ACADEMIC HONESTY: IS WHAT STUDENTS BELIEVE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY DO?

Kim D. Kirkland

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Committee:

Patrick D. Pauken, Advisor

William E. Knight Graduate Faculty Representative

Samuel H. Hancock

Kathleen T. Jorissen

Ellen U. Williams ii

ABSTRACT

Patrick D. Pauken, Advisor

Incidents of academic misconduct are not only prevalent, but are now sharing the

headlines alongside business and political scandals. Gaps and lapses in professional

judgment and personal moral standards are problematic in many segments of society

and have undoubtedly influenced the high levels of cheating in higher education among

college students. This study examined, through an adaptation of McCabe’s and

Josephson’s work on academic integrity, the beliefs and experiences toward academic

misconduct of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Midwestern State

University. Specifically, this study examined students’ ethical beliefs, types of academic

misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic

misconduct, students’ level of familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy

(AHP), and each of these variables across demographic characteristics.

Findings indicate that undergraduate students engage in misconduct more often

than graduate students do; they see it more often, too. Older students report the

various types of misconduct as more serious than the younger students do. Women report academic dishonesty as more serious than men do. On a list of 26 types of misconduct, undergraduate students have engaged in all 26; graduate students in 25.

At the same time, they report nearly all of the 26 as "serious" or "moderately serious" forms of cheating. Over half of the 1853 participants reported that cheating has become a cultural norm in our society. Almost half reported that successful people do what they iii

have to do to be successful, even if it involves cheating. Almost 15% of the survey

respondents reported that they did not respond to the survey with complete honesty.

And while 62.4% of the participants indicated that they witnessed academic

misconduct, only 4.8% have reported it.

Implications for policy and practice were presented, including an approach that shifts from enforcement when students collaborate when unauthorized to embedding the practice of collaboration and teamwork into the curriculum as well as the academic culture of the institution. The problem is not the existence of an academic honesty policy, but that we only reflect upon it when a problem arises. Another recommendation for limiting academic misconduct is for faculty to initiate discussions of academic honesty as well as policy implications that begin to instill in students respect for honest and appropriate behavior. Moreover, both students and faculty should initiate discussions that emphasize ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University, and denounce dishonest academic pursuits.

iv

I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my brother, James William Heard, Jr. who was suddenly summoned home on February 8, 2008 at age 38. His unconditional love and support of family, his caring and giving spirit, as well as his ability to leave life-long

imprints on the hearts of all those who knew him was astonishing. James was an inspiration and “model-T” for misguided youth, a savings grace for many family elders, and a staple in the life of his son JaVier. James was instrumental in putting me on the

path of this amazing journey for which I will be forever grateful.

Until I see you again, continue to watch over us.

We all loved you and will always miss you.

As James would most appropriately state “IT IS, WHAT IT IS”

James William Heard, Jr.

October 1, 1969 – February 8, 2008

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While there were many people who helped shape this dream, first and foremost I must pause and give thanks to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for I am truly blessed.

To Dr. Linda S. Dobb, my biggest Cheerleader, who saw the potential in me to achieve when I could not see a clear path through the haze and fog. Your endless support, coaching and mentoring was very much-appreciated. Thank you for being you.

To my dissertation advisor, Dr. Patrick D. Pauken who I knew would challenge me and push me to deliver my best. You were an easy draft pick – you’re the ethics guy. Thank you for ignoring my request for a bailout, and only offering a stimulus package when faced with analysis paralysis. The idea of reviewing over 1000 chi- square results was overwhelming – I should have called the President. Yet, once I found my rhythm and started working the process, it was a piece of cake, quite fun. I rocked on to the finish line.

To my statistician, Dr. William E. Knight who made navigating of the SPSS software a SNAP! Thank you for managing the roll-out of the survey, the ever popular raffle, as well as the data extraction from SNAP to SPSS format. Words cannot begin to express the gratitude and appreciation for all you and Dr. Pauken have done. You both were responsive to every email, phone call, and requests to review some substantial sections of my dissertation on short notice. For that, I thank you both and will be forever grateful.

To the other members of my dissertation committee: Drs. Samuel Hancock H.

Hancock, Kathleen T. Jorissen, and Ellen U. Williams for their support throughout the entire process. You all have availed yourselves upon request and for that I will be vi

forever grateful for your patience and review of this dissertation – what a TEAM! And a

heart-felt thank you to the faculty in EDLS for your encouragement and leadership. I

have no more words to express my gratitude as I have used them up in this 269 page

dissertation☺.

To Dr. Donald L. McCabe, Professor of Management and Global Business at

Rutgers University and the Josephson Institute for granting permission for me to use the

Academic Integrity Survey and 2004 Report Card, respectively – it would not have been

possible without their support.

To Dr. Melissa Askren Edgehouse, thank you a whole bunch for populating the

SNAP software with my survey data after I relocated to Indianapolis and lost local

access to the software. And to all my other colleagues in Cohort 13 (Dr. Shanda Gore,

David Seeger, Alexander Edwards, Lamandren Derrick, Dr. Sarah Harrison, Angie

Miller, Dr. Margo Greicar, Julie McDonald, and Eric Calvert), kudos to each and every one of you for a collaborative life-long learning experience and a job well-done.

To my parents, Percy and Janie Kirkland as well as my siblings, Sonya, Pam,

Kevin, Percy Jr.; my nephew Nicholas, and my all time favorite little people JaVier’ and

Kaymajah who all patiently accepted and understood my absence from some family gatherings or shorter than normal home visits. Thank you for getting me to first-base as

I’ve rounded third and have crossed home plate. I love you guys and this truly would not have been possible without you all. We got it done!

I wish to extend a warm and heart-felt thank you to my extended Kirkland family in the Motor City, particularly Aunt Ethel (my other mother), Uncle George, Veronica,

Geanie, Aundrea, Terry, Marcus, Kirk and the rest of the family. This crew scooped me vii

up and took me in for an occasional much-needed weekend get-away as well as their

annual all-time smorgasbord Thanksgiving Dinner that consisted of, at a minimum,

twenty-five menu options. I had never seen that much food served at a meal, but they

sure know how to “rock” a turkey dinner.

To my sister girls Ann Harley, Lisa Hemphill, Robin Jones, Sonya Wallace, Lorna

Williams, Darlene Gray, Robin Williams, Rhonda Rae Smith, Joy Harris, Joyce Watson,

Lois Thomas, Barbara Waddell, Sylvia Chandler, Bettina Shuford, Diane Regan and Jan

Wasserman; and special cousin Levi Kirkland who hails all the way from Pennsylvania –

they gave me just enough space to get it done, but were thoughtful enough to check-in

on occasion and be persistent about it. I love you all for that.

And last but not least, to the Morelands (Lawrence, Mary and Eleanora) the new proud parents of an adult child (ME). Thank you for receiving me and assuring me that I had a place in my new home state of Indiana.

So to each and every one of you from me with much love and a big fat kiss, a peck, and a hug around the neck – Woo Hoo☺

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Background of Problem ...... 1

Rationale for Study ...... 5

Purpose of Study...... 6

Research Questions ...... 6

Theoretical Framework...... 7

Significance of Study ...... 8

Definitions of Terms...... 9

Delimitations and Limitations...... 13

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 15

Introduction...... 15

Academic Misconduct...... 15

Different Ways Students Cheat ...... 20

Rationalizations ...... 23

Theories – Cognitive, Social and Moral Constructs...... 25

Values ...... 40

Role of Honor Codes ...... 44

Deterrents and Sanctions ...... 47

Challenges to Academic Integrity ...... 48

Summary ...... 50 ix

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY...... 53

Research Design ...... 53

Participants...... 53

Setting ...... 54

Instrumentation...... 56

Procedures for Collecting Data...... 61

Data Analysis Procedures ...... 64

Survey Limitations and Assumptions...... 65

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ...... 66

Introduction...... 66

Characteristics of Sample...... 67

Research Question One ...... 71

Research Question Two ...... 76

Research Question Three ...... 82

Research Question Four ...... 86

Research Question Five ...... 91

Research Question Six...... 94

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 172

Introduction...... 172

Discussion ...... 173

Research Question One ...... 173

Research Questions Two and Three ...... 175

Research Question Four ...... 182 x

Research Question Five ...... 183

Research Question Six...... 184

Conclusions...... 194

Recommendations for Future Research...... 202

Recommendations for Leadership Policy and Practice ...... 204

REFERENCES...... 211

APPENDIX A. ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY ...... 218

APPENDIX B. MEMORANDUM ABOUT THE STUDY AND CONSENT ...... 244

APPENDIX C. ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT STUDENT SURVEY...... 246

APPENDIX D. MEMORANDUM ABOUT THE PILOT AND CONSENT ...... 254 xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Research Questions, Survey Items and Statistical Analysis ...... 59

4.1 Demographic Information on Academic Class Standing ...... 67

4.2 Demographic Information on Age...... 68

4.3 Demographic Information on Race/Ethnicity of Participants...... 69

4.4 Demographic Information on Race/Ethnicity of Students at Midwestern

State University ...... 69

4.5 Demographic Information on Primary Major...... 70

4.6 Demographic Information on Students Co-Curricular Activities...... 71

4.7 Students’ Responses to Ethical Beliefs ...... 73

4.8 Students’ Responses to Specific Ethical Beliefs...... 74

4.9 Students’ Responses to the Ethical List Question...... 75

4.10 Students’ Responses to Questions about Complete Honesty ...... 75

4.11 Students’ Responses to Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct ...... 79

4.12 Students’ Responses to How they Accessed Material from Written or

Electronic Sources ...... 81

4.13 Students’ Responses to their Behaviors Regarding Online Tests/Exams ...... 82

4.14 Students’ Responses to Frequency of Specific Behaviors ...... 84

4.15 Students’ Observation of Cheating During a Test and/or Exam ...... 85

4.16 Students’ Reporting of Other Students for Cheating ...... 86

4.17 Students’ Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct ...... 88

4.17a Undergraduate Students’ Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct ...... 89 xii

4.17b Graduate Students’ Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct ...... 90

4.18 Students’ Responses to Being Informed about the AHP ...... 91

4.19 Students’ Responses to Level of Knowledge of Policies ...... 92

4.20 Students’ Responses to Sources of Knowledge of Policies ...... 93

4.21 Students’ Responses to Instructors Discussing Policies ...... 94

4.22 Ethical Beliefs by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate ...... 96

4.23 Ethical Beliefs by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate ...... 99

4.24 Ethical Beliefs by Age – Undergraduate ...... 101

4.25 Ethical Beliefs by Academic Class Standing – Undergraduate ...... 103

4.26 Ethical Beliefs by Primary Major – Undergraduate ...... 105

4.27 Ethical Beliefs by Sex/Gender – Graduate ...... 107

4.28 Ethical Beliefs by Race/Ethnicity – Graduate ...... 109

4.29 Ethical Beliefs by Age – Graduate ...... 111

4.30 Ethical Beliefs by Primary Major – Graduate ...... 112

4.31 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender –

Undergraduate ...... 115

4.32 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity –

Undergraduate ...... 118

4.33 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Undergraduate ...... 120

4.34 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Academic Class

Standing – Undergraduate ...... 122

4.35 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major –

Undergraduate ...... 124 xiii

4.36 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Graduate .. 126

4.37 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Graduate ...... 128

4.38 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Graduate 131

4.39 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate ...... 133

4.40 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate ...... 134

4.41 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Undergraduate ...... 134

4.42 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Academic Class Standing

Undergraduate ...... 136

4.43 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Undergraduate ...... 137

4.44 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Graduate ...... 138

4.45 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Graduate ...... 139

4.46 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Graduate ...... 140

4.47 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender –

Undergraduate ...... 141

4.48 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity –

Undergraduate ...... 143

4.49 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Age – Undergraduate .... 146

4.50 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Academic Class

Standing – Undergraduate ...... 150

4.51 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major –

Undergraduate ...... 151

4.52 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity –

Graduate ...... 152 xiv

4.53 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Age – Graduate ...... 153

4.54 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major –

Graduate ...... 155

4.55 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Sex/Gender –

Undergraduate ...... 156

4.56 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Race/Ethnicity –

Undergraduate ...... 157

4.57 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Age - Undergraduate ...... 159

4.58 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Academic Class

Standing – Undergraduate ...... 161

4.59 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Primary Major –

Undergraduate ...... 164

4.60 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Sex/Gender – Graduate ... 165

4.61 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Race/Ethnicity –

Graduate ...... 167

4.62 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Age – Graduate ...... 168

4.63 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Primary Major – Graduate 170

1

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

The phenomenon examined in the present study is academic misconduct.

Students are using extreme measures to earn their college degrees – everything from storing answers in plastic bags inside their mouth during testing to crawling through air conditioning ducts to steal tests (Pactor, McKeen, & Morris, 1990). A significant number of studies on self-reported cheating behaviors reveal high levels of academic misconduct in higher education – cheating on exams, plagiarizing other scholastic works, fabricating research results, and forging academic documents (Bartlett, 2006;

Bowers, 1964; Davis, 1993; Drake, 1941; Hinman, 2002; McCabe & Trevino, 1993).

According to Underwood and Szabo (2003), McCabe’s 2001 study of approximately

4,500 US schools found that self-reported incidents of cheating ranged from 30% for repetitive cheating, to as high as 97% for copying homework or a test on at least one occasion. While cheating was typically thought to be an undergraduate concern

(Powers, 2007), a 2006 survey of approximately 5,300 graduate students in the United

States and Canada discovered that 56% of the business students (mostly MBAs) and

47% in non-business students had cheated at least once during the last academic year

(Mangan, 2006).

Academic misconduct is not only prevalent among college students, but the egregious nature of the incidents are sharing the headlines alongside business and political scandals (Yankelovich & Furth, 2005). The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that thirty-seven former engineering graduate students at Ohio

University plagiarized portions of their theses or dissertations and engaged in further 2 research misconduct by fabricating their experiment results (Bartlett, 2006). Eric T.

Poehlman, a former obesity researcher at the University of Vermont, fabricated data to win a three-million dollar government grant (Langlais, 2006). In addition, Woo Suk

Hwang, a South Korean scientist, fabricated stem-cell research data to make it appear that more stem-cell lines were created than were actually created (Young, 2006). And

Hwang was charged with fraud for misusing about $2.96-million in state and private funds and violating bioethics laws (Young, 2006). According to Langlais (2006) some estimate the financial cost of gross research misconduct in disciplines such as biomedical science to be as high as one million dollars per case.

Previous studies reveal inconsistencies between the beliefs of college students regarding the need for ethical behavior in a business setting and their actions in an academic setting (Lawson, 2004). Davis’ (1993) survey results found that 36% of college students said they would plagiarize in order to pass a certification, 67% said they would inflate their business-expense reports, 50% of the students said they would exaggerate on an insurance report, 66% said they would lie to achieve a business objective, and 40% indicated they would accept a gift from a supplier worth more than

$100. Burton and Near (cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) contend that college cheating is a type of organizational wrongdoing similar to misconduct in business organizations.

Gaps and lapses in professional judgment and personal moral standards are problematic in many segments of society and have undoubtedly influenced the high levels of cheating in higher education among college students. For example, Enron’s former President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Skilling, was prosecuted for hiding 3

debt and exaggerating profits (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). Ohioans called for the

resignation of then Governor Robert Taft after his criminal conviction in 2005 of four first-degree misdemeanors for ethics violations (Eder & Drew, 2005). Student leaders at Ohio State University campaigned in 2005 to oust Brian Hicks, Governor Robert

Taft’s former chief of staff, from the school’s board of trustees because he was convicted of state ethics violations (Boak, 2005). Nick Benson, speaker of the

University Student Government Senate suggests that if an undergraduate student with a comparable ethical lapse was caught cheating on a test or plagiarizing a term paper, they would be forced to leave school. He further suggests that when students are held to one standard and the leaders of our universities are held to a different standard, it sets a bad precedent (Boak).

Over the past couple of decades, a significant number of stories have filled newspapers and business journals with reports on the poor ethical judgment exercised by top political, business as well as religious leaders. As a result, many question the moral compass of Americans and speculate that our basic values have been damaged beyond repair (Johns & Strand, 2000). An article in the Wall Street Journal titled

“Americans Decry Moral Decline” described the results of a public opinion poll which indicates that over half of the respondents said that the nation’s moral problems concern them more than the nation’s economic problems, and 64% thought that the country’s moral and cultural values have declined since the 1960s (Wysocki, 1999).

However, results from another study to measure student beliefs about unethical behaviors in a university setting do not support the popular view of a moral decline in the United States (Johns & Strand, 2000). 4

Some researchers suggest that students of different cultural backgrounds hold

dissimilar definitions of misconduct and professional behavior (Langlais, 2006;

Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003). For example, some cultures stress copying and collaboration as a way of learning. According to Langlais (2006), it has been reported that plagiarism is prevalent in China because the culture has had little concept of intellectual property and the rights of authors and creators. Therefore, some students may not view plagiarism or cheating behavior as an ethical issue

(Josephson, 2004). While very little research has been conducted to determine if prevalence is influenced by culture, the present study did not examine national origin based on the demographic data provided by the participants.

A survey on “The Ethics of American Youth” found that students believe that “in

the real world” successful people do whatever it takes to win even if others consider it

cheating; that a person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed; that people

who are willing to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people

who do not; that if you are not cheating, you lose your competitive edge; and that

cheating is no longer considered a serious matter because everyone does it

(Josephson, 2004). McCabe and Trevino (1993) note the following comments from a

student whose attitude seems to be everybody does it – “I’ll be at a disadvantage if I

don’t; if others do it, you’re being left behind by not participating; it’s the ‘90s, you

snooze you lose; when most of the class is cheating on a difficult exam and they will

ruin the curve, it influences you to cheat so your grade won’t be affected” (p. 533).

According to Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, individuals, particularly

college students at the postconventional level (Stages 5 and 6), understand and accept 5 society’s rules; but, acceptance of those rules is based on formulating and accepting the general moral principles that underlie those rules (Kohlberg, 1984). In this era of multi- tasking and high stress, students are under a great deal of pressure with life’s challenges, so they may likewise be under a great deal of pressure to take certain liberties or short cuts to earn their degree likened to business and political leaders that experienced a lapse in ethical and professional judgment (Josephson, 2004). College students are growing up in a culture where ethical transgressions by leaders in government, business, sports, and academe have been met with minimal consequence likened to Martha Stewart who spent six months in prison for lying about a stock sale.

Thus, it is not surprising that students have such cynical attitudes when they arrive on campus and hear speeches during orientation about the wonderful virtues of higher education. For most students, these virtues are not reflective of the “real world” in which they live.

Rationale for Study

Universities are experiencing a significant erosion in academic misconduct and ethics (Hinman, 2002). Contrary to Kohlberg’s (1984) conventional level of moral development (stages 3 and 4), in which individuals conform and uphold the rules and expectations of society or authority because they are society’s rules, a major culture change is taking shape that is having an impact on our youth who no longer view cheating and lying as serious problems. According to Josephson’s (2004) study, students no longer consider cheating as a serious matter because everyone does it.

Moreover, studies over the past thirty years report a continuing rise in academic misconduct. While numerous studies have examined academic misconduct, few have 6

examined what students think and believe alongside the frequency and types of

cheating.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this survey research study was to examine, through an

adaptation of McCabe’s and Josephson’s work on academic integrity, the beliefs and experiences toward academic misconduct of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Midwestern State University. Specifically, this study examined students’ ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, students’ level of familiarity of the

University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP), and each of these variables across demographic characteristics.

Research Questions

1. What are the ethical beliefs of undergraduate and graduate students?

2. What types of academic misconduct do undergraduate and graduate students

commit?

3. How frequently do undergraduate and graduate students engage in academic

misconduct?

4. What is the perceived seriousness of academic misconduct among

undergraduate and graduate students?

5. What level of familiarity do undergraduate and graduate students have about

their University’s Academic Honesty Policy? 7

6. Do ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic

misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, or familiarity

with the University’s AHP vary across demographic characteristics?

Theoretical Framework

This study was inspired by Kohlberg’s moral stages of development theory

(1984). Kohlberg’s theory suggests that individuals pass through six stages of moral development one step at a time. The six stages are defined at three distinct levels: 1) preconventional, 2) conventional, and 3) postconventional.

Level I – Preconventional

According to Kohlberg and Hersh (1977), children at this level are “responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but interpret these labels either in terms of the physical or the hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or in terms of the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels” (p. 54). The preconventional level consists of the first two stages. Stage 1 is the punishment and obedience orientation in which the physical consequences of

action determine goodness or badness, regardless of the human meaning or values of

the consequences. Stage 2 is the instrumental-relativist orientation in which right action

consists of that which satisfies one’s own needs and on occasion, the needs of others.

Level II – Conventional

The fundamental characteristics of the conventional level are its social

perspective, a shared viewpoint of the participants in a relationship or a group

(Kohlberg, 1984). The conventional level consist of the next two stages of moral

development and are termed “conventional” because moral conflicts are now viewed 8 and resolved in group or social terms rather than individual terms. Stage 3 is the interpersonal concordance or “good boy – nice girl” orientation in which good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them. Stage 4 is the ‘law and order” orientation toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order.

Level III – Postconventional

The postconventional person is aware of the moral view that an individual is expected to adopt when faced with a moral conflict. The postconventional level consists of the final stages 5 and 6. Stage 5 is the social-contract, legalistic orientation, generally with utilitarian overtones. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards which have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society. Stage 6 is the universal-ethical-principle orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. Details of Kohlberg’s six stages are provided in detail in Chapter 2.

Significance of the Study

The findings from this study contribute to the existing body of literature on academic dishonesty, particularly the disconnect between student’s ethical beliefs which are counter to and in conflict with self-reported behaviors that some people consider cheating, along with student’s perceived seriousness of these behaviors. Moreover, this study provides faculty and administrators with greater insight into students’ ethical beliefs, the frequency and types of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of the academic misconduct, and students’ level of familiarity of the University’s Academic

Honesty Policy across demographic characteristics. Faculty and administrators can 9 also use these findings to develop strategies that address these issues. These findings may also help faculty and administrators identify ways to increase and continually reinforce students’ familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy.

