (2005). It takes a village: academic dishonesty and educational opportunity. Liberal Education. 91(3), 26-31. McCabe, D. & Trevino, L. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honour codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education. 6, 522-538. McCabe, D. & Trevino, L. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe. 88(1), 3741. doi:10.2307/40252118 McCabe, D., Trevino, L. & Butterfield, K. (2001a). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior. 11(3), 219-232. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2 McCabe, D., Trevino, L. & Butterfield, K. (2001b). Dishonesty in academic environments. The Journal of Higher Education. 72(1), 29-45. doi:10.2307/2649132 Nath, L. & Lovaglia, M. (2009). Cheating on multiple-choice exams: Monitoring, assessment, and an optional assignment. College Teaching. 57(1), 3-8. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.1.3-8 Nuss, E. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching. 32(3), 140-144. doi:10.1080/00193089.1984.10533862 Paldy, L. (1996). The problem that won’t go away: Addressing the causes of cheating. Journal of College Science Teaching. 26(1), 4-6. Parameswaran, A. (2007). Student dishonesty and faculty responsibility. Teaching in Higher Education. 12(2), 263-274. doi:10.1080/13562510701192073 Pavela, G. & McCabe, D. (1993). The surprising return of honor codes. Planning for Higher Education. 21(4), 27-32. Pfeffer, J. (1981) Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 3. Greenwich: JAI Press Inc. Schneider, A. (1999). Why professors don’t do more to stop students who cheat. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 45(20), A8-A10. Wajda-Johnston, V., Handal, P., Brawer, P. & Fabricatore, A. (2001). Academic dishonesty at the graduate level. Ethics & Behavior. 11(3), 287-305. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_7 Zelna, C. & Bresciani, M. (2004). Assessing and Addressing Academic Integrity at a Doctoral Extensive Institution. NASPA Journal. 42(1), 72. Zoll, M. J. (1996). A matter of honor: Do students understand and uphold the honor code (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne).


77

Table 1. Perceptions of the seriousness of the problem of academic dishonesty Type of Perception

Response Yes

No

N

P

N

P

Plagiarism and AD are problems at my institution

240

73.2

88

26.8

Plagiarism and AD are problems in my department or school Faculty have leeway in handling instances of AD violations

247

76.0

78

24.0

332

93.8

22

6.2

Note: Rows do not sum equally because all respondents did not answer each item.

Table 2. Familiarity with institutional policies and procedures on academic dishonesty Type of Policy or Procedure

Response Yes

No

N

P

N

P

286

83.4

59

16.6

Institution tracks students guilty of AD

96

27.3

256

72.7

AD violation recorded on students’ official transcripts

123

39.0

192

61.0

AD violations handled through published procedures

235

73.4

85

26.6

Published policy on AD


Table 3. Communication and implementation of policies and procedures on academic dishonesty Communication Method

Response Yes

No

N

P

N

P

Warning about AD on your syllabus

280

78.4

77

21.6

Discuss AD issues for at least 30 minutes in each course

106

29.4

255

70.6

Failed a student in your course for committing an act of AD Using students’ past history of AD to affect decision on how to sanction current offender Allowing a guilty student to avoid charges of AD because of family pressure or culture

187

52.4

170

47.6

184

57.7

135

42.3

54

16.4

275

83.6


78


Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012

Table 4. Punitiveness of sanctions imposed on students for acts of academic dishonesty Scenarios of AD

Level of Punitiveness M

SD

N

Writing assignment submitted without citing paraphrased text (21) Writing assignment submitted with large portions from published sources, which are not cited (22) Student guilty of academic dishonesty. You find out that student is guilty of dishonesty in another course (23) Writing assignment submitted contains significant portions that were submitted in another course (24) Weekly assignment is obviously plagiarized (25)

3.59

1.24

354

4.28

1.44

352

5.03

1.75

337

3.58

1.52

333

4.41

1.51

347

Paper is above the student’s writing capability. A web search reveals that the student’s paper contains all the ideas, text, and prose from the Internet. Portions of paper reworded and order of text changed. There is no citation of the source (26) Paper requiring primary research contains data showing amazing statistical correlation, which cannot be real world data (27) Paper requiring primary research contains data from a student that previously took the course (28) Paper requiring primary research contains data from a student that previously took the course, who is currently attending school. How do you sanction the previous student? (29) Paper requiring primary research contains data from a student that previously took the course, who has graduated. How do you sanction the student who graduated? (30) Your class is working on a group assignment. It is accurately reported that one group has a non-participating member. The group plans to finish on time and include all students as equal contributors. How do you sanction the group? (31)

4.61

1.59

348

3.62

1.83

346

4.18

2.05

283

3.34

1.74

345

1.93

3.35

302

2.64

1.19

337

Note: Numbers in parentheses represent question number on the survey instrument.


79

Table 5. Factor analysis extraction results of scenarios of academic dishonesty with Varimax rotation Factor Factor Name 1

2

3

Failure to cite or to give proper credit

% Variance Items in Explained Each Factor 21.36 Question 22

Using data from another student or class

Cheating with data (making up or using previous data)

16.98

14.48

Factor Loading .80

Question 21

.71

Question 26

.69

Question 23

.66

Question 25

.53

Question 29

.90

Question 30

.87

Question 24

.50

Question 27

.89

Question 28

.89

Note: Total explained variance is 52.82%

Table 6. Analysis of variance of factor means for three groups of faculty respondents Factor Name 1 – Failure to cite or give proper credit 2 – Using data from another student or class 3 – Cheating with data (making up or using previous data

Cultural Group Israel

U.S.

Germany

M

4.23

4.39

4.26

SD

1.38

1.07

0.58

M

4.13***

3.29

2.69

SD

1.76

1.27

0.50

M

3.95

3.88

4.00

SD

1.75

1.84

0.86

*** F (2,350) = 14.19 at p