Theoretical Frameworks to Deter Academic Misconduct in the Classroom

Theoretical Frameworks to Deter Academic

Misconduct in the Classroom

Richard Dettling MSHRM, PHR

Program Manager and Professor

University of Phoenix

1.To learn the difference between academic integrity and academic misconduct

2.To review the research on academic misconduct

3.To learn the difference between traditional cheating and contemporary cheating

4.To learn students intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for learning and studying

5.To learn how human relations theory determines whether students are academically honest or dishonest

6.To learn the human relations strategies to deter student academic misconduct

• The pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest and

responsible manner.

• Academic integrity is a basic guiding principle for all

academic activity… and all members of the [education]

community are expected to act in accordance with this

principle.

• Consistent with this expectation…all students should act

with personal integrity, respect other students’ dignity,

rights and property, and help create and maintain an

environment in which all can succeed through the fruits of

their efforts (University, 2014).

What is Academic Integrity?

• Any action or attempted action that may result in creating

an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an “unfair

advantage in cases of direct competition between

students” (Bouville, 2010, p. 70).

• An act of academic dishonesty.

• The broader concept of student misconduct.

• Any type of cheating that occurs in relation to a formal

academic exercise. It can include plagiarizing authors,

cheating on tests, fabrication of data or information, and

colluding with another student to commit an act of

academic dishonesty (College, 2007).

What is Academic Misconduct?

What is Academic Dishonesty?

• 75% of students participate in at least one of several types of

academic misconduct (Patrzek, Sattler, van Veen, Grunschel, & Fries, 2014)

• 5,000 students attending 32 schools in the United States and

Canada, almost 66% of students are engaged in some form of

academic misconduct (McCabe, 2009; McCabe et al., 2006).

• The most common forms of academic misconduct are

plagiarism, cheating on exams, and falsifying information (Patrzek et

al., 2014).

• 6,000 college students from 31 different colleges and

universities, 74% of students self-reported cheating on exams at

least once, and 84% of students believe cheating is necessary

to get ahead (Bernardi, Baca, Landers, & Witek, 2008; Cizek, 1999).

• In the landmark study by Baird (1980), 64% of students admitted

to cheating in 1964: however by 1980, that figure increases to

76%.

• In the 1940’s about 20% of college students admitted to

cheating in high school, today between 75 and 98 percent of

college students surveyed each year report having cheated in

high school (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001; McCabe,

Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006; McCabe, 2009).

• Dishonesty is common among students of all ages.

–Researchers have found that cheating begins in elementary school.

–When children break or bend the rules to win competitive games against

classmates (Anderman & Murdock, 2006; Ariely, 2013; Cizek, 2003).

–Cheating peaks during high school when about 75% of students admit to

some sort of academic misconduct ("Academic Cheating Fact Sheet,"

1999).

A. Plagiarism

B. Self-plagiarism,

C. Double dipping, or dovetailing

D. Fabrication

E. Unauthorized Assistance

F. Copyright infringement

G. Misrepresentation

H. Collusion

Traditional cheating methods

include cheating inside of the

classroom, cheating outside of the

classroom, and plagiarism”

(Witherspoon et al., 2010)

The submission of work that is not

one’s own

The giving or receiving of illegal aid

from other persons or material or

from materials brought into the

classroom by [the student] (such as

looking at someone else’s paper or

“cheat sheets”);

The use of prior knowledge of the

contents of the test or quiz without

authorization from the instructor

(Burrus et al, 2007).

A. Internet

B. Cheat-sites

C. Computer technology

D. Smartphones and Applications

E. Programmable Calculators

F. Digital Watches

G. MP3 Players

Extensive use of electronic

digital technology in

dishonest ventures to

bypass exam integrity, to

plagiarize documents, to

falsify records, to attempt to

improve grades as well as

distribute information and

facts intended as

confidential and secure

(Witherspoon et al., 2010).

Internal motivation

Intrinsic rewards

External motivation

Extrinsic rewards

The act or process of providing a

motive that causes a student to

achieve a result by way of

empowerment that cause individual

challenge, initiative, and self-

fulfillment.

The act or process of providing a

motive that causes a student to

achieve a result by way of a

promise of incentives or threat of

consequences by another person.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E.. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic Measurement: I/E-Revised and Single-Item Scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348–354. http://doi.org/10.2307/1386745

• Researchers regard academic misconduct as a function of the severity of the consequences.

• For instructors to prevent or deter certain behaviors, instructors need to punish students with

consequences so severe it will serve as a deterrent.

• Such punishments may include a student failing an assignment or the course, suspension,

probation, or expulsion.

– Research demonstrates once students believe they can engage in deviant behavior with no or minimal

consequences, they will most likely engage in deviant behavior (Carpenter, Harding, Finelli, & Passow,

2004).

• One of the chief challenges here is that, due to the increased time and effort involved, teachers may

not wish to report the behavior (Gallant, 2008b; Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002).

• There are also cultural determinants; Western students fear expulsion, while Asian students seem to

fear public humiliation (Lin & Wen, 2007)

• Rational choice theory treats dishonest actions as the result of decisions that students

make as rational agents, where they take into consideration the pros and cons of an

action, and based on their assessment of the alternatives, students make their choice

(Nilson &Miller, 2010).

• The rational agent (i.e., student) is assumed to take account of available information,

probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to

act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action (Allingham, 2002).

• This theory hypothesizes that students are able to engage in ethically and

morally inappropriate acts without damage to their self-esteem.

• If they are able to rationalize the act and consider it morally neutral rather

than wrong (Nilson & Miller, 2010).

• For instance, if students can convince themselves that what they are doing

is not morally wrong then students will proceed with doing the actual act.

• Efforts to prevent academic misconduct should focus on counteracting it by

emphasizing the moral incorrectness of the act. Teachers should focus on

personal responsibility.

• Academic misconduct happens because of the opportunity to cheat as well

as the intention to cheat (Nilson & Miller, 2010).

• Teachers need to take efforts to reduce the opportunity to cheat by

increasing vigilance during exams and using additional proctors and exam

versions, and by increasing education on the value of integrity and honesty.

• This theory resembles rational choice theory and is a direct outgrowth of

John Stuart Mills and his initial utilitarianism (Nilson & Miller, 2010).

• Each student has to weight the specifics of his or her situation;

–Students take into consideration alternatives of academic misconduct and

deduce whether or not the risks of academic misconduct are worth the

potential benefit.

• Each student will bring his or her specific issues into consideration

therefore making academic misconduct hard to address.

www.slideshare.net/profrichdett

Questions