Definitions of Terms

Some researchers divide academic dishonesty into four categories: cheating, fabrication, facilitating academic dishonesty, and plagiarism (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, &

Pavela, 1988). However, other terminology that has been used interchangeably such as academic misconduct as well as relevant behaviors associated with these categories is also defined.

Academic Dishonesty – generally refers to different forms of cheating and plagiarism resulting from students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance on exams, tests, and other academic work; or receiving academic credit for work that is not their own (Kibler, et al., 1988).

Academic Misconduct – is defined by Hard, Conway, and Moran (2006) “as providing or receiving assistance in a manner not authorized by the instructor in the creation of work to be submitted for academic evaluation including papers, projects and examinations (cheating); and presenting, as one’s own the ideas or words of another person or persons for academic evaluation without proper acknowledgement

(plagiarism)” (p. 1059). For purposes of this study, academic misconduct is defined as a categorical variable with five levels: cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, forgery, and facilitating academic dishonesty.

Academic Integrity – according to the Center for Academic Integrity, it focuses on five values that are fundamental to the academic process. The value of academic 10 honesty is primary and a prerequisite to the other four – trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility (Drinan, 1999).

Academic Honesty Policy (AHP) – the University’s Academic Honesty Policy is designed to enhance and sustain an environment of ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University. The policy is based on respect for intellectual property as well as for one another. Honest pursuit of academic challenges and higher learning are the essence of the University experience. Respect for one another is fostered when the academic environment is free from cheating, lying, and stealing not only of property, but ideas as well. The AHP communicates to all members of the University community the conviction that academic dishonesty is destructive to the mission of the University and is universally disapproved. Moreover, the AHP states procedures for accomplishing the objectives by students, faculty, academic deans, and the Academic Honesty Committee (Section B-II.H of the

University’s Faculty Charter).

Character – is a system of traits manifested in how an individual relates to others and reacts in situations. According to Josephson (2004), a person’s "character" is the summation of his or her habits, attitudes and attributes.

Cheating – is “an attempt, by deceptive or fraudulent means, to represent oneself as possessing knowledge. In testing specifications, cheating is violating the rules”

(Rothstein-Fisch, 2003, p. 3).

Co-Curricular Activities – for purposes of this study includes activities outside the classroom, yet related to the students’ educational experience such as membership in a fraternity or sorority, on committees, or in student groups; students serving in a 11 leadership role/position; students taking honors classes; membership in professional academic clubs and organization; and paid employment.

Copyright – according to the U.S. Constitution (as cited in Walker, 1998), copyright legislation is designed to “promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (p. 243). If a student copies a chapter from a book by Posey without permission, then the rights of Posey, the copyright holder, have been violated.

If a student paraphrases the chapter, argument by argument, then the student will have copied the ideas, not the expression of Posey’s work. If no credit is given to Posey, he has every right to complain about being plagiarized (Walker, 1998).

Ethics – are “principles of conduct strongly influencing the actions of individuals, groups, or organizations” (Edmonson, 2002, p. 3).

Ethical – “is concerned with standards for judging rightness” or “wrongness” of human conduct” (Edmonson, 2002, p. 3).

Fabrication – is the “intentional and unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise” (Kibler, et. al., 1988, p. 1).

Facilitating Academic Dishonesty – intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another violate any provision of the institution’s honor code, academic honesty policy, or academic integrity (Kibler, et. al., 1988).

Forgery – is altering a score, grade, schedule change form or academic record; forging an instructors’ or another students’ signature.

Honor Code – is an official declaration that defines the rights and responsibilities of students and faculty in academic settings, as well as penalties and sanctions for 12 violations (Cizek, 2003). Melendez (as cited in McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1999) suggests honor codes include at least one of the following: 1) a written pledge by students affirming their work will or has been done honestly; 2) majority body for judiciary hearings consist of students, or the chair is a student; 3) unproctored exams and tests; and 4) language in the code that places some level of responsibility on students to report incidents of academic misconduct they learn about or witness.

Piracy – is copyright infringement. According to Gupta, Gould, and Pola (as cited in Liang & Zheng, 2005) software piracy is generally defined as the unauthorized use, duplication, distribution, or sale of software in any manner other than what is permitted by copyright laws or by the owner, as stated in the software licensing agreement.

Snapper (1999) contends that it is considered piracy “to edit a volume of modern poetry and forget to get copyright permission for one item in the volume” (p. 127).

Plagiarism – “derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author’s text, and the presentation of it as one’s own, constitute plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry” (Dichtl, 2003, p. 372). According to

McLemee (2004), the Oxford English Dictionary defines plagiarism as "the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas ... of another”. Or simply put, taking someone else’s ideas and claiming personal authorship (Underwood & Szabo, 2003).

Unethical – not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior. 13

Values – Jacob (1957) suggests that values are “preferences, criteria or choices of a personal or group conduct” (p. xiii). Hence, values are the standards held by students for decision-making that are normally identified when articulated verbally or through explicit behaviors.

Delimitations and Limitations

Delimitations

Creswell (2003) suggests that delimitations narrow the scope of a study by focusing on specific variables, delimited to a specific geographic location or participants, and/or narrowly tailored to a specific research design. This study confines itself to an electronic web-based survey questionnaire administered only to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Midwestern State University.

Limitations

Creswell (2003) further suggests that limitations decrease the generalizability of findings because they identify potential weaknesses of the study. Fraenkel and Wallen

(2003) define generalizability as the “degree to which a sample represents the population of interest” (p. 104). Several limitations with this research study should be noted. First, generalizability of this study does not extend beyond Midwestern State

University. Second, the electronic survey instrument does not prevent multiple responses from the same student. However, a review was conducted with the final set of responses to make sure that the file did not contain duplicate responses.

Unfortunately, when we check the responses multiple times, multiple responses sometimes creep in. Therefore, it is more likely that the few multiple responses resulted from duplications due to multiple data imports rather than because someone 14 deliberately responded twice. Third, the rigid structure of the survey instrument does not lend itself to richer descriptions of students’ cheating behaviors more commonly obtained through personal interviews. Fourth, use of a self-administered questionnaire creates the problem of acceptance of student responses without benefit of contest

(LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Dickhoff, 1990). Fifth, according to Langlais (2006), some evidence suggest that students of different cultural backgrounds hold dissimilar definitions of misconduct and professional behavior. For example, it has been reported that plagiarism is prevalent in China because the culture has had little concept of intellectual property, whereas other nations stress copying as a way of learning.

Therefore, some students may not view plagiarism or cheating behavior as an ethical issue. Finally, because of the subject matter, some students may be reluctant to respond because they do not trust the anonymity of the results. Consequently, they may choose not to respond or not be truthful in their responses.

15

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter presents a review of the literature related to academic misconduct in higher education and specifically explores the prevalence of academic misconduct, methods students use to engage in academic misconduct, rationalizations for the behavior as well as students values and attitudes toward academic misconduct. Further included is a review of literature on the cognitive, social, and moral constructs as they relate to academic misconduct.

Academic Misconduct

The University that served as the site for this study has an Academic Honesty

Policy that is designed to enhance and sustain an environment of ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University. The policy is based on respect for intellectual property as well as for one another. The University’s value- based philosophy is that academic honesty is essential to the academy; honest pursuit of academic challenges and higher learning are the essence of the University experience; respect for one another is fostered when their academic environment is free from cheating, lying, and stealing not only of property, but ideas as well; that individual, personal quests for knowledge will expand and challenge students’ creativity and intellect; and that academic dishonesty is contrary to intellectual growth and pride in a job well done. Graduates of the university have met the challenges of achieving scholarly excellence and higher learning. Compromising academic honesty negatively impacts the foundations of their academy. The University strives to nurture the respect inherent in the honest attainment of scholarly excellence. See Appendix A. 16

Definitions

Academic misconduct is defined as providing or receiving unauthorized assistance in the creation of an assignment to be submitted for academic credit

(cheating); and presenting, as one’s own the ideas or words of another person or persons for academic credit without proper citation (plagiarism) ( Hard, Conway, &

Moran, 2006). Online academic dishonesty includes cheating on exams or assignments, including plagiarism (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006). With respect to the institution where the present study is conducted, the University’s broad definition of

Academic Misconduct includes cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication, forgery, facilitating academic dishonesty, bribery, and threats.

Like most researchers, the University defines plagiarism as representing as one’s own in any academic exercise the words or ideas of another, including but not limited to, quoting or paraphrasing without proper citation (see also Dichtl, 2003; Kiehl, 2006;

McLemee, 2004; Underwood & Szabo, 2003). While the definition of “plagiarism” is universally shared, the definition of cheating is not. Most researchers define cheating to include one or more of the following: (a) submission of work that is not one’s own; (b) giving or receiving unauthorized assistance from other persons or materials (copying someone else’s paper or using “cheat sheets”); (c) using prior knowledge of the contents of a test or quiz without authorization from the instructor – “knowledge of contents” can include discussion about the test with students who took it earlier or unauthorized viewing of the test (Burrus, McGoldrick, & Schuhmann, 2007; Hard,

Conway, & Moran, 2006; Hoff, 2000). The University defines cheating as using or attempting to use unauthorized assistance, materials, information, or study aids in any 17 academic exercise; submitting substantial portions of the same academic work more than once without permission; or using another person as a substitute to take an exam or quiz. Burrus, McGoldrick and Schuhmann (2007) contend that students do not understand what cheating is and suggest that implicit and explicit definitions of cheating create a disparity between faculty and students. While some universities label

“cheating” as the unauthorized access and use of exams and tests, the defining line of what constitutes cheating versus collaboration varies (Stearns, 1997).

The University defines fabrication as the falsification or invention of any information, data, research or citation in any academic exercise. Forgery constitutes the alteration of a score, grade, schedule change form or academic record; forging an instructors’ or another students’ signature. And facilitating academic dishonesty is helping or attempting to help another to commit an act of academic dishonesty. For purposes of this study, academic misconduct is a concept that is operationalized in five ways: cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, forgery, and/or facilitating academic dishonesty.

Prevalence – Spanning 65 Years

Cheating and plagiarism have historically been a concern to university faculty and administrators. In a literature review using the ERIC academic elite search database, 578 articles that date back to the late 1960s examined cheating, plagiarism, and academic misconduct among college students – 18% between 1968 and 1980;

35% between 1981 and 1995; and 47% from 1996 to 2007. A large amount of the literature reports on the sheer volume of cheating, the various methods students employ to cheat, as well as rationale for the behavior (see, e.g., Bowers, 1964; Davis, 1993;

Dichtl, 2003; Drake, 1941; Dwyer & Hecht, 1994; Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; 18

McCabe & Trevino, 1963; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; McCabe & Trevino, 2002; Pactor,

McKeen & Morris, 1990; Payne & Nantz, 1994; Rawwas & Isakson, 2000; Underwood &

Szabo, 2003; West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader, 2004).

While much of this literature involved experimental studies and surveys from self- reported incidents, some researchers used other approaches in examining academic misconduct. Drake (1941) used a statistical approach to examine the driving forces that make students cheat; West, Ravenscroft, and Shrader (2004) used a natural approach

(actual versus experimentally driven or self-reported) to explore the relationship of moral judgment and the extent of cheating; McCabe (1999) used a longitudinal study involving

7,000 undergraduates in 1990, 1992, and 1995 to examine the levels of cheating by college students; and Payne and Nantz (1994) used qualitative research techniques (in- depth interviews) to assess the dominant cognitive constructions, metaphors, and social accounts of students who self-reported cheating and compared them with previous research.

Although most studies have focused on a single campus and examined a narrow range of contextual factors, which provided limited insight into wide-spread patterns of academic dishonesty (McCabe & Trevino, 2002), two landmark multi-campus studies on the individual and contextual influences of academic dishonesty have been conducted.

The first study conducted by William Bowers (1964) involved more than 5,000 students on 99 campuses of varying size and description. Bowers’ study revealed that three out of four students admitted they engaged in at least one of 13 questionable academic behaviors studied (e.g., using unauthorized crib notes on a test, copying from another student on a test, padding a few items on a bibliography, or collaborating on homework 19 assignments after being explicitly told not to). The second study conducted by McCabe and Trevino (1993) included more than 6,000 students at 31 campuses nationally, small to modest in size, with highly selective admissions criteria. McCabe and Trevino found that two out of three students engaged in at least one of 14 questionable academic behaviors studied, 10 of which were identical to behaviors studied by Bowers. While

McCabe and Trevino’s study corroborated Bowers’ major conclusions thirty years later, it further documented disturbing levels of serious cheating on tests and exams.

Cheating is universal – it occurs on all college campuses, and with much regularity. Brown (cited in Rawwson and Isakson, 2000) found that out of 207 graduate business students, over 80% committed at least 1 out of 15 incidents of academic dishonesty; Jendrek (cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) reported that 60% of faculty members encountered incidents of cheating in their class; McCabe’s (1999) longitudinal study found that 80% of respondents admitted to cheating at least once during their college career; and Underwood and Szabo (2003) summarized findings from McCabe’s

2001 study as follows:

74% of students admitted to serious test cheating, 72% admitted to serious

cheating on written work, 97% admitted to copying homework or to test copying,

30% admitted to repetitive serious cheating on tests/exams, 15% had obtained a

term paper from the internet, 52% had copied a few sentences from a website

without citing the source, and 90% of the students using the internet to plagiarize

had also plagiarized from written sources. (p. 468)

However, Davis’ (1993) study was a compilation of results from two questionnaires administered to 8,153 students at a variety of institutions – large, small, state, private as 20 well as two-year schools. Findings showed that the lowest percentage of self-reported academic dishonesty in college was 42%, the highest was 64%. Forty-eight percent of those who cheated did so many times, the average number of offenses for repeat offenders was 4.25, and virtually all (98.64%) of the students that reported cheating on multiple occasions in college had also cheated on multiple occasions in high school

(Davis).

Different Ways Students Cheat

Having examined the prevalence of academic misconduct among college students, an exploration of the various methods students employ to perpetrate their infractions is presented. A plethora of data in this area indicate that even in a technology driven society, copying answers from a nearby paper and using “crib notes” or “cheat sheets” are the two most frequently used methods of cheating (Davis 1993;

McCabe & Trevino, 2002; Pactor, McKeen, & Morris, 1990). Davis’ study cited many unique and innovative methods students used to obtain an unfair advantage during test- taking such as stealing a copy of the test, looking up the answers ahead of time, and memorizing them; hiding a calculator down their pants; tape recording answers before the test and listening to the answers during the test on their Walkman; attaching small

Velcro fasteners to their boots with the answers attached; putting notes in a plastic bag inside their mouth; making paper flowers that contain written notes and pinning them to their blouse; and writing answers on their thigh and raising their skirt to see the answers. Situational factors can further exacerbate the opportunity for and frequency of cheating. For example, as noted by Houston (cited in Davis, 1993), very large, crowded lecture classes that administer multiple-choice tests are prone to cheating behaviors. 21

According to Pactor, McKeen and Morris, a “delegate”, someone who is not enrolled in the class, will take an exam in a large lecture class and when the instructor is distracted, the “delegate” exits with the test. Moreover, students sit in large lecture classes they are not enrolled in and coach a friend through an exam, and a student once crawled through an air-conditioning duct to an instructor’s office to steal an exam (Pactor,

McKeen, & Morris).

LaBeff, Clark, Haines and Dickhoff (1990) report that during informal discussions with freshmen classes about cheating and the methods they use, some students literally bragged about methods that had proven to be most effective for cheating. Discussions revealed that students write notes on their shoes and caps and on the backs of calculators. A student mentioned rolling up a tiny cheat sheet and inserting it into a pen cap. One student credited his “incredibly gifted eyes” that allowed him to cheat off of a smart student four rows ahead. Another student indicated that she found an exam by rummaging through the dumpsters at night close to final examination time. And, a sorority member indicated that she received two term papers from a sister chapter at a different university, retyped the papers, and submitted the papers for credit. While many of these students saw nothing wrong with what they were doing, they verbally agreed with the statement that cheating was unethical (LaBeff, et al., 1990).

Online Cheating

As society continues to embrace technological innovations, the opportunities for dishonest and illegal actions tend to increase. Easy, low-cost access to the World Wide

Web has provided another temptation – Internet plagiarism (Kiehl, 2006; Underwood &

Szabo, 2003). According to McKerral (cited in Kiehl, 2006), plagiarizing and fabricating 22 academic documents is not new, only the methods used are and technology makes such content even easier. Underwood and Szabo note that word processing conveniences provide easy abstraction of material from electronic media, and small hand-held scanners further broaden the array of accessible data. Most students do not think that a simple cut and paste of a sentence or two into a research paper without citing the appropriate source is a serious issue (McLemee, 2004). Benning and Berls

(as cited in Underwood & Szabo) suggest that students can purchase or download research papers from web sites and collaborate through electronic discussion groups using answers provided in their work from others. Walker (as cited in Underwood &

Szabo) further suggests that students can passively listen in and extract ideas in discussion groups without making a contribution as well as download papers stored in campus computer labs and use them as their own.

While it is assumed that cheating is more prevalent in web-based classes than in traditional classes due to the absence of direct interaction between students and faculty, a survey of students who had an online course during the 2001 fall semester revealed that academic dishonesty is no more prevalent online than it is in traditional classrooms

(Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; Underwood & Szabo). In order to validate the results, follow-up surveys were administered to traditional classes in which predicted cheating behavior was identical to the behaviors found in the Internet-based survey.

While some studies report lower cheating levels for women than men (Davis, 1993;

McCabe & Trevino 2002; Underwood & Szabo, 2003), some find an exception among active Internet users who were often female: that is, females who joined the Internet culture were more prone to plagiarize than their non-active peers (Grijalva, Nowell, & 23

Kerkvliet, 2006). An ongoing survey conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity found that the number of college students who have used “the Internet to construct papers based on unattributed text excerpts from online web sites” as quadrupled over the past five years (Etter, Cramer, & Finn, 2006, p. 133). Some researchers suggest that because faculty may be more aware of the potential for cheating in online settings, they design assignments and exams that reduce that likelihood (Grijalva, Nowell, &

Kerkvliet, 2006).

Rationalizations

Having considered some of the causes and motivations for academic misconduct, an examination of some routinely espoused rationalizations, excuses, and reasons for students’ cheating behavior is provided. Davis’ (1993) study revealed that the most frequently cited reasons for cheating included: while I do study, I cheat to enhance my grade (29.75%); my job interferes with my study time (14.28%); I usually don’t study (13.60%); and pressure from my parents to get good grades cause me to cheat (6.80%). Other reasons such as pass the class; class is too hard; only if I’m not sure of my answers; and if I blank out and someone else’s paper is in clear sight accounted for 18.36% of the reasons for cheating. However, for about 6% of the students, cheating appeared to be a way of life, something they would do to at any time

(Davis, 1993). Moreover, students rationalized their cheating behavior by saying that they usually work in groups and are accustomed to helping one another out in that way

(West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader, 2004). According to Drake (1941), psychologists have type cast pathological liars and thieves, but have yet to identify pathological cheaters as a type. 24

As noted by Newstrom and Ruch (cited in Johns & Strand, 2000) and Stearns

(1997), the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business attribute the most common reason business students participate in unethical behaviors to personal values, level of difficulty, economics, penalties, social pressure, and success. According to

Underwood and Szabo (2003) “an increasingly competitive educational system, a diminution of policing with the decline in staff student ratio, less homogeneous student intakes, and the ease of access to materials via the Internet provide a fertile environment encouraging dubious academic practices” (p. 469).

Many other researchers propose that stress and the pressure for good grades were important determinants of academic dishonesty (Baird, 1980; Dalton, 1981; Davis,

1993; Drake, 1941; Keller, 1976). The relationship between student cheating and their acknowledgment of it goes well beyond what they perceive as unreasonable workloads because many students have jobs, extracurricular activities, and active social lives

(McCabe & Trevino, 2002). Moreover, McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (1999) found that many students identified ethical "grey areas" they really do not consider as cheating like helping another person out and the well-known, commonly accepted tradition that fraternities and sororities are a repository for old exams/homework. However, some students stretch the definition of cheating beyond conventional standards, while others claim ignorance – they did not know they were cheating.

Drake (1941) contends that the examination and/or test is a roadblock to a realm of clubs, teams, societies, and organizations and that degrees or certificates are the prerequisite of the talented or creative. Consequently, cheating becomes the means to an end – to achieve some desired goal in order to avoid some of the unpleasant and 25 punitive consequences associated with failure. One in every five students indicated that they would definitely resort to plagiarism to escape failing a module, and 34% indicated this would be a probable course of action when under pressure (Underwood & Szabo,

2003). While fear of failure is important, other factors encourage students to cheat like inability to cope with the caliber of the work, monotony of the work, and time management issues. Students see no viable reasons not to cheat because social and structural elements enable their behavior with little to no consequences.

Theories – Cognitive, Social and Moral Constructs

Cognitive Constructs

Cognitive-developmental theories are traditionally characterized by their use of some type of stage model and age related sequential reorganizations in the development of moral attitudes (Kohlberg, 1984). The concept of stages refers to the structure of one’s reasoning with three primary characteristics. First, “stages are

‘structured wholes’ or organized systems of thought. This means individuals are consistent in their level of moral judgment” (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 54). Second, stages form an invariant sequence, an unchanging relationship in which movement is always forward, never backward except under extreme conditions like with trauma, and stages are never skipped (Kohlberg & Hersh). Lastly, “stages are ‘hierarchical integrations.’ Thinking at a higher stage includes or comprehends within it lower stage thinking. There is a tendency to function at or prefer the highest stage available” (p.

54).

26

Some common assumptions of cognitive-developmental theories suggest that

moral development has a basic cognitive-structural or moral-judgmental

component; that the basic motivation for morality is a generalized motivation for

acceptance, competence, self-esteem, or self-realization, rather than for the

meeting of biological needs and the reduction of anxiety or fear; and that major

aspects of moral development are culturally universal, because all cultures have

common sources of social interaction, role-taking, and social conflict which

require moral integration. (Kohlberg, 1984, pp. 196-197)

Another assumption is that basic moral norms and principles are structures arising through social experiences and interactions rather than through internalized rules that exist as external structures (Kohlberg). Moreover, it is assumed that

“environmental influences in moral development are defined by the general quality and extent of cognitive and social stimulation throughout the child’s development, rather than by specific experiences with parents or experiences of discipline, punishment, and reward” (Kohlberg, p. 197).

Researchers such as Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper; Alschuler and Bliming; and

Mixon (as cited in Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006) view the decision to cheat as the result of a cognitive process that involves considerable planning. Bunn, et al. (1992) suggest that students break down cheating behavior into two categories: planned cheating and panic cheating. Planned cheating requires front-end preparation with the understanding that it is wrong – making crib sheets for tests, copying homework, or plagiarizing a paper; whereas, panic cheating is spontaneous, unplanned, the most common, and occurs when a student is at a loss for an answer during a test (Bunn, et 27 al., 1992; Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). For example, with panic cheating, a student does not plan to cheat, but looks at another student’s paper and copies the answer. However, planned cheating is premeditated, is viewed as more dishonest, and is perceived as having a greater social cost. Bunn, et al.’s study at Auburn University revealed that 358 of 476 students reported that they primarily observe panic cheating (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006).

In online classes, planned cheating may be a much greater threat than panic cheating because circumstances stimulating panic cheating may be relatively rare compared to a traditional classroom. Tests are most often completed by students in isolation and the opportunities for panic cheating diminished (Grijalva, Nowell, &

Kerkvliet, 2006). Because online cheating is less conducive to panic cheating, there are simply fewer or no opportunities for panic cheating; thus, it is conceivable that panic cheating is limited to traditional class testing situations (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet,

2006).

Some researchers contend that neutralization as a cognitive process may allow individuals to violate certain social norms, yet neutralize any image of themselves as morally deviant (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Dickhoff, 1990; McCabe, 1992; Payne &

Nantz, 1994; Sykes and Matza, 1957). According to Sykes and Matza, “neutralization theory in the study of delinquency expresses the process of situationally defining deviant behavior” (p. 666). Deviance is an unrecognized extension of defenses to crimes, in the form of justifications and rationalizations made valid by the delinquent, not by the larger society (Sykes & Matza). Individuals justify violation of accepted behavior 28 through neutralization techniques that displaces blame to others. Sykes and Matza propose five neutralization techniques that include:

1. Denial of responsibility – delinquent acts are due to forces outside of the

individual’s control such as unloving parents, dysfunctional family, a single

parent household, or a slum neighborhood.

2. Denial of injury – no one is hurt by the behavior. Despite the fact that the

behavior is unlawful, the delinquent frequently feels that the behavior does

not cause any harm.

3. Denial of the victim – deserving of consequences or rightful retaliation. The

delinquent feels that the injury is not wrong in light of the circumstances. The

delinquent may claim it is not really an injury; rather, a form of rightful

retaliation or punishment. The delinquent subtly moves himself into the

position of an avenger and the victim is viewed as the wrong-doer.

4. Condemnation of the condemners – pointless assignments and lack of

respect. The delinquent shifts attention away from his own behavior to the

motives and behavior of those who disapprove of his deviant acts. The

delinquent may claim the condemners are hypocrites, deviants themselves, or

motivated by personal spite or vengeance.

5. Appeal to higher loyalties – sacrificing demands of the larger society for a

small social group to which the delinquent belongs such as the sibling pair,

the gang, or the friendship clique.

Sykes and Matza (1957) suggest that with each neutralization technique, individuals profess a conviction about a particular law but argue that special 29 circumstances caused them to violate the rules in a particular situation. LaBeff, Clark,

Haines and Dickhoff (1990) tested the relevance of neutralization and concluded that “it is unlikely that students will either deny injury or deny the victim since there are no real targets in cheating” (p. 196). Minor (cited in Payne & Nantz, 1994) offered the most comprehensive examination of neutralization, delinquency, and cheating as a “strong desire to engage in behaviors of which one disapproves is unstable. But, over time, either the desire or the moral disapproval should dissipate, leading one to either conformity or guilt-free deviance” (p. 1017). McCabe (1992) found that students employ a variety of neutralization techniques to rationalize cheating by misplacing blame to others and/or situational context – victimless crimes. By learning these techniques, juveniles become delinquent, rather than by learning moral imperatives, values or attitudes contradictory to those of the larger society (Sykes & Matza).

More current research classifies student cheating into two categories: 1) individual characteristics and/or beliefs and values, and 2) situational and/or institutional factors. Some researchers suggest that students hold qualified guidelines for behavior which are situationally determined (Fletcher, 1966; LaBeff, Clark, Haines & Dickhoff,

1990; McCabe, 1992; Norris & Dodder, 1979). Thus, the concept of situational ethics may describe college cheating in that rules for behavior may not be considered rigid but depend on the circumstances involved (Norris & Dodder, cited in LaBeff, et al.).

Fletcher (cited in LaBeff, et al.) known for his treatise, Situation Ethics: The New

Morality, argues that social circumstances will determine whether an action is considered good or bad. Basically, what is wrong in a situation might be considered right or acceptable if the end justifies the means. This concept focuses on contextual 30 appropriateness, not necessarily what is good or right, but what is viewed as fitting, given the circumstances (LaBeff, et al.). Whether or not we use the concept of neutralization as it relates to the study of delinquency, cheating is clearly associated with forms of attributional bias, rationalizations, excuses, and other social accounts of self-presentations and can become accepted and normal in academic settings, just as in business and workplace cultures (Payne & Nantz, 1994).

Social Norms

Social norms theorists contend that people maintain behavior consistent with peer descriptive norms, but overestimating the frequency of one’s peer behavior can increase students’ behavior (Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). Social-learning theories contend that “basic moral norms are the internalization of external cultural rules; and that environmental influences on normal moral development are defined by quantitative variations in strength of reward, punishment, prohibitions, and modeling of conforming behavior by parents and other socializing agents” (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 197). Payne and

Nantz (1994) contend that social influences are linked to student cognitions arising from social accounts, myths, metaphors, and narrative rationalities found in cultures. Sykes and Matza (1957) suggest that delinquent behavior, like most social behavior, is learned in the process of social interactions.

Some researchers suggest that social norms influence cheating behavior.

McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2002) found that academic dishonesty is related to a

“cheating culture” that develops on campuses. Bolton and Kammeyer (1967) suggest that students tend to conform to the cultural norms of their particular college or university. Michaels and Miethe (cited in Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006) suggest 31 that support from peers or pro-attitudes about cheating act to facilitate cheating. And

Whitley (cited in Grijalva, et al.) notes that observation of others cheating may create an attitude in which academic dishonesty is viewed as normal behavior.

McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (1999) suggest that students look beyond the campus environment to explain their cheating. Specifically, “cheating, while pathetic, is completely accepted (perhaps encouraged) by society. They view cheating as simply human nature” (McCabe, et al., p. 224). Social research supported by Isabella (cited in

Payne & Nantz, 1994) and others, suggest a thorough examination of life’s daily activities that provide an understanding of the dynamics about how groups and individuals make decisions that result in subsequent action or inaction – to cheat or not to cheat.

Several researchers have studied the social accounts, metaphors, and forms of cognitive construction that students use to describe cheating situations as a means of coping with complex social challenges or threats to their sense of well-being. According

Payne and Nantz (1994), students indicate a significant difference between cheating on exams (“blatant” cheating) and other forms of academic misconduct which is often viewed as less serious or “not really” cheating. The primary categories of student social accounts related to certain forms of cheating included success, saving time, and effort.

However, peer pressure and desire to help others were much more commonly expressed in situations in which students collaborated on assignments intended for individuals, students’ allowed others to cheat off their exams, and students’ gave exam answers to others. Payne and Nantz further indicate that students who received exam answers from others who had taken the test in earlier sections argue it saved them time 32 and effort. The most common social account given for plagiarism was perceived lack of risk (Payne & Nantz). However, actual metaphors or associative imagery obtained from students that captured their thinking and feelings about college cheating breakdown into six dominant categories: 1) a type of game in which winning is important; 2) an addiction or disease likened to smoking or drugs; 3) the “easy way out” as with coasting or skating; 4) a personal dilemma or conflict like being caught between a rock and a hard place; 5) theft or other forms of unethical or illegal, but common, business practices; and 6) a team effort as in collaboration (Payne & Nantz, 1994). These metaphorical constructions parallel somewhat to social accounts such as success, saving time and effort, and peer pressure (Payne & Nantz, 1994). The existence of such tendencies can lead students to construct and reproduce “social realities” in a student culture that define cheating as more acceptable and normal, and less serious misconduct than previously considered (Payne & Nantz, 1994).

Individualism and Collectivism

Classrooms in the United States replicate the values of the dominant European

American culture in which students are expected to work independently and with emphasis on competition (Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003).

Cultures that give priority to the needs of the individual over the group are individualistic, whereas those that give priority to the needs of the group (family or community) are described as collectivist because the power of the group is in ensuring everyone’s success (Rothstein-Fisch, et al., 2003).

According to Langlais (2006), some evidence suggests that students of different cultural backgrounds hold dissimilar definitions of misconduct and professional 33 behavior. For example, it has been reported that plagiarism is prevalent in China because the culture has had little concept of intellectual property ownership. Moreover, other nations with group-oriented cultures such as those in Latin America, Asia, and

Africa stress collaboration and copying as a way of learning. Consequently, some students may not view plagiarism or some cheating behaviors as an ethical issue.

Some researchers suggest using the cultural values framework of individualism and collectivism orientations to determine what constitutes helping versus cheating

(Rothstein-Fisch, et al., 2003).

The United States is the most individualist culture in the world. In fact, most of the recent immigrants to the United States come from highly collectivistic cultures such as Latin America, Asia, and Africa (Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez

2003). According to Rothstein-Fisch, et al., “individualism and collectivism are associated with different child-rearing goals; norms of communication; notions of social roles; and concepts of development, learning, and schooling” (p. 125). In an individualistic society, children are responsible for their own learning and are expected to work independently. However, children from a collectivistic society are “socialized with different “developmental” scripts that emphasize working together interdependently to ensure success of all members of the group” (Rothstein-Fisch, et al., p. 125). The researchers suggest that students from a collectivistic culture are accustomed to placing a higher priority on working together as a group to help others even before they consider their own tasks or assignments likened to their experience at home with siblings or cousins (Rothstein-Fisch, et al.). While helping and collaboration is valued in 34 schools in the United States, in the classroom, it takes a subordinate position to the values of personal responsibility and individual achievement (Rothstein-Fisch, et al.).

Likened to collectivist culture, in cooperative learning, students work toward common goals and the knowledge is the property of the group, which eliminates any misunderstanding that any rules have been violated. In fact, the rules explicitly encourage collaboration and information sharing (Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac,

Daley, & Perez, 2003). In a study conducted by West, Ravenscroft, and Shrader

(2004), collaboration was found to be less serious than obtaining solutions from the computer. They further found that 26% of the students did not cheat by either collaborating with a colleague or accessing the solution on an unauthorized web site –

30% of the students accessed the web site, the remaining 44% worked with other students. Students rationalized their allegedly cheating behavior by saying that they usually worked in groups and were accustomed to helping one another out in that way

(West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader, 2004).

Moral Development and Reasoning

Moral development, as initially defined by Piaget, then refined and researched by

Kohlberg, represents the “transformations that occur in a person’s form or structure of thought” (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 54). Research shows that moral reasoning develops over time through six stages. Kohlberg’s (1984) six stages of moral development suggests that in order to act in a morally high way requires a high stage of moral reasoning. The six stages are defined at three distinct levels: 1) preconventional,

2) conventional, and 3) postconventional. What follows is a detailed textbook description of Kohlberg’s theory. 35

Level I – preconventional.

The rules and social expectations for individuals at the preconventional level are something external to the self (Kohlberg, 1984). According to Kohlberg and Hersh

(1977), children at this level are “responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but interprets these labels either in terms of the physical or the hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or in terms of the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels” (p. 54). The child sees moral dilemmas in terms of their own individual needs. “Situations or moral conflict are seen as situations in which needs collide and are resolved either in terms of who has the most power in the situation (Stage 1) or in terms of simple individual responsibility for one’s own welfare (Stage 2) except where bound by simple market- place notions of reciprocity” (Kohlberg & Hersh, p. 56). The preconventional level consists of stages one and two.

Stage 1 is the punishment and obedience orientation in which the physical consequences of action determine goodness or badness, regardless of the human meaning or values of the consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are valued in their own right (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977).

Stage 2 is the instrumental-relativist orientation in which right action consists of that which satisfies one’s own needs and on occasion, the needs of others. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity suggests “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours,” not loyalty, gratitude, or justice (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977).

36

Level II – conventional.

A level II conventional person identifies with or has internalized the rules and expectations of others, particularly those of authorities (Kohlberg, 1984). At this level, there is an appeal to authority but the authority derives its right to define the good not from greater power at Stage 1, but from its social sharedness and legitimacy (Kohlberg

& Hersh, 1977). The fundamental characteristics of the conventional level are its social perspective, a shared viewpoint of the participants in a relationship or a group

(Kohlberg, 1984). “Maintaining the expectations of the individual’s family, group, or nation is perceived as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude of the conventional individual is not only one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to the order; of actively maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order; and of identifying with the persons or group involved in it” (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 55). The conventional level consists of the next two stages of moral development and is termed “conventional” because moral conflicts are now viewed and resolved in group or social terms rather than individual terms. Right or justice is seen to reside in interpersonal social relationships (Stage 3) or in the community (Stage 4) (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 56).

Stage 3 is the interpersonal concordance or “good boy – nice girl” orientation in which good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them.

Individuals tend to conform to stereotypical images of what is considered majority or

“natural behavior” (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). For example, behavior is judged by intention – “he means well” becomes important for the first time (Kohlberg & Hersh,

1977, p. 55). 37

Stage 4 is the ‘law and order” orientation toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. The right behaviors consist of doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake”

(Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 56).

Contrary to the concept that stages form an invariant sequence in which movement is always forward and stages are never skipped, inversion of sequence appeared in Kohlberg’s longitudinal study on 50 males aged 10 to 26 (Kohlberg &

Kramer, 1969; Kramer, 1968). Kohlberg (1984) states:

The most outstanding inversion of sequence was an apparent shift from a Stage

4 orientation to a Stage 2 relativistic hedonism in some participants who become

“liberated” and “relativized” in their college years. Based on the fact that these

subjects eventually concluded that this relativistic egoism was a transitional

phase, a “Stage 4-1/2” – no-man’s land between rejection of conventional

morality and the formulation of nonconventional or universal moral principles.

The social perspective of Stage 4-1/2 was clearly different from that of naïve

Stage 2. The Stage 4-1/2 questioned society and viewed himself and the rules

from an “outside-of-society” perspective, whereas the Stage 2 saw things as a

concrete individual relating to other individuals through concrete reciprocity,

exchange, and utilities. (p. 188)

Adolescents may go through a period of ethical relativism during which the premise of any moral system comes into question (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). With many ways to live, who is to say which is best? Kohlberg and Hersh suggest: 38

The way out of this moral relativism or moral nihilism lies through the perception

that underneath the rules of any given society lay moral principles and universal

moral rights, and the validity of any moral choice rests on the principles that

choice embodies. Such moral principles are universal in their application and

constitute a viable standard against which the particular laws or conventions of

any society can and should be judged. (p. 57).

Level III – postconventional.

A Level III postconventional person differentiates his or her self from the rules and expectations of others and defines his or her values in terms of self-chosen principles (Kohlberg, 1984). The postconventional person is aware of the moral view that an individual is expected to adopt when faced with a moral conflict. The postconventional level consists of the final stages 5 and 6 that suggest that individuals have basically distinguished themselves from the rules and expectations of others and have defined their own values in terms of self-chosen principles – the central concept of moral reasoning in terms of 1) what is right, 2) the reason for upholding the right, and 3) the social perspective of their stage (Kohlberg).

Stage 5 is the social-contract, legalistic orientation, generally with utilitarian overtones. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards which have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society.

There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching consensus. Aside what is constitutionally and democratically agreed upon, the right is a matter of personal

“values” and “opinion.” The result is an emphasis upon the “legal point of view,” but with 39 an emphasis on the possibility of changing law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than freezing it in terms of Stage 4 “law and order”). Outside the legal realm, free agreement and contract is the binding element of obligation. This is the “official” morality of the American government and constitution (Kohlberg & Hersh,

1977).

Stage 6 is the universal-ethical-principle orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative); they are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977).

Kohlberg’s (1984) theory asserts that stages 5 and 6 (postconventional level) are role-taking stages that describe the level at which the person sees other people, interprets their thoughts and feelings, and sees their role or place in society. One cannot follow moral principles in stages 5 and 6 if one does not understand or believe in them. One can, however, reason in terms of such principles and not live up to them. At this stage, Kohlberg asserts that an individual’s reason why something is right or wrong is based on a sense of obligation to law and one’s social contract to abide by laws for the welfare and protection of all people’s rights; a concern that laws and duties are based on rational calculation of overall utility – for the greater good; and a belief in the validity of universal moral principles and a personal commitment to them. 40

Values

Having examined previous research on the prevalence of cheating in higher education, the wizardry students employ to cheat, and several theoretical constructs that explain students’ behavior, this section of the literature review provides an exploration of values from an individual and cultural perspective. Jacob (1957) suggests that values are “preferences, criteria or choices of a personal or group conduct” (p. xiii). Hence, values are the standards held by students for decision-making that are normally identified when articulated verbally or through explicit behaviors.

Williams (cited in Henshel, 1971) contends that values have three elements in a dynamic relationship: 1) the affective – what one finds most desirable; 2) the cognitive – knowledge of right and wrong; and 3) the intentional – what one will do. Most previous studies have focused on the cognitive and/or intentional components with little attention to the affective element.

Foltz and Miller (as cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) suggests six beliefs and values dimensions to help explain why people differ in their behavior. What follows is a brief contrast and comparison of each of the six orientations:

1. Positive/negative orientation – positive people are optimistic and believe

things will get better; they have a tendency to enjoy life; and they tend to

develop an ethical sense and recognize the role of a conscience in life. In

contrast, negative people are pessimistic and doubtful about the future; and

they tend to be insecure, avoid society, and have less faith in people and

moral standards. Love and Simmons (as cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) 41

found a direct correlation between negative attitudes and students’ cheating

and plagiarism.

2. Tolerance/intolerance orientation – tolerant people are open-minded and

reject the notion of absolute truths. In contrast, intolerant people believe in

one true system of standards for personal and social conduct. However,

tolerance can lead to unethical behavior as represented by the former

President, Bill Clinton. Specifically, Clinton’s popularity suggests voters

ignored his unethical transgressions because of his commitment to domestic

reform and/or stance on foreign policy.

3. Achievement/experience orientation – achievement-oriented people value the

constructive use of time and are goal-oriented. In contrast, experience-

oriented people tend to live for the moment. Students who live for the

moment, who study to learn rather than obtain a good grade, seem unlikely to

cheat.

4. Behaviorism/humanism orientation – behaviorist-oriented people tend to put

considerable trust in science as a means of understanding and dealing with

people. In contrast, people with humanist orientations place a high value on

the uniqueness and free will of each individual. Matters of faith, religion and

ethical rules cannot be proven by mathematical equations or formulas. Thus,

individuals with humanist orientations tend to follow more ethical standards

than behaviorists.

5. Detachment/involvement orientation – detached people avoid emotional risk

and care less for their society and its rules unlike people with involvement 42

orientation who feel commitment is important even with personal risk.

Involved people enjoy others, play by the rules, and follow moral standards.

6. Theistic/nontheistic orientation – theistic individuals believe in the existence of

God, or a Supreme Being. The fear of God’s punishment in this life and the

hereafter compels theistic individuals to adhere to standards of virtue and

morality unlike with nontheistic individuals who have a secular perspective on

behavior. In academic settings, students at religious-affiliated universities

were less willing to engage in unethical behavior than students at unaffiliated

universities.

Forsyth (1980) further identified two factors that influence the ethical behavior of people – idealist and relativist. Idealists focus on the specific actions or behaviors of the individual unlike relativist who focus on the consequences (results) of actions or behaviors (Forsyth). Idealists believe that the inherent goodness or badness of an action should be determined by applying the Golden Rule – “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Idealists further believe that goodness (morality) will guide a person’s actions and that an act is only right if it produces a greater amount of positive consequences than other possible alternatives.

Roig and Ballew and Stevens and Stevens (cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) suggest that the decision of whether or not to cheat inherently lies within the individual’s personal value system. Unfortunately, Rawwas and Isakson contend that pressures that cause some students to consider unethical behavior are inherently stronger than the factors that encourage ethical behavior. Johns and Strand’s (2000) survey conducted at four universities examined the ethical beliefs and attitudes of business 43 students. While students believed that taking a test for someone and copying someone’s exam were most unethical, they were uncertain about using someone’s notes to study and failing to report unfavorable errors in grading (Johns & Strand).

According to Davis’ (1993) “theory of understanding”, one naturally resists cheating because cheating deprives individuals of opportunities to test their personal theories of understanding. Rettig and Rawson’s (cited in Sinha, 1968) “ethical risk” hypothesis (ERH) proposes that ethical behavior varies depending on the perceived risk of the misconduct. A natural experiment conducted by West, Ravenscroft, and Shrader

(2004) revealed that moral judgment and honesty were not related, but higher levels of cheating behavior related to less honesty. This finding indicates that values that are considered essential to good citizenship and business practices have not been instilled

(West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader, 2004). According to Hinman (2002), the virtues approach to academic dishonesty requires a focused concentration on character – that we cultivate personal virtues within students so that they want to be honest and take responsibility for their own education.

According to Jacob (1957), the values of college students differ from the rest of society. Jacob’s study examined changes in students’ patterns of values during college and the extent of those changes due to exposure from social science instruction. Jacob found that “American students fully accept the conventions of the contemporary business society as the context within which they will realize their personal desires” and expect to conform to the economic status quo to receive ample rewards for their effort

(p. 2). Further findings indicate that traditional moral virtues (sincerity, honesty, loyalty) are valued by almost all students. Jacob contends that while students are not inclined 44 to censor those who depart from these standards, they consider leniency a common occurrence in observing the rules regarding academic honesty because systematic cheating is customary rather than the exception.

According to Drinan (1999), “embedded in academic integrity are fundamental core values and principles that together reinforce a university’s educational mission and academic processes” (p. 29). The Center for Academic Integrity contends that academic integrity focuses on standing up for five values. The value of academic honesty is primary and a prerequisite to trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.

Fairness assures that students that do not cheat will not be disadvantaged by those that do, respect acknowledges the worth and work of others, and responsibility is synonymous to accountability. Without honesty and clarity of processes, attainment and dissemination of knowledge are diminished (Drinan).

Role of Honor Codes

While having an honor code helps to create a culture of integrity, it is meaningless if students don’t know about it. Melendez (1985) define an honor code as a policy that includes one or more of the following components: 1) a written pledge in which students affirm that their work will be or has been done honestly; 2) the majority of the judiciary that hears alleged violations of academic dishonesty is comprised of students, or the chair of this group is a student; 3) unproctored examinations; and 4) a clause that places some degree of obligation on students to report incidents of cheating they see or hear about. McCabe and Trevino (cited in McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield,

1999) suggests that moral norms are likely to be activated and influence behavior under honor codes, because students are given responsibility for identifying misconduct, 45 assessing guilt, and administering sanctions. McCabe et al. (1999) further suggest that honor code environments help shape the ethics, values, character, attitudes, and behaviors that students carry forward from their college experiences into their professional lives.

Students have never had such opportunities to circumvent (thanks to the

Internet) or motives for academic misconduct (pressures to get into the right college, get the right job, get good grades, or succeed) than today. However great the influences compelling students to lie or cheat, educators must “push back” by holding students accountable (Dichtl, 2003). While some research studies have found that honor codes are associated with lower rates of cheating because they define academic misconduct and set expectations (Bowers, 1964; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; McCabe & Trevino,

2002; McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1999), Drake (1941) contends that cheating occurs where the honor system exists as well as where students are under the surveillance of teachers and monitors. Bowers (1964) argues that peer pressure explains why schools with honor systems generally have lower levels of cheating.

Although most universities rely on traditional policies to discourage academic misconduct, a large number of institutions have honor codes that outline expectations, define appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, and identify sanctions.

Many researchers contend that honor codes must be introduced during orientation, included in the student handbook and the course syllabi, as well as be part of an ongoing dialogue on campus (Dichtl, 2003; Kiehl, 2006; McCabe & Trevino, 2002).

Knowledge of the policy is not enough. Faculty members must discuss cheating with their classes and clearly delineate the penalties for such behavior. At Washington and 46

Lee University, expectations and responsibilities under the honor code are part of the students’ admissions process (McCabe & Trevino 2002).

Stearns (1997) suggests two types of knowledge; one, what cheating is, and, two, university policy. A survey conducted of 200 university catalogs found that only

55% (63 public institutions, 47 private institutions) contained relevant sections related to honor codes. While many colleges and universities have excellent and strong academic dishonesty policies, faculty feel the rules are too complicated and too time consuming

(Stearns, 1997). However, when students have a clear understanding of the honor code or academic honesty policy, and take to heart their institution’s expectations about integrity, they are better armed to evaluate and confront their peers’ behavior (Dichtl,

2003).

Several researchers assert that a primary problem with honor codes and traditional academic integrity policies is reportage (Drinan, 1999; Johnston, 1996;

McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1999). Johnston’s study of college students’ perception of an incident involving cheating on a mid-term exam revealed that friendship was the primary determinant when students faced an ethical dilemma to report misconduct. For many students, friendship silenced them; one student indicated that losing her social status was at stake, while others walked a fine line between the teacher and loyalty to other students. “We teach students about individual achievement and individual responsibility, but fail to teach them about collective responsibility” (Johnston, p. 165).

McCabe, et.al. suggest the stigma associated with a ‘tattle tale’, fear of making an enemy or causing another students’ expulsion, and concern about reporting a friend all 47 has a tendency to silence students even in honor code environments. Students perceive squealing to be worse than cheating.

Deterrents and Sanctions

Evidence that deterrents have an impact on cheating is unclear. Most researchers do not find that severity of punishment and the probability of being caught are correlated with cheating behavior (Houston, 1983; Kiehl, 2006; McCabe, Trevino, &

Butterfield, 2002; Moore, 2002). Kiehl (2006) contends that the consequences of academic misconduct should be severe enough that it sends a message that will change future behavior – expulsion from the institution, fail the class, see the Dean, receive a “0” on the test, or public humiliation. When faced with violations of academic dishonesty, faculty members are left with an ethical dilemma that can be life changing for students. According to McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2002), some faculty prefer to deal with academic misconduct one-on-one with students. Anecdotal comments from students suggest that faculty tend to be more lenient than the formal judicial process, and any sanction imposed is generally not part of the students’ official academic record.

Therefore, informal and unofficial attempts at enforcement of the institutions’ policy by faculty may lead to increased levels of cheating (McCabe, et.al., 2002).

Kiehl (2006) suggests the A-B-C-D-E ethical decision-making model as an effective tool in determining the consequences for academic misconduct. What follows is an abbreviated textbook description of Kiehl’s model. The letter “A” refers to an examination of all the factors including an assessment of the individual, the details of the situation, as well as the seriousness of the incident. The letter “B” refers to benefits which includes a determination as to how the student, the teacher-student relationship, 48 and other stakeholders might benefit from or be impacted by the decision, as well as which action or decision will benefit and/or impact relevant stakeholders. The letter “C” refers to consequences and consultation. The model proposes that the ethical, legal, emotional, and therapeutic consequences be considered (Kiehl, p. 201). Kiehl further suggest that other relevant colleagues, supervisors, legal counsel, or professional committees be consulted, as necessary, because the ethical consequences of not reporting sends the wrong message that the behavior is acceptable. The letter “D” stands for duty to report and to whom. It is during this step that faculty identifies options such as doing nothing, failing the student, and reporting the student to the University’s

Academic Honesty Committee or other official department. The letter “E” refers to education as it relates to both faculty and students’ understanding of the ethical principles and codes applicable to the situation (Kiehl).

Moore’s (2002) response to academic misconduct required students to attend groups sessions once a week for seven weeks during “free” hour to discuss how the student decided to engage in the misconduct. Some observations noted during the group sessions include: students blame the teachers for not adequately explaining plagiarism; students felt the teacher’s youth and friendliness misled student into believing the teacher would take an understanding approach to any breach in academic integrity; and in comparison to the business world in which collaboration is encouraged, students were held accountable when they collaborated in academic settings (Moore).

Challenges to Academic Integrity

While there is an abundance of literature available on the topic of academic dishonesty, there appears to be very little “real” effort to address it. Faculty are most 49 often perceived to turn a blind eye claiming the process of taking students on is too laborious (Kiehl, 2006; McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002; Moore, 2002) and students most often will not “rat” on one another because they have their own honor code among cheaters (Drinan, 1999; Johnston, 1996; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield,

1999). Moreover, copies of computerized test files are available on the ‘black market’ as soon as they become available from the publisher (Davis, 1993), and the availability of commercially prepared research papers have surged, particularly in situations where students have access to technology that was unheard of years ago (Drinan). Another challenge resulting from changes in pedagogy is the emphasis on collaboration (Drinan)

Loyalty and friendship are often powerful forces in keeping cheating and other academic integrity violations from being discovered. For students to betray another has always been problematic (Drinan, 1999). Convincing students that turning in friends who cheat or plagiarize is morally compelling and that it should be considered a primary objective of an academic integrity system is a tough sales pitch. Mai-Dalton (cited in

Johns and Strand, 2000) maintained that we should not rely on students’ natural ethical stage of development as they progress through college; rather, students must be made aware of the ethical components of their decisions. Consequently, students are provided with the opportunity to process relevant issues with enough frequency to sharpen their ethical decision-making process (Mai-Dalton).

Some professors suggest that an appropriate method for teaching ethics is to study and analyze cases that contain ethical dilemmas. Armstrong, Mintz, and Stewart

(cited in Johns and Strand, 2000) argued for the power of narrative to teach ethics.

Essentially, “narratives can actualize basic moral commitments such as integrity and 50 courage by inviting the reader imaginatively to put themselves into another person’s shoes which also can give rise to a moment of recognition, of tough self-scrutiny” (p.

173). Mayer-Sommer and Loeb (cited in Johns and Strand, 2000) suggest that students who have attended courses in ethics and moral decision-making experience only slight changes in orientation toward professional roles. Johns and Strand (2000), suggest that we consider differences of opinion; perhaps the objective of ethical instruction within the university system should be to foster enhanced abilities to evaluate various alternatives of a situation, rather than to change the moral attitudes of the individual.

Summary

A plethora of research on the subject of academic dishonesty indicates that large numbers of students have cheated since time immemorial, and probably always will

(Bowers, 1964; Davis, 1993; Dichtl, 2003; Drake, 1941; Dwyer & Hecht, 1994; Grijalva,

Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; McCabe & Trevino, 1963; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; McCabe

& Trevino, 2002; Pactor, McKeen & Morris, 1990; Payne & Nantz, 1994; Rawwas &

Isakson, 2000; Underwood & Szabo, 2003; West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader, 2004). Many students do not have a well-developed, internalized sense of integrity. Cheating behaviors are characterized as less deviant and more normal (Payne & Nantz, 1994;

Sherrill, Salisbury, Horowitz, & Friedman, 1971; Whitley, 1998) due to peer influence, pressures for good grades, pressures to succeed, and other stresses students are placed under that reinforce academic dishonesty (Baird, 1980; Dalton, 1981; Davis,

1993; Drake, 1941; Keller, 1976; McCabe & Trevino, 2002). In short, those who cheat are providing themselves with excuses for this type of behavior (Davis, 1993). One of the most telling anecdotal statements from a student was that “cheating in high school is 51 for grades, cheating in college is for a career” (Davis). Virtually nothing is being done to detect and prevent academic dishonesty and students know this. With such a cavalier attitude about cheating by faculty, administrators, and other school officials, it is no wonder that cheaters chalk their behavior off as no big deal (Cizek, 2003; Josephson,

2004). But, until school officials make academic misconduct a big deal, it will not be one (Cizek, 2003). Whether or not cheating is on the rise is disputed by researchers

(McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Spiller & Crown, 1995), but concern about the issue remains high (Crown & Spiller, 1998).

Some researchers suggest a shortage of data available that help educators understand how student cheating has changed over time. Drinan (1999) suggests a lack of research on student attitudes toward cheating in collaborative learning settings.

More importantly, prior research rarely studied the influence of personal beliefs and values on cheating. Lawson (2004) contends that students generally believe that people in the business world act in an unethical manner, yet a substantial number of the students self-report incidents of academic misconduct. While previous studies have examined both of these sets of beliefs and behaviors, rarely have any examined the relationship between them. While Grijalva, Nowell, and Kerkvliet (2006) assert that academic dishonesty in online classes is no more prevalent than in tradition classroom, current literature on academic dishonesty in online courses is virtually nonexistent.

Moreover, research findings show that honor codes have a positive impact on academic integrity, but we know little about students’ thoughts and feelings about these codes and how and why they think honor codes influence their behavior (McCabe, Trevino, &

Butterfield, 1999). 52

Graduating students are currently in route to occupy key positions of leadership and authority in our society. Consequently, our future leaders (police officers, politicians, accountants, lawyers, doctors, and other business professionals) will be entering the workforce as shameless cheaters, liars and thieves (Josephson, 2004). A moral compass is required for the conduct of leaders and members of academe that cannot be camouflaged with inflated quarterly earnings, insider trade information, an unwarranted grade of “A”, and untruths stated in a resume or curriculum vita regarding work experience or published works (Torres, 2003). While we are experiencing crises in leadership, not all leaders are bad. However, if our systems continue to permit

“cooking the books”, defrauding investors of their life savings, overcompensating executives, price rigging, polluting the environment, grade inflation, and an immunity to academic misconduct, then it puts pressure on every organization and institution to adapt a culture that becomes the norm (Torres).

53

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research design, participants, data collection instrument, variables, materials, procedures used to collect the data, and data analysis procedures used to conduct this study.

Research Design

A survey was used as the data collection method to examine college students’ perceptions regarding academic misconduct. Specifically, the survey captured students’ ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, and students’ level of familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy. Differences across demographic categories are also examined. According to Babbie (as cited in Creswell,

2003), the purpose of survey research is to generalize from a sample to a population so that inferences can be made about some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of this population. A primary advantage of using a survey design for this study was economies of scale, the quick turnaround in data collection, and the ability to identify the attributes of a large population from a small group of individuals (Babbie, 1990; Fowler, 1988).

Participants

A total number of 1,853 students enrolled at Midwestern State University participated in this study – 291 freshmen, 264 sophomores, 337 juniors, 355 seniors,

187 students in their fifth year or beyond as an undergraduate, 394 graduate students, and 24 non-degree students. Participants were selected from a total population of

20,228 students – 17,146 undergraduate students and 3,082 graduate students. This sample included 5117 freshmen, 3372 sophomores, 3415 juniors, 4389 seniors, 2304 54 master’s students, 778 doctoral students, and 853 undergraduate guests. Due to the sensitivity of the research topic, a low response rate was anticipated. Therefore, a nonrandom convenience sampling method was used. Every student enrolled at

Midwestern State University received a survey in hopes of obtaining an adequate sample size. For this reason, no random selection techniques were considered.

The researcher developed a memorandum that was sent via email to all students encouraging their participation in the study. The Office of Institutional Research sent the actual memorandum (Appendix B) with a link to the survey (Appendix C) to every student. The memorandum explained the purpose of the research study, provided instructions, made an appeal regarding the importance of students’ participation, and offered a cash incentive/raffle to further increase the response rate – two $250.00 cash prizes and two $50.00 gas cards. Four students received these awards at the end of the fall 2008 semester.

Setting

Midwestern State University (MSU) was founded in 1910 as a small teachers’ college in the Midwest and has grown into a major institution of higher education with more than 20,000 students and approximately 2300 full-time faculty and staff members.

MSU offers a very rich academic life which includes more than 200 undergraduate majors and programs on the main campus housed within six academic colleges: Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Education and Human Development, Health and Human Services, Musical Arts, and Technology. Additionally, the University offers

9 baccalaureate degrees and 14 associate degree programs through the Branch

Campus. The intellectual environment is an exciting one which offers a breadth and 55 depth of graduate study that includes: 15 master degree programs in over 60 fields, 2 specialist degree programs, and 16 doctoral degree programs.

The Branch Campus is one of MSU’s seven undergraduate colleges, which is located about an hour from the main campus. The Branch Campus has three primary departments – applied sciences, humanities, and natural and social sciences.

Certificate programs are available in bookkeeping, business application specialist, management and supervision and small business management. Fourteen associate degrees representing areas of study prepare students for transfer to bachelor’s programs or for entry into the job market in a technical or paraprofessional area. In cooperation with MSU’s other undergraduate colleges, there are bachelor degrees and master degrees that can be completed at the Branch Campus.

MSU provides the first two years of instruction toward the bachelor of science in nursing degree, serves as a satellite for a local county community college associate of applied science in nursing program, and in consort with another area university, offers the necessary coursework for RNs to complete the bachelor of science and master of science in nursing degrees.

About 7000 of MSU's 20,200 students live on campus. MSU attracts students who balance academic excellence with involvement in nearly 325 student organizations.

MSU’s fraternity and sorority community enjoys more than a 60-year history. Fraternity and sorority members share in service, scholastic, social, athletic, service and leadership experiences while also participating in self-governance. MSU is home to 43 fraternities and sororities, representing 12% of the undergraduate population, a very popular option for students. Men’s groups include Inter-fraternity Council Fraternities, 56

National Panhellenic Council Fraternities, and Independent Greek Council Fraternities; women’s groups include Panhellenic Sororities, National Panhellenic Council Sororities, and Independent Greek Council Sororities; and co-ed groups include the Independent

Greek Council Co-ed Service Fraternity.

MSU’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP) (Appendix A) is designed to enhance and sustain an environment of ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University. The policy is based on respect for intellectual property as well as for one another. The objectives of the AHP is 1) to communicate to all members of the University community the conviction of the University and its faculty that cheating and plagiarism are destructive of the mission of the University and are universally disapproved; and 2) to state procedures for accomplishing the above objective by students, faculty, academic deans, and the Academic Honesty Committee.

Instrumentation

An adapted survey, which consists of McCabe’s (2003) Academic Integrity

Student Survey, in addition to 20 statements and/or questions from Josephson’s Report

Card 2004: The Ethics of American Youth, was used to collect data for this study. The researcher obtained permission from the Josephson Institute to use portions of the

Report Card survey. The researcher also obtained permission from McCabe to use the

Academic Integrity Student Survey.

The Josephson Institute developed the Report Card in 1998 to collect data on the ethics of young people, with over 20,000 middle and high school respondents. The researcher selected this instrument because it captured data on one of the key variables in this study: “ethical beliefs”. While the Report Card was designed for middle 57 and high school students, the researcher recognized the adaptability of the specific survey questions and/or statements to a university audience. Only Section II – “What do you think?” and questions 61-63 from the Report Card were used. However, of the

25 questions in Section II, the researcher only used 17 of those questions and developed three additional questions that were more relevant to a university audience.

All modifications made to this section of the survey instrument were validated by a subject-matter expert panel. Questions 61-63 from the Report Card were used in their original form.

McCabe developed the Academic Integrity Student Survey in 2003 to collect data on the academic environment at colleges and universities, specific behaviors students engage in, and the perceived seriousness of those behaviors across demographics.

The researcher selected this instrument because it captured data on the remaining variables in this study: “types of academic misconduct”, “frequency of academic misconduct”, the “perceived seriousness of academic misconduct”, and “level of familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy”. This survey instrument was used in its entirety with one exception – all references to an institution were made to the university that served as the site for the present study.

The researcher made no modifications to Josephson’s 20 statements and/or questions related to students’ ethical beliefs. And only minor modifications and/or additions were made to McCabe’s Academic Integrity Student Survey to make it unique to the university that served as the site for the present study. Specifically, in Section I – age was added as a demographic. Regarding the fourth question about primary majors,

Art now includes Music, Technology replaced Engineering, Education was added, and 58

Health and Human Services replaced Nursing/Health Professionals. Moreover, three items were added to the list of activities in the fifth question: attend honors classes, student leadership role/serve on committees, and professional academic clubs and organizations. In Section II – the researcher eliminated three statements, but also added three statements: 1) it is acceptable to lie because so few people tell the truth anymore; 2) it is acceptable to pad or inflate your resume in order to get a job; and 3) cheating has become a cultural norm in American society. In Section III, Question 15, the term “university” in the first statement was replaced with the term “school”. In

Section IV, three changes were made to the third question: 1) the first-year orientation program was changed to include the term undergraduate as well as the program title; 2) the first-year orientation program for graduate students was added and likewise includes the program title; and 3) the term “graduate assistant” was included alongside the term “teaching assistant”. Lastly, three statements were added to the list of items in the fourth question: 1) cheating; 2) Academic Honesty Committee; and 3) sanctions for

Academic Honesty Policy violations. No modifications were made in Section V.

This web-based survey was developed using Snap software. Snap software enables researchers to create and format surveys, publish them to the web, set up email invitations and reminders to respondents, import and analyze response data, create and edit tables and charts of response data and export them to other applications, as well as interfaces with SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences) software. The advantage of using a web-based survey eliminates the cost of printing and mailing and provides a wider reach to large numbers of students via email in a short period of time. However, the primary disadvantage is that students contacted 59 via email are already suffering from email overload and survey fatigue. The Office of

Institutional Research transferred the data from the Snap software using the export utility into the SPSS software and provided a data file and spreadsheet to the researcher to conduct the various analyses identified in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Research Questions, Survey Items and Statistical Analysis Types of Research Question Survey Item Statistical Analysis 1. What are the ethical beliefs of Section II – Question 7 o Descriptive undergraduate and graduate Section V – Questions Statistics students? 23-24

2. What types of academic misconduct Section III – Questions o Descriptive do undergraduate and graduate 8, 10, 12 Statistics students commit?

3. How frequently do undergraduate and Section III – Question 8 o Descriptive graduate students engage in Section IV – Questions Statistics academic misconduct? 20-22

4. What is the perceived seriousness of Section III – Question 9 o Descriptive academic misconduct among Statistics undergraduate and graduate students?

5. What level of familiarity do Section IV – Questions o Descriptive undergraduate and graduate students 17-19 Statistics have about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP)?

6. Do ethical beliefs, types of Section I – Questions 1- o Chi-Square misconduct, frequency of misconduct, 6 across the above perceived seriousness of misconduct, or familiarity with the AHP vary across demographic characteristics?

60

The survey instrument (Appendix B) consists of five sections. The first section consists of six items and uses a checklist to capture demographic information that includes academic class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, 5th year and beyond, graduate student, and non-degree), sex, race/ethnicity, age, primary major and student engagement. Student engagement identifies students’ participation in co- curricular activities such as paid employment, caring for a dependent, membership in a fraternity or sorority, attend honors classes, serve in a leadership role, serve on committees, and members of professional academic clubs and/or organizations.

The second section of the survey consists of 20 items that asked students what they think/believe as it relates to their ethical beliefs. This section uses a five-point

Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “no opinion” to capture student’s responses to statements such as “It is important for me to be a person with good character” and “It is acceptable to lie because no one tells the truth anymore”.

The third section of the survey consist of eight items related to specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating. In the first item students were asked to indicate the frequency in which they engaged in specific behaviors – never, once, more than once, or not relevant. In the second item, students were provided the same list of behaviors and asked to rank the seriousness of each behavior – not cheating, trivial cheating, moderate cheating, or serious cheating. In the remaining six items of this section, students were asked about their experience with online tests/exams, electronic sources, reporting incidents of cheating, and their level of agreement with a series of statements. 61

The fourth section of the survey consists of seven items related to students’ level of familiarity with the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP). This section uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from “very low to “very high” to rate the academic environment at their institution. For example, students were asked to rank the severity for cheating, their assessment of the average students’ understanding of campus policies concerning student cheating, faculty understanding of these policies, student support of these policies, and the effectiveness of the AHP. Students were also asked if they had been informed about the policies, where they learned about the policies, if instructors discussed these policies, and in what venue the discussions occurred.

Lastly, students were asked how frequently they believe violations occur, if they have observed any violations, and/or if they have reported such violations.

The last section of the survey consists of three items. The first item asked students how many people they know would put them on their list of most ethical people they know. This item uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from “almost all” to “none”.

The second item asked students how many questions on the survey they answered with complete honesty. This item uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from “all” to “none”.

The last item is an open-ended question that asked students if they think ethics and character are really important and why or why not.

Procedures for Collecting Data

The researcher first submitted an application and received permission to conduct the study from the University’s Human Subjects Review Board. Next, a pilot study was conducted with undergraduate students in two sections of the EDAS 409 course.

Pilot Test 62

While reliability co-efficient data are most likely established for the existing instruments, the researcher conducted a pilot test of the adapted survey instrument from the combined works of McCabe and Josephson. The purpose of pilot testing is “to establish the content validity of an instrument and to improve questions, format, and the scales” (Creswell, 2003, p. 158). More specifically, to solicit feedback on the content, format, and appropriateness of the questions; and to assess whether or not the questions adequately provide the responses required in testing the survey questions.

A faculty member in the College of Education and Human Development volunteered her two undergraduate classes for this pilot which made this nonrandom sampling method one of convenience. The adapted survey was sent via e-mail to approximately 47 undergraduate students from Midwestern State University. The email

(Appendix C) to students included a memorandum that provided an explanation of instructions, the purpose of the research study, an appeal regarding the importance of student participation, and a link to the survey. One week after the email was disseminated, three participants had responded. While the data review looked fine, the response rate was too low. The researcher was sensitive to the fact that some students may have been reluctant to participate in the survey because they may not have trusted the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses and opted not to self incriminate as it related to potential violations of the University’s AHP. However, a follow-up memorandum was sent via email which netted an additional five responses, for a total of eight (3 males and 5 females which consisted of 4 juniors, 3 seniors, and one student in their 5th year or beyond). All of the questions were answered by most of the 63 participants, which is good. One open-ended response was very positive and one was negative.

Moreover, the researcher asked several content experts, including all members on the dissertation committee, to review the survey instrument and provide relevant suggestions before the final rollout to the entire student population. As a result, only format changes were recommended and adopted. After a thorough review of the pilot results with no apparent problems, the researcher concluded that the survey instrument was ready for campus-wide dissemination to the entire student population.

Final Survey

During the fall 2008 semester, the final survey instrument along with a cover letter was sent electronically to all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at

Midwestern State University. Actually, the email was disseminated out of the Office of

Institutional Research and included a memorandum (Appendix A) that provided an explanation of instructions, the purpose of the research study, an appeal regarding the importance of student participation, and a link to the survey. In addition, students were informed that they would be entered in a raffle to win cash awards for participating in the study.

The first couple days after the survey was disseminated, approximately 50 students informed the researcher via email of a problem with students being unable to provide their contact information in order to participate in the raffle for cash awards.

The researcher worked with the Office of Institutional Research to include a message at the end of the survey indicating email addresses would be automatically collected by the survey software in order that we may contact students in case they win the raffle. 64

The message also stated that the data would be held in the strictest confidence. In addition, the researcher personally sent the following response to each student that made an inquiry:

“I just learned that all emails are embedded in the responses, which do not come

to me, but are routed to the Office of the Institutional Research who extracts all

responses and provides me only with aggregate data. So, they will have your

email in the pool for the raffle which is how we will know who the winners are.

Thanks for putting me on notice so that I could follow up. Good luck in the raffle.”

Within the first week, approximately 1700 students responded. While the response rate was good, a second/follow-up communication was sent via email re- emphasizing the importance of the study and appealing to students’ sense of academic engagement. All total, 1853 students responded to the survey.

Data Analysis Procedures

Demographic data is most effectively examined through frequency tables and other descriptive statistics that include bar graphs, pie charts, scatter plots, percentages, etc. Demographics of the respondents are presented in Tables 4.1 - 4.6.

Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics was an effective methodology in examining the accuracy of this data. There is no effect resulting from the number of nonrespondents from the survey; therefore, response bias is irrelevant. Determining the mean, standard deviation, as well as range of values for all the variables was useful.

Moreover, the researcher examined missing data as well as outliers, if any.

Chi-square testing is used to analyze variables that are reported in categories

(Fraenkel, 2003). The independent variables include “ethical beliefs”, “types of 65 academic misconduct”, “perceived seriousness of academic misconduct”, and “level of familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy”– all are categorical variables.

The dependent variable is “frequency of academic misconduct” – a quantitative variable.

Hence, when using Chi-square crosstabs, the researcher manipulated and analyzed the entire data set to determine if relationships exist among multiple variables such as

“ethical beliefs”, “types of academic misconduct”, “perceived seriousness of academic misconduct”, and “level of familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy” to analyze the “frequency of academic misconduct” (Table 3.1).

Survey Limitations and Assumptions

Several limitations exist with the adapted survey instrument. Specifically, while students are asked to mark behaviors they have engaged in to commit academic misconduct, the survey fails to further explore other types of misconduct. In addition, the survey questions do not connect students’ beliefs and behaviors to participation in co-curricular activities such as paid employment; caring for a dependent; membership in a social fraternity, sorority, or club; leadership role; enrollment in honors classes; service on committees; or membership in professional academic clubs and organizations. Furthermore, they survey items do not define “something significant” as it relates to students’ lying to a parent or teacher. 66

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine, through an adaptation of

McCabe’s and Josephson’s work on academic integrity, the beliefs and experiences toward academic misconduct of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at

Midwestern State University. This chapter presents statistical analysis and data reports based on responses from the Academic Misconduct Student Survey (Appendix B). The survey instrument solicited feedback to questions on students’ ethical beliefs, frequency and types of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, students’ level of familiarity of the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP), as well as demographic characteristics.

First, demographic characteristics of the sample population, using descriptive statistics relative to the frequency of responses, are presented. Following the demographics are results for each research question which are also depicted using descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis. Frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations best represent the results for ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, and level of familiarity of the University’s AHP of undergraduate and graduate students. Second, Chi square analysis is used to determine if ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct or level of familiarity with the University’s AHP vary across demographic characteristics. 67

Characteristics of Sample

The participants in the study included undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Midwestern State University. Participants were selected from a total population of approximately 20,228 students – 17,146 undergraduate students and

3,082 graduate students. This sample included approximately 5117 freshmen, 3372 sophomores, 3415 juniors, 4389 seniors, 2304 master’s students, 778 doctoral students, and 853 undergraduate guests.

Of the 1853 participants, 1193 (64.4%) were female, 652 (35.2%) were male, and eight, less than a half percent (.4%) did not self-identify. Moreover, 1458 (78.7%) were undergraduate and 394 (21.3%) were graduate students. Of the undergraduate students, juniors and seniors represented the largest groups. However, as reflected in

Table 4.1, graduate students were the largest group overall.

Table 4.1

Demographic Information on Academic Class Standing

Academic Standing f % 1st year (Freshman) 291 15.7 2nd year (Sophomore) 264 14.2 3rd year (Junior) 337 18.2 4th year (Senior) 355 19.2 5th year or beyond 187 10.1 Graduate student 394 21.3 Non-degree 24 1.3 Total 1852 99.9 Missing 1 .1 Total 1853 100.0

68

As reflected in Table 4.2, the two largest age groups were the 18-19 (n=409) and

20-21 (n=565) years category together representing 974 (50.5%) or slightly more than half of the total participants. Closely following these two groups were the 22-23 (n=370) and 30+ (n=246) years category.

Table 4.2

Demographic Information on Age

Age Group f % under 18 24 1.3 18-19 409 22.1 20-21 565 30.5 22-23 370 20.0 24-25 109 5.9 26-27 72 3.9 28-29 55 3.0 30+ 246 13.3 Total 1850 99.8 Missing 3 .2 Total 1853 100.0

Demographic data on race/ethnicity in Table 4.3 shows that 1601 White students

(86.4%) were the largest group participating in this study and are also the majority

population (80.2%) at the university that served as the site for the study (Table 4.4). 69

Table 4.3

Demographic Information on Race/Ethnicity of Participants

Race/Ethnicity Groups f % White 1601 86.4 African American/Black 101 5.5

Hispanic/Latino 47 2.5

Asian 43 2.3

Native Hawaiian 2 .1

Other Pacific Islander 3 .2

American Indian 3 .2

Other 43 2.3

Total 1843 99.5

Missing 10 .5 Total 1853 100.0

Table 4.4

Demographic Information on Race/Ethnicity of Students at Midwestern State University

Race/Ethnicity Groups f % White 16,218 80.2 African American/Black 1,821 9.0 Hispanic/Latino 618 3.1 Asian/Pacific Islander 183 0.9 American Indian 118 0.6 Other 1,270 6.3 Total 20,228 100.0 70

Table 4.5 illustrates the two largest groups accounting for primary major – Arts &

Sciences (n=689) and Education and Human Development (n=529) which together represent 1218 (65.7%) of the total participants. The university’s branch campus does not represent a specific “primary major” but is a smaller campus that offers two-year degree programs at the university that served as the site for the present study.

Table 4.5

Demographic Information on Primary Major

Primary Major f % Arts & Sciences 689 37.2 Business 191 10.3 Administration Education & Human 529 28.5 Development Branch Campus 11 .6 Health & Human 167 9.0 Services Musical Arts 63 3.4 Technology 109 5.9 Other 29 1.6 Undecided 32 1.7 Total 1820 98.2 Missing 33 1.8 Total 1853 100.0

Table 4.6 depicts demographic data on the amount of time students spend

engaging in co-curricular activities. Results indicate that a high percent of participants

(80.3%) do not have the responsibility for caring for a dependent, nor do they attend

honors classes (83.4%). However, results show that 66.3% work (paid employment); 71 and of this population, 28.93% work more than 19 hours per week. The results further show that in addition to working part-time, participants spend 1-9 hours per week serving in a student leadership role (20%), serving on committees (25.7%), and are actively engaged in professional academic clubs or organizations (36.2%).

Table 4.6

Demographic Information on Students Co-Curricular Activities

Do Not More than Participate 1-9 Hours 10-19 Hours 19 Hours Missing Activity f % f % f % f % f % Paid Employment 575 31.03 302 16.30 390 21.05 536 28.93 50 2.70 Dependent Care 1488 80.30 66 3.56 23 1.24 121 6.53 155 8.36 Fraternity/Sorority 1239 66.86 374 20.18 74 3.99 33 1.78 133 7.18 Honors Classes 1545 83.38 132 7.12 27 1.46 3 0.16 146 7.88 Student Leadership 1231 66.43 371 20.02 77 4.16 37 2.00 137 7.39 Committee Service 1192 64.33 476 25.69 34 1.83 14 0.76 137 7.39 Academic Clubs 979 52.83 670 36.16 58 3.13 27 1.46 119 6.42

Research Question One

What are the ethical beliefs of undergraduate and graduate students?

First, participants were asked to respond to 20 statements related to their beliefs

about ethics and character. The response options ranged from strongly agree to

strongly disagree, and included a “no opinion” option (Table 4.7). Participants were

then asked if people they know were asked to list the most ethical people they know,

how many would put them on their list (Table 4.9). In addition, participants were asked

how many questions on the survey they answered with complete honesty (Table 4.10).

Table 4.7 shows no major disparity in responses between undergraduate and

graduate students on any of the statements related to ethics and character. A low

mean score, closer to 1.0, the higher the agreement – meaning more agreement. Upon 72 review of the mean scores, it appears that both undergraduate and graduate students agree or strongly agree that character is important (1.22 and 1.15, respectively) and are satisfied with their own ethics (1.63 and 1.62, respectively). Similarly, both undergraduate and graduate students disagree or strongly disagree that “it is acceptable to lie because so few people tell the truth anymore” (3.48 and 3.56, respectively) and that “it’s not cheating if everyone is doing it” (3.52 and 3.54, respectively). Moreover, both undergraduate and graduate students are somewhat in the middle on the statements “in the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating” (2.68 and 2.67, respectively); and

“cheating has become a cultural norm in American society” (2.55 and 2.74, respectively).

Table 4.8 provides an even clearer depiction that shows 47.2% (689) undergraduate and 45.7% (180) graduate students strongly agree/agree that “in the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating”, whereas 42.2% (630) undergraduate and 49.5% (195) graduate students strongly disagree or disagree. In addition, 57.4% (838) undergraduate and 48% (189) graduate students strongly agree/agree that “cheating has become a cultural norm in

American society”, whereas 33% (482) undergraduate and 42.6% (168) graduate students strongly disagree or disagree.

73

Table 4.7

Students’ Responses to Ethical Beliefs

Undergraduate Students Graduate Students Item Item Description n Mean SD n Mean SD It is important for me to be a person with 1433 1.22 0.43 394 1.15 0.44 Q7a good character Most adults in my life consistently set a 1424 1.84 0.85 391 1.86 0.78 Q7b good example of ethics and character My parents/guardians always want me to do the ethically right thing, no matter what 1433 1.82 0.96 393 1.81 0.91 Q7c the cost Being a person with good character is more 1422 1.54 0.78 392 1.37 0.64 Q7d important than being rich When it comes to doing what is right, I am 1426 2.40 1.26 393 2.69 1.39 Q7e better than most people I know In personal relationships, trust and honesty 1424 1.20 0.47 394 1.20 0.47 Q7f are essential In business and the workplace, trust and 1425 1.48 0.67 388 1.43 0.61 Q7g honesty are essential In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others 1428 2.68 1.07 393 2.67 0.98 Q7h consider it cheating A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in 1424 3.03 0.94 390 3.04 0.84 Q7i order to succeed It is acceptable to lie because so few 1412 3.48 0.69 393 3.56 0.63 Q7j people tell the truth anymore People who are willing to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than 1429 3.16 0.92 393 3.17 0.89 Q7k people who are not My parents/guardians would rather I cheat 1427 3.73 0.64 394 3.83 0.58 Q7l than get bad grades Q7m It’s important to me that people trust me 1430 1.33 0.60 391 1.33 0.55 It’s not worth it to lie or cheat because it 1431 1.70 0.85 393 1.58 0.75 Q7n hurts your character In sports, if you’re not cheating you’re not 1429 3.61 0.83 394 3.71 0.75 Q7o trying hard enough People should play by the rules even if it 1429 1.67 0.82 393 1.66 0.85 Q7p means they lose Q7q It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it 1426 3.52 0.73 392 3.54 0.67 It is acceptable to pad or inflate your 1426 3.30 0.87 392 3.43 0.75 Q7r resume in order to get a job Cheating has become a cultural norm in 1429 2.55 0.98 393 2.74 1.02 Q7s American society I am satisfied with my own ethics and 1429 1.63 0.68 394 1.62 0.61 Q7t character

Scale – 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = No opinion 74

Table 4.8

Students’ Responses to Specific Ethical Beliefs

Undergraduate Graduate In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win Rating f % f % Strongly Agree 159 10.90 39 9.90 Agree 530 36.33 141 35.79 Disagree 461 31.60 142 36.04 Strongly 169 11.58 53 13.45 Disagree No Opinion 109 7.47 18 4.57 Total 1428 97.88 393 99.75 Missing 31 2.12 1 0.25 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Cheating has become a cultural norm in American society f % f % Strongly Agree 99 6.79 22 5.58 Agree 739 50.65 167 42.39 Disagree 406 27.83 132 33.50 Strongly 76 5.21 36 9.14 Disagree No Opinion 109 7.47 36 9.14 Total 1429 97.94 393 99.75 Missing 30 2.06 1 0.25 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

As depicted in Table 4.9, the majority of the participants 70.2% (1024)

undergraduate and 75.4% (297) graduate students believe that almost all or most

people they know would put them on their list of most ethical people they know. And

6% (88) undergraduate and 2.8% (11) graduate students self-reported that none or

almost no one they know would put them on their list of most ethical people they know. 75

Table 4.9

Students’ Responses to the Ethical List Question

Undergraduate Students Graduate Rating f % f % Almost All 398 27.28 114 28.93 Most 626 42.91 183 46.45 Half 308 21.11 76 19.29 Almost None 70 4.80 9 2.28 None 18 1.23 2 0.51 Total 1420 97.33 384 97.46 Missing 39 2.67 10 2.54 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Likewise, when asked how many questions on the survey participants answered

with complete honesty (Table 4.10), a high percentage 82.8% (1208) undergraduate

and 87.8% (346) graduate students reported that they answered all the questions with

complete honesty. However, 15% (213) undergraduate and 12% (47) graduate

students admittedly did not answer every question with complete honesty.

Table 4.10

Students’ Responses to Questions about Complete Honesty

Undergraduate Rating Students Graduate Students f % f % All 1208 82.80 346 87.82 All but 1 or 2 169 11.58 42 10.66 All but 3-5 34 2.33 3 0.76 All but 6-10 10 0.69 2 0.51 Total 1421 97.40 393 99.75 Missing 38 2.60 1 0.25 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

76

Research Question Two

What types of academic misconduct do undergraduate and graduate students commit?

First, participants were asked to respond to 26 questions about specific behaviors that some people might consider to be cheating. Specifically, they were asked to identify the behaviors they have engaged in within the past year (Table 4.11).

For those participants that indicated they have “paraphrased or copied materials from a written or electronic source without citation”, they were also asked to identify how they accessed the material (Table 4.12). Moreover, participants who indicated they had taken an online test were further asked to identify if they had engaged in very specific behaviors identified in Table 4.13.

At a minimum, at least one undergraduate and one graduate student clearly self- reported that they engaged in every behavior that some people may consider cheating with one exception (Table 4.11). No graduate student self-reported any incident of

“submitting a paper purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claiming it as their own work”.

While undergraduate students self-reported on every behavior, digital technology and/or web-based methods as an unauthorized aid appear to have the lowest usage by undergraduate students. Less than 3% self-reported “using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination”

(2.8%); “turning in a paper from a ‘paper mill’ (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as their own work” (1.6%); “submitting a paper

purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claiming it 77 as their own work” (1.2%); and “using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam” (2.9%).

Likened to undergraduate student behavior, only one graduate student self- reported “using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination” and “turning in a paper from a ‘paper mill’ (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as their own work”. And less than 1% (3) graduate students reported “using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam” and “turning in work done by someone else”.

Of the top five behaviors with the highest number of participants self-reporting

(see Table 4.11), four were identified by both undergraduate and graduate students as follows:

1) 35.8% (522) of the undergraduates and 20.1% (79) of the graduate students

reported working on an assignment with others (in person) when the

instructor asked for individual work;

2) 30.2% (441) of the undergraduates and 20.6% (81) of the graduate students

reported paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an

electronic source – e.g., the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper they

submitted;

3) 30% (438) of the undergraduates and 14.7% (58) of the graduate students

reported getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken

a test; and 78

4) 24.7% (360) of the undergraduates and 16% (63) of the graduate students

reported paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or

journal (not electronic or web-based) without footnoting them in a paper they

submitted.

In addition, one of the top five incidents reported by 29.5% (430) undergraduate students was “copying (by hand or in person) another student’s homework”, whereas, for the fifth most frequent activity reported by the graduate students, 15% (59) of the graduate students reported “working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work”. These findings were also used in the analysis of research question three. 79

Table 4.11

Students’ Responses to Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct

Undergraduate Graduate Item Description 1 or 1 or More % More % Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography 197 13.5% 25 6.3% Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work 522 35.8% 79 20.1% Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work 293 20.1% 59 15.0% Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test 438 30.0% 58 14.7% In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's program rather than writing your own 87 6.0% 15 3.8% Helping someone else cheat on a test 245 16.8% 25 6.3% Fabricating or falsifying lab data 191 13.1% 13 3.3% Fabricating or falsifying research data 149 10.2% 14 3.6% Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge 136 9.3% 9 2.3% Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge 191 13.1% 15 3.8% Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination 41 2.8% 1 0.3% Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment 292 20.0% 32 8.1% Copying (by hand or in person) another student's homework 430 29.5% 27 6.9% Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student's homework 104 7.1% 13 3.3% Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you 360 24.7% 63 16.0% submitted Turning in a paper from a "paper mill" (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work 23 1.6% 1 0.3% Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source - e.g., the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper you submitted 441 30.2% 81 20.6% Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work 17 1.2% 0 0.0% Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or 112 7.7% 8 2.0% exam Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam 121 8.3% 5 1.3% Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam 43 2.9% 3 0.8% Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work 76 5.2% 10 2.5% Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course 87 6.0% 11 2.8% Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam 237 16.2% 38 9.6% Turning in work done by someone else 59 4.0% 3 0.8% Cheating on a test in any other way 148 10.1% 11 2.8%

80

As depicted in Table 4.11, 360 undergraduate and 63 graduate students reported

“paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted.” while 441 undergraduate and 81 graduate students reported “paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from an electronic source – e.g., the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper you submitted.” Collectively, the 801 undergraduate and 144 graduate students that reported they paraphrased or copied materials from a written or electronic source without citing it were further asked to indicate how they accessed the material. As depicted in Table 4.12, a total of 674 undergraduate and 116 graduate students identified methods of how they accessed material from written or electronic sources.

However, clearly 155 students – 127 undergraduate and 28 graduate students failed to report how they accessed the material – the difference between 801 undergraduate and

144 graduate students that reported paraphrasing or copying without footnoting versus

674 undergraduate and 116 graduate students that identified methods of how they accessed the material.

In addition, a relatively large number of undergraduate 674 (46.2%) and graduate students 116 (29.4%) self-reported various methods for accessing materials from written or electronic sources without citing it (Table 4.12). The primary source “internet or other electronic means only” received the highest percentage of responses among both undergraduate 23.9% (348) and graduate students 13.2% (52). The least used method of access for undergraduate 1.6% (23) and graduate students 1.3% (5) appears to be hard (paper) copies of sources. 81

Table 4.12

Students’ Responses to How they Accessed Material from Written or Electronic Sources

Undergraduate Graduate Item Description f % f % Internet or other electronic means only 348 23.85 52 13.20 Have only used hard (paper) copies of 28 1.92 7 1.78 sources Have primarily used Internet or other 162 11.10 30 7.61 electronic means Have primarily used hard (paper) copies of 23 1.58 5 1.27 sources Have used both methods pretty equally 113 7.75 22 5.58 Total 674 46.20 116 29.44 Did not report paraphrasing w/o citing 785 53.80 278 70.56 Total Participants 1459 100.00 394 100.00

When asked about their behaviors during online tests, 45% (657) of the

undergraduates and 15.2% (60) of the graduate students reported online behaviors that

some people may consider cheating; 802 undergraduates and 334 graduate students

reported having not taken online exams (Table 4.13). Specifically, 16% (233) undergraduate students reported using notes or books on a closed book online test or exam compared to 4.6% (18) graduate students. In addition, 12.1% (176) of the undergraduate students further reported looking up information on the Internet when not permitted compared to 3.3% (13) of the graduate students. And, 10.3% (150) of the undergraduate students reported collaborating with others during an online test or exam when not permitted compared to 5.3% (21) of the graduate students. 82

Table 4.13

Students’ Responses to their Behaviors Regarding Online Test/Exams

Undergraduate Graduate Item Description f % f % Collaborated with others during an online test or exam when not 150 10.28 21 5.33 permitted Used notes or books on a closed 233 15.97 18 4.57 book online test or exam Received unauthorized help from 98 6.72 8 2.03 someone on an online test or Looked up information on the 176 12.06 13 3.30 Internet when not permitted Total 657 45.03 60 15.23 Reported no experience with online 802 54.97 334 84.77 tests or exams Total Participants 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Research Question Three

How frequently do undergraduate and graduate students engage in academic

misconduct?

First, participants were asked to respond to 26 questions about specific

behaviors that some people might consider cheating. Specifically, participants were

asked to identify how often (never, once, more than once, not relevant) in the past year

they have engaged in any of the behaviors identified in Table 4.11. Participants were

also asked how frequently they think behaviors related to academic misconduct occur at

their institution (Table 4.14); how often, if ever, they have seen another student cheat

during a test or examination at their institution (Table 4.15); and if they have ever

reported another student for cheating (Table 4.16).

Participants were asked how frequently they think three specific behaviors occur

at their institution that some people may consider cheating – plagiarism, sharing work in 83 group assignments, and cheating during tests or examinations. Responses in Table

4.14 reflect some homogeneity among undergraduate and graduate students for all three behaviors. Less than 1% (10) of the undergraduates and 1% (4) of the graduate students think that plagiarism on written assignments does not occur at their institution, whereas 44.6% (651) of the undergraduates and 44.2% (174) of the graduate students responded that they believe plagiarism occurs often or very often. Actually, 99% of both undergraduate and graduate students think plagiarism occurs at their institution, at least to some extent.

Participants were asked how frequently they think students inappropriately share work in group assignments. Again, less than 1% of both undergraduates (13) and graduate students (3) believe that inappropriately sharing work in group assignments occurs at their institution, whereas 66.1% (964) undergraduate and 64.2% (255) graduate students responded often or very often. Again, 99% of both undergraduate and graduate students think inappropriately share work in group assignments occurs at their institution, at least to some extent.

Lastly, participants were asked how frequently they think students cheat during tests or examinations. Only 1.1% (16) of undergraduates and 2% (8) of graduate students believe that cheating during tests or examinations never occurs at their institution, whereas 33.6% (490) undergraduate and 26.4% (104) graduate students responded that it occurs often or very often. Essentially, 98.5% of both undergraduate and graduate students think cheating during tests or examinations occurs at their institution, at least to some extent.

84

Table 4.14

Students’ Responses to Frequency of Specific Behaviors

Undergraduate Graduate Plagiarism on written assignments f % f % Never 10 0.69 4 1.02 Very Seldom 132 9.05 26 6.60 Seldom/Sometimes 622 42.63 175 44.42 Often 507 34.75 137 34.77 Very Often 144 9.87 37 9.39 Total 1415 96.98 379 96.19 Missing 44 3.02 15 3.81 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Inappropriately sharing work in group assignments f % f % Never 13 0.89 3 0.76 Very Seldom 76 5.21 16 4.06 Seldom/Sometimes 360 24.67 103 26.14 Often 630 43.18 183 46.45 Very Often 334 22.89 72 18.27 Total 1413 96.85 377 95.69 Missing 46 3.15 17 4.31 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Cheating during tests or examinations f % f % Never 16 1.10 8 2.03 Very Seldom 293 20.08 67 17.01 Seldom/Sometimes 614 42.08 198 50.25 Often 357 24.47 84 21.32 Very Often 133 9.12 20 5.08 Total 1413 96.85 377 95.69 Missing 46 3.15 17 4.31 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

85

When participants were asked how often, if ever, they have seen another student cheat during a test or exam, 43.9% (641) of the undergraduate and 64.7% (255) of the graduate students reported never (Table 4.15), while 53.5% (781) of the undergraduate and 33% (130) of the graduate students reported observing another student cheat one or more times.

Table 4.15

Students’ Observations of Cheating During a Test or Exam

Undergraduate Graduate f % f % Never 641 43.93 255 64.72 Once 183 12.54 47 11.93 A few times 439 30.09 65 16.50 Several times 123 8.43 14 3.55 Many times 36 2.47 4 1.02 Total 1422 97.46 385 97.72 Missing 37 2.54 9 2.28 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Participants were asked whether or not they have reported another student for

cheating. While a higher number of students report observing behaviors that some

people may consider cheating, very low percentages report or turn in their fellow

colleagues (see Table 4.16). Only 4% (58) of the undergraduate and 7.9% (31) of the

graduate students responded that they have actually reported incidents of cheating. 86

Table 4.16

Students’ Reporting of Other Students for Cheating

Undergraduate Graduate f % f % Yes 58 3.98 31 7.87 No 1360 93.21 355 90.10 Total 1418 97.19 386 97.97 Missing 41 2.81 8 2.03 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

Research Question Four

What is the perceived seriousness of academic misconduct among undergraduate and

graduate students?

Participants were provided a list of 26 behaviors (Table 4.17) and asked to mark how serious they think each is (1 = not cheating, 2 = trivial cheating, 3 = moderate cheating, and 4 = serious cheating). Therefore, low mean scores indicate “not cheating” to “trivial cheating” versus a high mean score that indicate “moderate cheating” to “serious cheating”.

While most participants perceived every behavior identified as cheating to some degree, some number of participants also perceive every behavior as not cheating. Of the 26 behaviors, undergraduate students think that 85% (22) of the behaviors identified are moderate to serious cheating while graduate students think that 92% (24) of the behaviors are moderate to serious cheating. The top three mean scores or egregious behaviors identified by both undergraduate and graduate students as serious cheating are reflected in Table 4.17 as: 87

1) Submitting a paper your purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as

www.schoolsucks.com) and claiming it as your own (3.83 for undergraduate

and 3.87 for graduate students);

2) Turning in a paper from a “paper mill” (a paper written and previously

submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work (3.81 and

3.89 respectively); and

3) Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it

in as your own work (3.76 and 3.84 respectively).

However, frequency distributions for undergraduate students (Table 4.17a) and graduate students (Table 4.17b) provide a clearer depiction of student perspectives.

Actually, 1242 (85.1%) undergraduate and 357 (90.6%) graduate students perceive submitting a paper purchased or obtained from a Web site and claiming it as your own as serious; 1204 (82.55) undergraduate and 361 (91.6%) graduate students perceive turning in a paper from a “paper mill” and claiming it as your own work as serious; and

1140 (78.1%) undergraduate and 349 (88.6%) graduate students perceive copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work as serious.

Moreover, 185 (12.7%) undergraduate and 24 (6.1%) graduate students perceive working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work as not cheating; and 182 (12.5%) undergraduate and 23 (5.8%) graduate students perceive working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant

Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work as not cheating. 88

Table 4.17

Students’ Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct

Undergraduate Graduate Item Description n Mean SD n Mean SD Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography 1388 2.87 0.85 385 3.25 0.82 Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work 1386 2.32 0.83 383 2.81 0.84 Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work 1389 2.34 0.84 386 2.82 0.85 Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test 1386 3.02 0.91 383 3.34 0.83 In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's program rather than writing your own 1389 3.48 0.71 384 3.63 0.69 Helping someone else cheat on a test 1384 3.48 0.75 386 3.61 0.69 Fabricating or falsifying lab data 1389 3.13 0.85 385 3.62 0.71 Fabricating or falsifying research data 1385 3.26 0.82 384 3.69 0.66 Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge 1387 3.61 0.69 385 3.72 0.63 Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge 1388 3.73 0.61 385 3.80 0.56 Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination 1386 3.65 0.67 383 3.72 0.64 Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment 1374 2.71 0.89 381 3.06 0.83 Copying (by hand or in person) another student's homework 1384 3.11 0.84 384 3.42 0.76 Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student's homework 1381 3.12 0.83 386 3.44 0.74 Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you 1389 3.03 0.88 385 3.32 0.80 submitted Turning in a paper from a "paper mill" (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work 1386 3.81 0.55 386 3.89 0.50 Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source - e.g., the Internet - without footnoting them in a paper you submitted 1387 3.03 0.88 383 3.29 0.81 Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work 1390 3.83 0.54 386 3.87 0.54 Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or 1387 3.65 0.64 383 3.77 0.58 exam Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam 1386 3.63 0.66 386 3.77 0.59 Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam 1384 3.62 0.67 386 3.75 0.61 Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work 1384 3.76 0.59 385 3.84 0.55 Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course 1381 3.61 0.66 386 3.80 0.56 Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam 1389 3.02 0.94 384 3.14 0.88 Turning in work done by someone else 1386 3.71 0.61 386 3.83 0.56 Cheating on a test in any other way 1384 3.55 0.70 383 3.69 0.64

Scale – 1 = Not Cheating, 2 = Trivial Cheating, 3 = Moderate Cheating, 4 = Serious Cheating 89

Table 4.17a

Undergraduate Students’ Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct

Undergraduate Cheating Not Trivial Moderate Serious Item Description f % f % f % f % Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography 60 4.1 430 29.5 533 36.5 365 25.0 Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked 185 12.7 705 48.3 358 24.5 138 9.5 for individual work Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when 182 12.5 703 48.2 351 24.1 153 10.5 the instructor asked for individual work Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test 97 6.6 272 18.6 528 36.2 489 33.5 In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's program rather 23 1.6 110 7.5 431 29.5 825 56.5 than writing your own Helping someone else cheat on a test 37 2.5 105 7.2 392 26.9 850 58.3 Fabricating or falsifying lab data 51 3.5 275 18.8 508 34.8 555 38.0 Fabricating or falsifying research data 41 2.8 210 14.4 479 32.8 655 44.9 Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge 27 1.9 81 5.6 296 20.3 983 67.4 Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her 25 1.7 47 3.2 210 14.4 1106 75.8 knowledge Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from 30 2.1 66 4.5 260 17.8 1030 70.6 someone during a test or examination Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment 115 7.9 459 31.5 510 35.0 290 19.9 Copying (by hand or in person) another student's homework 39 2.7 304 20.8 510 35.0 531 36.4 Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another 36 2.5 290 19.9 523 35.8 532 36.5 student's homework Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal 61 4.2 334 22.9 501 34.3 493 33.8 (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted Turning in a paper from a "paper mill" (a paper written and previously 24 1.6 31 2.1 127 8.7 1204 82.5 submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source 63 4.3 335 23.0 493 33.8 496 34.0 - e.g., the Internet - without footnoting them in a paper you submitted Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as 23 1.6 37 2.5 88 6.0 1242 85.1 www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or 22 1.5 62 4.2 301 20.8 1002 68.7 exam Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a 21 1.4 81 5.6 292 20.0 992 68.0 test or exam Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam 25 1.7 68 4.7 313 21.5 978 67.0 Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it 25 1.7 37 2.5 182 12.5 1140 78.1 in as your own work Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper, 25 1.7 66 4.5 328 22.5 962 65.9 whether or not the student is currently taking the same course Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay 100 6.9 302 20.7 455 31.2 532 36.5 taking an exam Turning in work done by someone else 22 1.5 49 3.4 235 16.1 1080 74.0 Cheating on a test in any other way 32 2.2 72 4.9 387 26.5 893 61.2 90

Table 4.17b

Graduate Students’ Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct

Graduate Cheating Not Trivial Moderate Serious Item Description f % f % f % f % Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography 9 2.3 66 16.8 131 33.2 179 45.4 Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work 24 6.1 107 27.2 171 43.4 81 20.6 Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work 23 5.8 113 28.7 162 41.1 88 22.3 Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test 16 4.1 39 9.9 126 32.0 202 51.3 In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's program rather than writing your own 10 2.5 15 3.8 83 21.1 276 70.1 Helping someone else cheat on a test 10 2.5 17 4.3 87 22.1 272 69 Fabricating or falsifying lab data 10 2.5 21 5.3 73 18.5 281 71.3 Fabricating or falsifying research data 10 2.5 13 3.3 63 16.0 298 75.6 Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge 10 2.5 8 2.0 60 15.2 307 77.9 Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge 8 2.0 5 1.3 42 10.7 330 83.8 Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination 9 2.3 12 3.0 56 14.2 306 77.7 Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment 11 2.8 88 22.3 151 38.3 131 33.2 Copying (by hand or in person) another student's homework 9 2.3 36 9.1 122 31.0 217 55.1 Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student's homework 8 2.0 35 8.9 123 31.2 220 55.8 Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted 12 3.0 45 11.4 134 34.0 194 49.2 Turning in a paper from a "paper mill" (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work 9 2.3 1 0.3 15 3.8 361 91.6 Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source - e.g., the Internet - without footnoting them in a paper you submitted 12 3.0 50 12.7 136 34.5 185 47 Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work 10 2.5 3 0.8 16 4.1 357 90.6 Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or exam 9 2.3 4 1.0 53 13.5 317 80.5 Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam 9 2.3 6 1.5 51 12.9 320 81.2 Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam 10 2.5 4 1.0 60 15.2 312 79.2 Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work 9 2.3 6 1.5 21 5.3 349 88.6 Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course 9 2.3 2 0.5 45 11.4 330 83.8 Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam 21 5.3 61 15.5 144 36.5 158 40.1 Turning in work done by someone else 9 2.3 5 1.3 30 7.6 342 86.8 Cheating on a test in any other way 9 2.3 11 2.8 69 17.5 294 74.6

91

Research Question Five

What level of familiarity do undergraduate and graduate students have about the

University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP)?

First, participants were asked if they had been informed about the University’s

AHP (Table 4.18). If participants reported that they had been informed, they were further asked from what source they learned about the policies and how much they learned (Tables 4.19 and 4.20). Finally, they were asked how often their instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating (Table 4.21)

As depicted in Table 4.18, 83.9% (1224) of the undergraduate and 85.8% (338) of the graduate students reported that they had been informed of the University’s AHP.

Table 4.18

Students’ Responses to Being Informed about the AHP

Undergraduate Graduate F % f % Yes 1224 83.89 338 85.79 No 163 11.17 46 11.68 Total 1387 95.07 384 97.46 Missing 72 4.93 10 2.54 Total 1459 100.00 394 100.00

A high percentages of participants reported they were informed of the

University’s AHP (see Table 4.18). Table 4.19 indicates the primary sources from which

participants reported that they “learned a lot” about the University’s AHP were from

faculty (e.g., class discussions, course syllabi, or course outlines) – 44.4% (647) of the

undergraduate and 32.2% (127) of the graduate students. The primary source from

which both groups 57.9% (871) of the undergraduate and 39.9% (157) of the graduate 92 student’s reported they “learned little” or “nothing” was from Deans or other administrators. And 41.8% (610) of the undergraduate reported they “learned some” from the Student Handbook, whereas 36.3% (143) of the graduate students reported they “learned some” from the first-year graduate orientation program.

Table 4.19

Students’ Responses to Level of Knowledge of Policies

Undergraduate Graduate

Learned Learned Learned Learned Little or Learned A Little or Learned A Nothing Some Lot Nothing Some Lot Item Description F % f % f % f % f % f % First-year 375 25.7 552 37.8 253 17.3 120 30.5 29 7.4 8 2.0 undergraduate orientation program First-year graduate 762 52.2 144 9.9 43 3.0 80 20.3 143 36.3 42 10.7 orientation program Campus website 614 42.1 401 27.5 110 7.5 93 23.6 99 25.1 33 8.4 Student Handbook 311 21.3 610 41.8 276 18.9 72 18.3 125 31.7 61 15.5 Program 541 37.1 405 27.8 184 12.6 102 25.9 64 16.2 41 10.4 Counselor, Residential/Faculty Advisor Other students 640 43.9 389 26.7 105 7.2 123 31.2 65 16.5 16 4.1 Faculty (e.g., 72 4.9 519 35.6 647 44.4 36 9.1 131 33.3 127 32.2 discussed in class, course syllabi or outlines) Teaching/Graduate 543 37.2 397 27.2 173 11.9 118 30.0 56 14.2 26 6.6 Assistant Dean or other 871 59.7 178 12.2 47 3.2 157 39.9 21 5.3 21 5.3 administrator Other 728 49.9 58 4.0 25 1.7 122 31.0 17 4.3 8 2.0

1 = Learned little or nothing, 2 = Learned some, 3 = Learned a lot

93

Table 4.20

Students’ Responses to Sources of Knowledge of Policies

Undergraduate Graduate Item Description n Mean SD n Mean SD First-year undergrad orientation program 1180 1.9 0.72 157 1.29 0.56 First-year graduate orientation program 949 1.24 0.52 265 1.86 0.66 Campus website 1125 1.55 0.67 225 1.73 0.7 Student Handbook 1197 1.97 0.7 258 1.96 0.72 Counselor, Residential/Faculty Advisor 1130 1.68 0.74 207 1.71 0.78 Other students 1134 1.53 0.66 204 1.48 0.64 Faculty (e.g., discussed in class, syllabi) 1238 2.46 0.6 294 2.31 0.68 Teaching Assistant/Graduate Assistant 1113 1.67 0.73 200 1.54 0.71 Dean or other administrator 1096 1.25 0.52 199 1.32 0.66 Other 811 1.13 0.42 147 1.22 0.53 1 = Learned little or nothing, 2 = Learned some, 3 = Learned a lot

Finally, participants were asked how often, in the past year, on average,

instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people may

consider cheating. Table 4.21 indicates that based on mean scores, undergraduate

(3.55) and graduate students (3.53) reported “proper citation/referencing of written sources” more sometimes than often were discussed by instructors. Moreover, undergraduate (3.51) and graduate students (3.42) further reported “proper citation/referencing of Internet sources” more sometimes than often were also discussed by instructors. 94

Table 4.21

Students’ Responses to Instructors Discussing Policies

Undergraduate Graduate Item Description N Mean SD N Mean SD Plagiarism 1419 3.47 1.03 386 2.98 1.19 Cheating 1409 3.23 1.03 382 2.60 1.12 Academic Honesty Committee 1409 2.30 1.25 379 2.00 1.05 Sanctions for AHP violations 1407 2.50 1.19 384 2.12 1.08 Guidelines on group work or collaboration 1411 2.97 1.17 385 2.78 1.19 Proper citation/referencing of written sources 1413 3.55 1.13 382 3.53 1.29 Proper citation/referencing of Internet sources 1414 3.51 1.15 384 3.42 1.32 Falsifying/fabricating course lab data 1395 2.23 1.25 373 1.89 1.20 Falsifying/fabricating research data 1398 2.36 1.27 378 2.26 1.32 1 = Never, 2 = Very Seldom, 3 = Seldom/Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Very Often

Research Question Six

Do ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct,

perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, or level of familiarity with the

University’s AHP vary by demographic characteristics?

This research question was investigated through a series of chi square analyses

for which the statistically significant results are shown in Tables 4.22 to 4.63. These

results were categorized according to the previous five research questions and are

presented separately by demographic characteristic for undergraduate and graduate

students.

Ethical Beliefs by Demographic Characteristics, Undergraduate Students

Participants were provided a list of 20 statements related to ethics and

characters and asked to rate them relative to what they think/believe on a scale from

“strongly agree” to “no opinion”. 95

Sex/gender

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “It is important for me to be a person of good character”; “Most adults in my life consistently set a good example of ethics and character”; “Being a person with good character is more important than being rich”; In personal relationships, trust and honesty are essential”; In business and the workplace, trust and honesty are essential”; “It’s important to me that people trust me”; “It’s not worth it to lie or cheat because it hurts your character”; and

“People should play by the rules even if it means they lose”; by sex, with females that that had a tendency to strongly agree more than males. See Table 4.22.

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “My parents and/or guardians always want me to do the ethically right thing, no matter what the cost” with females more likely to agree than males. There was a significant difference in responses to the item “In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating” with females more likely to disagree than males.

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed” with males more likely to agree than females. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the question “If people you know were asked to list the most ethical people they know, how many would put you on their list?” with females that responded “almost all” than males.

Moreover, there was a significant difference in responses to the items “People who are willing to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people who are not”; My parents/guardians would rather I cheat than get bad grades”; “In sports, if you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough”; “It’s not cheating if 96 everyone is doing it”; and “It is acceptable to pad or inflate your resume in order to get a job” with females that had a tendency to strongly disagree than males.

Table 4.22

Ethical Beliefs by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate

Ethical Beliefs Female Male X2 It is important for me to be a person Strongly agree 759 371 17.95*** of good character. Agree 161 132 Disagree 5 1 Strongly disagree 0 1

Most adults in my life consistently set Strongly agree 361 157 16.46** a good example of ethics and Agree 447 256 character. Disagree 83 51 Strongly disagree 18 21

My parents/guardians always want Strongly agree 378 210 10.26* me to do the ethically right thing, no Agree 439 220 matter what the cost. Disagree 53 47 Strongly disagree 7 8 No opinion 48 20

Being a person with good character Strongly agree 569 243 37.19*** is more important than being rich. Agree 314 208 Disagree 17 31 Strongly disagree 3 3 No opinion 15 16

In personal relationships, trust and Strongly agree 769 391 9.30* honesty are essential. Agree 145 101 Disagree 3 6 No Opinion 3 3

In business and the workplace, trust Strongly agree 572 269 21.42*** and honesty are essential. Agree 317 194 Disagree 20 31 Strongly disagree 4 3 No opinion 6 6

97

Ethical Beliefs Female Male X2 In the real world, successful people Strongly agree 89 70 11.72* do what they have to do to win, even Agree 329 200 if others consider it cheating. Disagree 316 143 Strongly disagree 117 52 No opinion 70 39

A person has to lie or cheat Strongly agree 26 29 23.60*** sometimes in order to succeed. Agree 205 154 Disagree 389 189 Strongly disagree 246 102 No opinion 51 30

People who are willing to lie, cheat or Strongly agree 17 228 29.36*** break the rules are more likely to Agree 156 117 succeed than people who are not. Disagree 395 213 Strongly disagree 286 116 No opinion 68 30

My parents/guardians would rather I Strongly agree 8 9 15.80** cheat than get bad grades. Agree 17 15 Disagree 196 145 Strongly disagree 653 314 No opinion 46 21

It’s important to me that people trust Strongly agree 684 336 14.80** me. Agree 227 145 Disagree 6 12 Strongly disagree 3 3 No opinion 5 6

It’s not worth it to lie or cheat because Strongly agree 455 216 15.06** it hurts your character. Agree 387 218 Disagree 52 48 Strongly disagree 13 4 No opinion 17 18

In sports, if you’re not cheating, you’re Strongly agree 37 20 10.69* not trying hard enough. Agree 36 25 Disagree 210 146 Strongly disagree 587 277 No opinion 53 35

98

Ethical Beliefs Female Male X2 People should play by the rules even if Strongly agree 450 227 14.74** it means they lose. Agree 412 222 Disagree 28 34 Strongly disagree 15 5 No opinion 17 16

It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it. Strongly agree 6 13 45.78*** Agree 29 47 Disagree 331 210 Strongly disagree 504 212 No opinion 48 23

It is acceptable to pad or inflate your Strongly agree 16 12 28.22*** resume in order to get a job. Agree 107 95 Disagree 410 204 Strongly disagree 331 140 No opinion 56 52

If people you know were asked to list Almost all 277 120 14.49** the most ethical people they know, Most 407 217 how many would put you on their list? Half 187 120 Almost none 34 36 None 12 6

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Race/ethnicity There was a significant difference in responses to the items “When it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know” and “It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it” by race/ethnicity with Native Hawaiians that strongly agree.

However, only one participant in the study that responded to these items was a Native

Hawaiian. See Table 4.23.

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “In business and the workplace, trust and honesty are essential”; “In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating”; ”People who are willing 99 to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people who are not”; In sports, if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough”; and “It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it” with American Indians that responded “strongly agree”, “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree” and “strongly disagree”, respectively.

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “It is acceptable to lie because so few people tell the truth anymore” and “It’s important for me that people trust me” with Asians that responded “disagree” and “strongly agree”, respectively.

Table 4.23 Ethical Beliefs by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate

Ethical Beliefs W B/AA H/L A NH OPI AI O X2 When it comes to SA 240 27 8 1 1 0 2 10 47.41* doing what is right, I Agree 654 29 20 5 0 1 0 13 am better than most Disagree 157 17 3 1 0 0 0 1 people I know. SD 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/O 193 5 6 3 0 1 1 11

In business and the SA 741 53 18 2 0 1 3 20 49.87** workplace, trust Agree 451 24 15 7 0 1 0 12 and honesty are Disagree 42 2 3 0 1 0 0 3 essential. SD 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 N/O 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

In the real world, SA 135 10 3 1 1 1 1 6 51.52** successful people Agree 465 27 19 1 0 1 0 15 do what they have Disagree 414 24 5 5 0 0 0 10 to do to win, even if SD 153 8 5 1 0 0 2 2 others consider it N/O 86 11 5 2 0 0 0 2 cheating.

It is acceptable to SA 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 53.15** lie because so few Agree 50 1 4 0 1 0 0 2 people tell the truth Disagree 543 39 14 8 0 1 1 11 anymore. SD 591 31 15 2 0 1 1 21 N/O 47 3 2 0 0 0 1 1

100

Ethical Beliefs W B/AA H/L A NH OPI AI O X2 People who are SA 40 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 51.83** willing to lie, cheat Agree 246 10 5 1 0 1 0 10 or break the rules Disagree 533 43 14 4 0 1 2 12 are more likely to SD 353 22 11 3 0 0 1 8 succeed than N/O 82 4 6 2 0 0 0 3 people who are not.

It’s important for me SA 896 58 25 8 0 1 3 25 248.60*** that people trust Agree 329 20 10 2 0 1 0 10 me. Disagree 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 N/O 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

In sports, if you’re SA 48 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 45.71** not cheating, you’re Agree 53 4 2 0 1 1 0 0 not trying hard Disagree 310 22 12 3 0 0 1 9 enough. SD 769 43 16 5 0 1 2 23 N/O 76 6 3 2 0 0 0 1

It’s not cheating if SA 17 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 90.84*** everyone is doing it. Agree 71 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 Disagree 469 34 19 5 0 1 2 11 SD 633 35 16 2 0 1 1 23 N/O 62 7 1 1 0 0 0 0

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, NH = Native Hawaiian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, AI = American Indian, and O = Other *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Age There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Being a person with good character is more important than being rich”; “In personal relationships, trust and honesty are essential”; “In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to

win, even if others consider it cheating”; and “It’s not worth it to lie or cheat because it

hurts your character” by age, with the 28-29 group more likely to agree. In addition,

there was a significant difference in responses to the question “If people you know were 101 asked to list the most ethical people they know, how many would put you on their list?” with the 28-29 age group that responded “almost all”. See Table 4.24.

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “In business and the workplace, trust and honesty are essential” and “I am satisfied with my own ethics and character” with the 30+ age group that strongly agree. And, there was a significant difference in responses to the item “A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed” with the 22-23 age group more likely to disagree.

Table 4.24 Ethical Beliefs by Age – Undergraduate

Ethical Beliefs 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 19 21 23 25 27 29

Being a person with SA 221 311 146 18 17 15 86 58.99*** good character is Agree 146 217 102 19 12 3 23 more important than Disagree 28 9 10 0 0 1 0 being rich. SD 1 13 1 1 0 0 0 N/O 12 12 4 1 1 0 1

In personal SA 348 447 208 28 23 17 92 32.63* relationships, trust Agree 58 105 48 10 7 1 18 and honesty are Disagree 1 2 5 0 0 1 0 essential. N/O 1 4 0 1 0 0 0

In business and the SA 251 304 158 19 16 13 82 60.69*** workplace, trust and Agree 133 232 88 17 12 3 26 honesty are essential. Disagree 15 13 15 1 2 3 2 SD 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 N/O 5 5 2 0 0 0 0

In the real world, SA 52 49 34 7 0 2 14 39.58* successful people do Agree 137 218 97 16 13 9 40 what they have to do Disagree 131 197 82 5 8 7 31 to win, even if others SD 50 51 35 6 8 1 18 consider it cheating. N/O 39 42 16 5 1 0 6

102

Ethical Beliefs 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 19 21 23 25 27 29

A person has to lie or SA 15 20 9 3 1 0 6 40.65* cheat sometimes in Agree 105 157 56 6 9 8 18 order to succeed. Disagree 147 238 118 16 8 7 46 SD 105 115 67 10 10 4 38 N/O 34 28 13 3 2 0 1

It’s not worth it to lie or SA 181 238 128 19 14 15 78 56.71*** cheat because it hurts Agree 180 256 108 17 13 3 29 your character. Disagree 30 41 22 1 2 1 2 SD 11 5 1 0 0 0 0 N/O 7 19 5 2 1 0 1

I am satisfied with my SA 179 221 117 11 15 12 73 49.83** own ethics and Agree 208 311 140 24 13 6 34 character. Disagree 14 15 6 3 1 1 0 SD 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 N/O 6 8 2 0 1 0 1 If people you know Almost all 108 140 65 13 10 12 50 52.63** were asked to list the Most 176 254 119 13 12 5 47 most ethical people Half 90 130 65 9 7 0 6 they know, how many Almost None 22 24 11 4 1 2 5 would put you on their None 6 7 4 0 0 0 1 list?

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Academic class standing

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Being a person with

good character is more important than being rich”; “In personal relationships, trust and honesty are essential”; “It’s not worth it to lie or cheat because it hurts your character”; and “People should play by the rules even if it means they lose” by academic class standing, with non-degree students that strongly agree. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “It is acceptable to pad or inflate your resume in order to get a job” with non-degree students that strongly disagree. See Table 4.25. 103

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “A person has to

sometimes lie or cheat in order to succeed” with third-year students more likely to

disagree; and to the item “Cheating has become a cultural norm in American society” with first-year students more likely to agree.

Table 4.25

Ethical Beliefs by Academic Class Standing – Undergraduate

Ethical Beliefs 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Non- X2 Year Year Year Year Year+ Degree Being a person with SA 156 148 197 181 118 14 44.94*** good character is Agree 89 91 121 159 59 4 more important than Disagree 18 14 5 7 4 0 being rich. SD 1 1 2 0 2 0 N/O 8 9 8 2 4 0

In personal SA 232 219 277 273 145 17 30.33* relationships, trust Agree 40 42 57 72 34 1 and honesty are Disagree 0 1 0 3 5 0 essential. N/O 0 1 1 4 0 0

A person has to SA 12 11 14 7 11 0 43.02** sometimes lie or Agree 64 66 99 89 39 2 cheat in order to Disagree 98 93 151 153 77 8 succeed. SD 75 71 57 84 55 7 N/O 21 23 16 17 3 1

It’s not worth it to lie SA 126 129 157 145 104 12 31.94* or cheat because it Agree 116 107 143 169 66 5 hurts your Disagree 17 20 25 24 13 1 character. SD 9 3 1 4 0 0 N/O 5 5 11 11 3 0

People should play SA 140 132 150 138 106 13 36.76* by the rules even if Agree 109 111 154 182 74 5 it means they lose. Disagree 11 14 15 19 3 0 SD 3 2 10 4 1 0 N/O 9 5 7 9 3 0

104

Ethical Beliefs 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Non- X2 Year Year Year Year Year+ Degree It is acceptable to pad SA 4 7 4 5 8 0 31.62* or inflate your resume Agree 32 34 47 60 29 0 in order to get a job. Disagree 112 116 163 157 62 6 SD 101 86 96 106 73 10 N/O 23 20 24 25 14 2

Cheating has become SA 23 25 25 10 15 1 32.31* a cultural norm in Agree 154 129 161 196 94 5 American society. Disagree 59 72 107 106 53 9 SD 15 11 21 17 11 1 N/O 21 27 23 23 13 2

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “My parents and/or

guardians always want me to do the ethically right thing, no matter what the cost” by

primary major, with students that are undecided (have not declared a major) more likely to agree. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “Being a person with good character is more important than being rich” with students in Musical

Arts that strongly agree. See Table 4.26.

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “People who are

willing to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people who are

not”; “People should play by the rules even if it means they lose”; and “It is acceptable

to pad or inflate your resume in order to get a job” with students that self-reported their

major as “Other” that responded “strongly disagree”, “strongly agree”, and “strongly

disagree”, respectively. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to 105

the question “How many questions on this survey did you answer with complete

honesty?” with students at the Branch Campus that responded “all”.

Table 4.26

Ethical Beliefs by Primary Major – Undergraduate

Ethical Beliefs A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2 My parents/ SA 208 77 175 4 55 15 42 2 10 56.69** guardians always Agree 253 63 182 3 68 20 45 5 18 want me to do the Disagree 51 9 15 3 14 0 3 1 4 ethically right thing, SD 7 1 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 no matter what the N/O 27 4 19 1 4 7 4 1 0 cost.

Being a person with SA 285 75 244 6 87 29 62 6 16 49.15* good character is Agree 214 68 132 4 50 13 28 2 10 more important than Disagree 27 7 4 1 3 0 2 1 3 being rich. SD 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 N/O 13 4 7 0 3 0 1 0 3

People who are SA 27 2 6 0 4 1 3 0 2 64.45** willing to lie, cheat Agree 129 30 61 4 14 10 20 0 5 or break the rules Disagree 223 68 176 4 75 10 35 4 12 are more likely to SD 125 45 125 2 38 14 34 5 12 succeed than N/O 41 8 25 1 12 7 3 0 1 people who are not.

People should play SA 241 66 205 7 65 22 50 7 13 53.35* by the rules even if Agree 251 74 164 3 69 16 39 1 15 it means they lose. Disagree 37 8 7 0 5 2 2 0 1 SD 6 0 7 0 2 1 3 1 0 N/O 9 6 9 1 3 1 1 0 3

It is acceptable to SA 14 0 7 1 4 0 1 0 1 58.81** pad or inflate your Agree 103 24 39 0 13 3 13 2 4 resume in order to Disagree 232 69 177 6 68 15 33 1 13 get a job. SD 144 50 148 4 47 19 43 5 10 N/O 48 10 23 0 11 5 5 1 4

106

Ethical Beliefs A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2 How many All 470 13 334 10 116 36 77 8 22 40.55* questions on this All but 1-2 59 17 48 1 16 6 12 1 7 survey did you All but 3-5 6 5 9 0 9 0 4 0 1 answer with All but 6-10 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 complete honesty?

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, BC = Branch Campus, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, UD = Undecided *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Ethical Beliefs by Demographic Characteristics, Graduate Students

Sex/gender

There was a significant difference in responses to all the items in Table 4.27 by

sex, with females that strongly agree with a few exceptions. In the two items “A person

has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed” and “In sports, if you’re not cheating,

you’re not trying hard enough” females more strongly disagree. And, there was a

significant difference in responses to the question “If people you know were asked to list

the most ethical people they know, how many would put you on their list?” with females

that responded “almost all”. 107

Table 4.27

Ethical Beliefs by Sex/Gender – Graduate

Ethical Beliefs Female Male X2 It is important for me to be a person Strongly agree 224 113 6.42* of good character. Agree 29 24 No Opinion 0 2

Most adults in my life consistently set Strongly agree 95 26 15.87** a good example of ethics and Agree 132 91 character. Disagree 17 16 Strongly disagree 2 1 No Opinion 5 4

Being a person with good character Strongly agree 182 85 8.70* is more important than being rich. Agree 64 45 Disagree 3 7 No opinion 2 2

A person has to lie or cheat Strongly agree 5 10 10.84* sometimes in order to succeed. Agree 40 32 Disagree 135 61 Strongly disagree 62 31 No Opinion 7 5

It’s not worth it to lie or cheat Strongly agree 137 65 9.55* because it hurts your character. Agree 107 62 Disagree 3 8 Strongly disagree 0 1 No opinion 5 3

In sports, if you’re not cheating, Strongly agree 3 5 14.96** you’re not trying hard enough. Agree 5 8 Disagree 54 42 Strongly disagree 173 70 No opinion 18 14

If people you know were asked to list Almost all 82 32 14.61** the most ethical people they know, Most 110 72 how many would put you on their list? Half 54 22 Almost none 2 6 None 0 2 *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 108

Race/ethnicity

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “When it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know” by race/ethnicity, with participants that self-identified as “Other” more likely to agree. There was also a significant difference in responses to the items “It is acceptable to lie because so few people tell the truth anymore” and “It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it” with participants that self-identified as “Other” more likely to disagree. See Table 4.28.

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “In personal relationships, trust and honesty are essential” with Whites that strongly agree. There was a significant difference in responses to the item “In sports, if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough” with American Indians that strongly disagree. And, there was a significant difference in responses to the question “How many questions on this survey did you answer with complete honesty?” with Black/African-Americans that responded “almost all”. 109

Table 4.28

Ethical Beliefs by Race/Ethnicity – Graduate

Ethical Belief W B/AA H/L A NH OPI AI O X2 When it comes to SA 48 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 47.67** doing what is right, I Agree 149 8 4 20 0 0 0 5 am better than most Disagree 44 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 people I know. SD 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/O 80 3 2 2 1 1 0 2

In personal SA 270 14 7 27 0 1 0 4 36.11** relationships, trust Agree 50 6 2 6 1 0 0 2 and honesty are Disagree 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 essential. N/O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

It is acceptable to SA 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 115.20*** lie because so few Agree 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 people tell the truth Disagree 134 8 5 12 0 0 0 4 anymore. SD 176 11 3 13 0 1 0 3 N/O 8 1 1 3 0 0 0 0

In sports, if you’re SA 48 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 45.75* not cheating, you’re Agree 53 4 2 0 1 1 0 0 not trying hard Disagree 310 22 12 3 0 0 1 9 enough. SD 769 43 16 5 0 1 2 23 N/O 76 6 3 2 0 0 0 1

It’s not cheating if SA 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 42.46* everyone is doing it. Agree 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 Disagree 122 7 5 14 0 1 0 0 SD 179 10 3 13 1 0 0 6 N/O 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

How many All 289 18 8 23 1 1 0 5 40.09** questions on this All but 1-2 31 2 1 6 0 0 0 2 survey did you All but 3-5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 answer with All but 6-10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 complete honesty?

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, NH = Native Hawaiian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, AI = American Indian, and O = Other *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 110

Age

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “My parents/guardian always want me to do the ethically right thing, no matter what the cost” and “I am satisfied with my own ethics and character” by age, with the 24-25 group more likely to agree. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “It is acceptable to pad or inflate your resume in order to get a job” with the 24-25 group more likely to disagree. See Table 4.29.

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it” with the 30+ group that strongly disagree. There was also a significant difference in responses to the question “How many questions on this survey did you answer with complete honesty?” with the 26-27 group that responded “all”. 111

Table 4.29

Ethical Beliefs by Age – Graduate

Ethical Belief 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

My parents/guardian SA 3 41 18 17 11 62 33.47* always wants me to do the Agree 1 54 46 21 22 58 ethically right thing, no Disagree 0 7 4 3 1 5 matter what the cost. SD 0 0 0 0 1 0 N/O 1 2 2 1 1 11

It’s not cheating if everyone SA 0 0 1 0 2 1 39.85** is doing it. Agree 1 4 3 1 4 2 Disagree 1 48 32 14 13 42 SD 2 47 34 26 17 86 N/O 1 5 0 1 0 4

It is acceptable to pad or SA 0 0 1 0 1 3 32.98* inflate your resume in order Agree 1 5 8 2 7 3 to get a job. Disagree 2 53 34 20 15 55 SD 1 42 23 19 9 66 N/O 1 4 4 1 3 9

I am satisfied with my own SA 3 38 20 16 19 70 40.17*** ethics and character. Agree 2 66 50 20 17 61 Disagree 0 1 0 4 0 4 N/O 0 0 0 2 0 1

How many questions on All 4 86 58 40 31 127 42.13*** this survey did you answer All but 1-2 0 16 11 2 5 8 with complete honesty? All but 3-5 1 1 1 0 0 0 All but 6-10 0 2 0 0 0 0

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 112

Academic class standing

There were no statistics computed for academic class standing for graduate

students because “academic class standing” is a constant at the graduate level.

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “It is important for me to be a person with good character” by primary major, with students in Musical Arts that strongly agree. Moreover, there was a significant difference in responses to the item

“My parents/guardians always want me to do the ethically right thing, no matter what the cost” with students in Arts & Sciences more likely to agree. See Table 4.30.

Table 4.30

Ethical Beliefs by Primary Major – Graduate

Ethical Beliefs A&S BA EDHD HHS MA Tech O X2

It is important for me SA 119 30 124 20 20 12 14 25.18* to be a person with Agree 23 7 11 1 1 1 6 good character. Disagree 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

My parents/ guardians SA 49 16 53 12 10 5 7 43.25** always want me to do Agree 83 20 65 9 7 8 10 the ethically right Disagree 6 1 7 1 2 0 2 thing, no matter what SD 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 the cost. N/O 4 0 10 1 2 0 1

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 113

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Demographic Characteristics,

Undergraduate Students

Chi-square analysis for the “types of academic misconduct” and the “frequency of

academic misconduct” was investigated using the same survey questions for the results

presented below. However, some chi-square results that were investigated separately

and were unique to the “frequency of academic misconduct” will be presented in a

separate section following this one.

Participants were asked to respond to questions about specific behaviors that

some people might consider cheating. Specifically, they were asked to identify how often (never, once, more than once, not relevant) in the past year they have engaged in some specific behaviors. Moreover, if participants indicated that they had paraphrased

or copied material from a written or electronic source without citing it, they were further

asked to identify the method for accessing the material. In addition, if participants had

taken an online test or exam, they were also asked to identify some additional behaviors

that some people may consider cheating.

Sex/gender

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Working on an

assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work” and

“Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work” by sex, with males that responded “never”. There

was also a significant difference in responses to the items “In a course requiring

computer work, copying another student’s program rather than writing your own”;

“Fabricating or falsifying research data”; “Copying from another student during a test 114

with his or her knowledge”; “Copying from another student during a test or examination

without his or her knowledge”; “Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get

unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination”; “Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or exam”; and “Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student’s paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course” with males that responded “more than once”. See

Table 4.31.

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test” with females that responded

“once”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the items

“Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student’s homework”; “Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam”; “Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an

exam”; “Turning in work done by someone else”; and “Cheating on a test in any other

way” with females that responded “never”. 115

Table 4.31 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate

Types and Frequency Female Male X2 Working on an assignment with Never 503 323 15.19** others (in person) when the instructor Once 192 71 asked for individual work More than once 169 90 Not relevant 51 19

Working on an assignment with Never 668 390 14.40** others (via email or Instant Once 111 33 Messaging) when the instructor More than once 89 60 asked for individual work Not relevant 53 20

Getting questions or answers from Never 594 356 13.08** someone who has already taken a Once 181 62 test More than once 120 75 Not relevant 17 8

In a course requiring computer work, Never 639 352 10.23* copying another student’s program Once 35 19 rather than writing your own More than once 13 20 Not relevant 234 114

Fabricating or falsifying research data Never 692 380 13.97** Once 62 36 More than once 22 29 Not relevant 138 56

Copying from another student during Never 819 447 10.90* a test with his or her knowledge Once 53 24 More than once 30 29 Not relevant 14 1

Copying from another student during Never 788 425 10.66* a test or examination without his or Once 72 46 her knowledge More than once 41 32 Not relevant 14 0

Using digital technology (such as text Never 878 483 9.79* messaging) to get unpermitted help Once 20 11 from someone during a test or More than once 3 7 examination Not relevant 19 3 116

Types and Frequency Female Male X2 Copying (using digital means such as Never 846 452 9.72* Instant Messaging or email) another Once 31 25 student’s homework More than once 25 23 Not relevant 15 2

Using unpermitted handwritten crib Never 853 440 20.75*** notes (or cheat sheets) during a test Once 36 27 or exam More than once 19 30 Not relevant 11 1

Using electronic crib notes (stored in Never 847 437 17.13** PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat Once 37 37 on a test or exam More than once 21 26 Not relevant 13 4

Using an electronic/digital device as Never 893 474 25.31*** an unauthorized aid during an exam Once 12 15 More than once 3 13 Not relevant 10 0

Turning in a paper copied, at least in Never 862 460 9.64* part, from another student’s paper, Once 44 26 whether or not the student is More than once 5 12 currently taking the same course Not relevant 7 3

Turning in work done by someone Never 886 471 18.84*** else Once 22 20 More than once 4 13 Not relevant 6 0

Cheating on a test in any other way Never 830 422 13.31** Once 52 43 More than once 25 28 Not relevant 13 10

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

117

Race/ethnicity There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Copying from

another student during a test with his or her knowledge” by race/ethnicity, with Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders that responded “never”. However, only one

participant in the study that responded to this item was a Native Hawaiian and only two were Other Pacific Islander. There was a significant difference in responses to the item

“Turning in a paper from a ‘paper mill’ (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work” with Asians, Other Pacific Islanders, and participants that self-identified as “Other” that responded “never”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work” with Hispanic/Latinos, Other Pacific Islanders, and participants that self-identified as “Other” that responded “never”. See Table 4.32.

There was also a significant difference in responses to the question “If you paraphrased or copied material from a written or electronic source without citing it, how did you access the material?” with Asians and American Indians that responded

“Internet only”. Again, only two participants in the study that responded to this item were Asian and two were American Indian. 118

Table 4.32 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate

Types and W B/AA H/L A NH OPI AI O X2 Frequency Copying from Never 1122 61 32 8 1 2 2 34 33.32* another student Once 60 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 during a test with More than once 49 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 his or her Not relevant 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 knowledge

Turning in a paper Never 1220 75 36 10 0 2 2 35 39.32** from a “paper mill” Once 13 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 (a paper written More than once 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 and previously Not relevant 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work

Submitting a paper Never 1222 77 36 9 0 2 2 35 60.18*** you purchased or Once 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 obtained from a More than once 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Web site (such as Not relevant 16 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 www.schoolsucks. com) and claimed it as your own work

If you have Internet only 306 27 6 2 0 1 2 2 37.57* paraphrased or Hard copy only 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 copied material Primarily EM 146 5 4 0 0 1 0 6 from a written or Primarily HC 16 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 electronic source Both equally 100 7 4 0 0 0 0 2 without citing it, how did you access the material?

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, NH = Native Hawaiian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, AI = American Indian, and O = Other *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 119

Age There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Fabricating or

falsifying a bibliography” by age, with the 26-27 and 30+ groups that responded “never”.

There was also a significant difference in responses to the items “Working on an

assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work”;

“Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the

instructor asked for individual work”; “Fabricating or falsifying lab data”; “Copying from

another student during a test or exam without his or her knowledge”; “Receiving

unpermitted help on an assignment”; “Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or exam”; and “Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an

extension on a due date or delay taking an exam” with the 30+ group that responded

“never”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the question “If

you have taken an online test or exam, have you looked up information on the Internet

when not permitted?” with the 30+ group that responded “yes”. See Table 4.33.

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Getting questions or

answers from someone who has already taken a test”; “Helping someone else cheat on

a test”; “Copying (by hand or in person) another student’s homework”; and “Using an

electronic digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam” with the 28-29 group

that responded “never”. Moreover, there was a significant difference in responses to

the items “Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge”;

“Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source – e.g.

the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper you submitted”; and “Using an

electronic digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam” with the 26-27 group

that responded “never”, “once”, and “never”, respectively. 120

Table 4.33 Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Undergraduate

Types and 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 Frequency 19 21 23 25 27 29

Fabricating or Never 317 437 210 29 27 15 99 42.62** falsifying a Once 43 67 21 2 2 2 3 bibliography More than once 15 29 13 0 0 0 0 Not relevant 32 23 20 8 1 2 8

Working on an Never 197 304 157 26 25 17 103 1.02*** assignment with Once 93 107 53 5 1 1 3 others (in person) More than once 93 116 41 3 3 1 1 when the instructor Not relevant 24 26 13 4 1 0 2 asked for individual work

Working on an Never 298 392 190 33 24 18 106 53.22*** assignment with Once 37 72 28 1 3 1 1 others (via email or More than once 49 69 26 1 2 0 2 Instant Messaging) Not relevant 24 24 19 4 1 0 1 when the instructor asked for individual work

Getting questions Never 263 347 176 32 21 18 96 53.31*** or answers from Once 68 116 41 5 5 1 7 someone who has More than once 63 85 36 2 4 0 4 already taken a test Not relevant 8 4 10 0 0 0 3

Helping someone Never 301 453 221 35 25 19 98 38.80** else cheat on a test Once 62 59 24 0 5 0 5 More than once 36 35 12 3 0 0 4 Not relevant 7 7 8 1 0 0 1

Fabricating or Never 275 362 183 28 23 14 90 34.17* falsifying lab data Once 43 53 18 2 1 0 0 More than once 19 41 11 1 1 1 0 Not relevant 69 100 53 7 5 4 19

Copying from Never 343 498 238 36 30 18 105 47.66*** another student Once 31 32 11 2 0 0 1 during a test with More than once 29 22 6 0 0 0 2 his or her Not relevant 1 3 8 1 0 1 1 knowledge

121

Types and 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 Frequency 19 21 23 25 27 29

Copying from Never 332 470 224 35 29 18 107 48.13*** another student Once 45 52 18 2 1 0 0 during a test or More than once 27 30 14 0 0 0 2 exam without his or Not relevant 1 3 8 0 0 1 1 her knowledge

Receiving Never 308 423 200 33 26 16 102 33.40* unpermitted help on Once 52 80 32 2 2 3 1 an assignment More than once 39 49 23 3 2 0 3 Not relevant 8 5 7 0 0 0 2

Copying (by hand Never 240 370 192 30 24 18 101 69.55*** or in person) Once 82 96 39 4 1 0 6 another student’s More than once 80 86 26 4 3 1 2 homework Not relevant 3 3 5 1 0 0 1

Paraphrasing or Never 272 371 177 30 18 15 81 29.18* copying a few Once 74 101 43 7 10 4 14 sentences of More than once 58 78 36 1 2 0 13 material from an Not relevant 2 5 9 0 0 0 2 electronic source – e.g. the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper you submitted

Using unpermitted Never 361 502 243 35 28 18 109 34.06* handwritten crib Once 19 33 8 3 0 0 0 notes (or cheat More than once 23 16 6 0 2 1 0 sheets) during a Not relevant 1 4 5 1 0 0 1 test or exam

Using an electronic Never 386 539 252 38 29 19 106 31.95* digital device as an Once 12 8 7 0 0 0 0 unauthorized aid More than once 7 7 0 0 0 0 2 during an exam Not relevant 0 1 6 1 0 0 2

Using a false or Never 338 449 209 33 24 17 106 31.74* forged excuse to Once 47 70 35 6 3 2 2 obtain an extension More than once 19 33 16 0 2 0 2 on a due date or Not relevant 1 3 5 0 1 0 0 delay taking an exam

122

Types and 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 Frequency 19 21 23 25 27 29

If you have taken an Yes 35 87 32 5 5 1 6 13.40* online test or exam, No 29 81 55 6 3 1 0 have you looked up information on the Internet when not permitted?

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Academic class standing

There was a significant difference in responses to all the items in Table 4.34 by

academic class standing, with non-degree students that responded “never” with two

exceptions. Regarding the item “Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material

from an electronic source – e.g., the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper you

submitted” the significant difference was with non-degree students that responded

“once”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the item “Helping

someone else cheat on a test” with students in their 5th year and beyond that responded

“never”.

Table 4.34

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Academic Class Standing –

Undergraduate

Types and 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND X2 Frequency Year Year Year Year Year+ Working on an Never 142 139 197 208 126 17 31.18* assignment with Once 55 53 66 61 27 1 others (in person) More than once 60 52 62 64 21 0 when the Not relevant 15 17 10 16 12 0 instructor asked for individual work

123

Types and 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND X2 Frequency Year Year Year Year Year+ Helping someone Never 202 210 274 291 162 14 25.95* else cheat on a test Once 46 26 36 33 12 2 More than once 21 20 20 22 7 0 Not relevant 3 4 3 8 5 1

Copying from Never 230 235 300 316 170 18 27.72* another student Once 19 13 22 16 7 0 during a test with More than once 19 13 11 13 3 0 his/her knowledge Not relevant 1 1 1 7 5 0

Copying from Never 223 231 285 297 162 18 25.15* another student Once 28 18 36 25 11 0 during a test or More than once 17 12 13 23 8 0 exam without his or Not relevant 2 0 1 6 5 0 her knowledge

Copying (by hand Never 155 179 229 262 134 17 41.44*** or in person) Once 55 46 55 45 26 1 another student’s More than once 57 35 49 41 20 0 homework Not relevant 4 1 1 2 5 0

Paraphrasing or Never 183 182 227 234 127 12 32.49** copying a few Once 51 43 67 60 30 2 sentences of More than once 37 33 38 55 23 2 material from an Not relevant 0 2 4 3 7 2 electronic source – e.g. the Internet – without footnoting them in a paper you submitted

Using an electronic Never 257 253 326 340 176 18 26.63* digital device as an Once 9 4 4 7 3 0 unauthorized aid More than once 3 5 3 3 2 0 during an exam Not relevant 1 0 1 2 6 0

Using a false or Never 231 221 279 290 138 18 30.25* forged excuse to Once 25 29 42 37 32 0 obtain an extension More than once 13 11 12 24 12 0 on a due date or Not relevant 1 0 2 2 5 0 delay taking an exam

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 124

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Working on an

assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work” by

primary major, with students in Musical Arts that responded “once”. There was a

significant difference in responses to the items “Working on an assignment with others

(via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work” and

“Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test” with

students that list listed their primary major as “Other” that responded “never”. There

was a significant difference in responses to the item “Fabricating or falsifying lab data”

with students in Technology that responded “never”; and to the item “Using a false or

forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam” with

students at the Branch Campus that responded “more than once”. Moreover, there was

a significant difference in responses to the question “If you paraphrased or copied

material from a written or electronic source without citing it, how did you access the

material?” with students at the Branch Campus that responded “Internet only”. See

Table 4.35.

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Undergraduate

Types and A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2 Frequency Working on an Never 356 82 208 8 74 19 53 6 18 43.10* assignment with Once 85 38 77 2 25 14 16 1 5 others (in More than 1 76 29 82 0 38 6 19 2 6 person) when Not relevant 27 4 22 1 4 3 6 0 3 the instructor asked for individual work

125

Types and A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2 Frequency Working on an Never 422 11 266 9 100 36 74 9 24 36.91* assignment with Once 46 6 53 0 19 3 5 0 1 others (via More than 1 46 17 50 1 20 1 8 0 4 email or Instant Not relevant 30 18 23 1 4 2 7 0 3 Messaging) 3 when the instructor asked for individual work

Getting Never 400 84 249 8 80 29 67 8 23 41.72* questions or Once 75 39 65 2 37 6 13 0 5 answers from More than 1 56 26 66 1 23 5 13 1 4 someone who Not relevant 10 2 9 0 2 1 1 0 0 has already taken a test

Fabricating or Never 377 10 249 8 100 27 72 6 23 72.97* falsifying lab Once 57 9 30 0 18 1 4 1 2 ** data More than 1 37 4 13 0 14 0 5 1 0 Not relevant 73 4 99 3 11 13 13 1 7 36 Using a false or Never 452 13 303 7 122 35 77 8 29 37.31* forged excuse Once 60 8 62 1 15 4 12 1 0 to obtain an More than 1 29 10 20 3 7 3 3 0 2 extension on a Not relevant 3 5 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 due date or 0 delay taking an exam

If you have Internet only 123 49 100 3 37 4 26 1 5 54.75* paraphrased or Hard copy 8 1 6 0 5 3 3 1 1 * copied material only 53 20 55 0 15 1 12 0 5 from a written Primarily 8 4 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 or electronic EM 50 6 28 1 17 3 7 0 1 source without Primarily citing it, how did HC you access the Both equally material?

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, BC = Branch Campus, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, UD = Undecided *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 126

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Demographic Characteristics,

Graduate Students

Sex/gender

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test” and “Fabricating or falsifying lab data” by sex/gender, with males that responded “never”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work” with females that responded “never”.

See Table 4.36.

Table 4.36

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Graduate

Types and Frequency Female Male X2 Getting questions or answers from Never 177 116 8.16* someone who has already taken a Once 28 9 test More than once 16 4 Not relevant 30 10

Fabricating or falsifying lab data Never 155 102 8.74* Once 7 0 More than once 4 2 Not relevant 87 34

Copying material, almost word for Never 242 130 8.86* word, from any written source and Once 5 2 turning it in as your own work More than once 3 0 Not relevant 2 7

* p < 0.05

Race/ethnicity

There were no significant differences in responses to types and frequency of behaviors for graduate students by race/ethnicity. 127

Age

There was a significant difference in responses to all the items in Table 4.37 by age, with the 20-21 age groups that responded “never” with few exceptions. First, there was a significant difference in responses to the item “Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work” with the 20-21 group that responded “more than once”. Second, there was a significant difference in responses to the items “Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge”; “Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam” and “Using an electronic digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam” with the 22-23 group that responded “never”. Finally, there was a significant difference in responses to the “Cheating on a test in any other way” with the

24-25 age groups that responded “never”. 128

Table 4.37

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Graduate

Types and Frequency 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

Working on an Never 2 66 47 27 28 110 43.00*** assignment with others Once 1 20 8 4 2 10 (in person) when the More than once 2 17 7 3 1 4 instructor asked for Not relevant 0 2 7 7 5 12 individual work

Working on an Never 3 74 50 31 29 115 39.56** assignment with others Once 0 13 9 3 1 6 (via email or Instant More than once 2 14 6 1 1 3 Messaging) when the Not relevant 0 4 5 7 5 12 instructor asked for individual work

Getting questions or Never 5 76 51 34 24 104 35.98** answers from someone Once 0 15 9 0 4 9 who has already taken More than once 0 12 4 0 2 3 a test Not relevant 0 2 6 8 5 19

Helping someone else Never 5 93 58 34 26 113 26.53* cheat on a test Once 0 4 6 2 3 1 More than once 0 4 1 1 1 2 Not relevant 0 1 5 5 6 19 Copying from another Never 4 100 63 33 29 113 42.21*** student during a test Once 0 3 1 0 0 1 with his or her More than once 1 1 0 0 1 1 knowledge Not relevant 0 1 6 8 6 21

Copying from another Never 5 95 61 35 29 112 29.36* student during a test Once 0 5 2 0 0 0 without his or her More than once 0 4 1 0 1 2 knowledge Not relevant 0 1 6 7 6 21

Using digital technology Never 5 104 63 36 30 112 24.37** (such as text messaging) Once 0 0 1 0 0 0 to get unpermitted help Not relevant 0 1 6 6 6 24 from someone during a test or examination

129

Types and Frequency 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

Receiving unpermitted Never 5 92 61 34 28 121 33.41** help on an assignment Once 0 4 6 3 1 3 More than once 0 8 3 0 1 3 Not relevant 0 1 0 5 6 9

Copying (by hand or in Never 5 90 62 35 29 114 27.97* person) another Once 0 11 2 3 0 3 student’s homework More than once 0 3 1 0 1 3 Not relevant 0 0 5 4 6 14

Copying (using digital Never 5 94 63 38 29 121 25.16* means such as Instant Once 0 6 2 0 1 0 Messaging or email) More than once 0 3 0 0 0 1 another student’s Not relevant 0 2 5 4 6 14 homework

Using unpermitted Never 5 102 65 35 29 114 29.39* handwritten crib notes Once 0 3 0 1 1 0 (or cheat sheets) during More than once 0 0 1 0 0 2 a test or exam Not relevant 0 0 4 6 6 20

Using electronic crib Never 4 102 66 35 30 115 49.39*** notes (stored in PDA, Once 0 1 0 0 0 1 phone, or calculator) to More than once 1 2 0 0 0 0 cheat on a test or exam Not relevant 0 0 4 6 6 19

Using an electronic Never 4 103 66 36 30 115 62.99*** digital device as an Once 0 1 0 0 0 0 unauthorized aid during More than once 1 1 0 0 0 0 an exam Not relevant 0 0 4 5 6 21

Cheating on a test in any Never 4 98 68 32 31 118 30.35** other way Once 1 5 0 3 0 2 Not relevant 0 2 2 7 5 16

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Academic class standing

There were no statistics computed for academic class standing for graduate students because “academic class standing” is a constant at the graduate level. 130

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Working on an

assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work” by

primary major with students in Business Administration that responded “once”. See

Table 4.38.

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Getting questions or

answers from someone who has already taken a test”; “Using digital technology (such

as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or exam”;

“Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam”; and “Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and

turning it in as your own work” with students in Musical Arts that responded “never”.

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or exam”; “Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment.”; and “Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web- based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted” with students that identified their primary major as “Other” that responded “never”.

There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam” with students in Education & Human Development that responded “never”; and to the item

“Cheating on a test in any other way” with students in Health & Human Services that responded “never”. 131

Table 4.38

Types and Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Graduate

Types and A&S BA EDHD HHS MA Tech O X2 Frequency Working on an Never 103 22 101 13 16 11 14 31.35* assignment with Once 15 9 13 3 3 1 1 others (in More than 6 6 12 4 2 0 3 person) when once 19 0 9 3 0 2 0 the instructor Not relevant asked for individual work

Getting Never 98 25 103 18 21 12 16 43.22** questions or Once 16 6 14 0 0 0 1 answers from More than 6 6 4 4 0 0 1 someone who once 23 0 13 0 0 2 2 has already Not relevant taken a test

Using digital Never 121 36 119 20 21 12 20 26.99** technology (such Once 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 as text Not relevant 22 1 16 2 0 2 0 messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or exam

Receiving Never 119 31 124 18 18 11 19 36.91** unpermitted help Once 9 0 3 2 2 1 0 on an More than 3 6 3 2 1 0 0 assignment once 12 0 5 1 0 2 1 Not relevant

Paraphrasing or Never 121 26 115 16 18 8 18 29.76* copying a few Once 12 6 12 3 2 3 2 sentences from a More than 6 4 7 4 1 1 0 book, magazine, once 3 1 1 0 0 2 0 or journal (not Not relevant electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted

132

Types and A&S BA EDHD HHS MA Tech O X2 Frequency Using electronic Never 122 34 123 21 21 11 19 31.55* crib notes (stored Once 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 in PDA, phone, or More than 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 calculator) to once 20 1 11 1 0 2 0 cheat on a test or Not relevant exam

Copying material, Never 136 35 131 22 21 10 18 40.74** almost word for Once 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 word, from any More than 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 written source once 4 1 1 0 0 3 0 and turning it in Not relevant as your own work

Using a false or Never 118 33 122 19 16 10 18 29.15* forged excuse to Once 12 3 5 4 3 1 2 obtain an More than 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 extension on a once 10 1 5 0 0 3 0 due date or delay Not relevant taking an exam

Cheating on a Never 122 31 123 23 20 12 19 21.90* test in any other Once 3 4 2 0 1 0 1 way Not relevant 18 2 10 0 0 2 0

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Demographic Characteristics, Undergraduate

Students

Participants were asked to respond to questions about specific behaviors that

some people might consider cheating. Specifically, they were asked to identify how often (never, once, more than once, not relevant), in the past year, they have engaged

in specific behaviors – see Tables 4.31 to 4.38 that shows the results for types and

frequency of academic misconduct by various demographic characteristics. 133

Participants were further asked how frequently they think/believe three specific types of behaviors related to academic misconduct occur at their institution; how often, if ever, they have seen another student cheat during a test or examination at their institution; and if they have ever reported another student for cheating.

Sex/gender

With regard to the frequency of specific behaviors that participants believe occur at their institution, there was a significant difference in responses to the item “Plagiarism on written assignments” by sex/gender, with females that responded “often”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “Cheating during tests or examinations” with males that responded “very seldom”. See Table 4.39.

Table 4.39 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate

Frequency Female Male X2 Plagiarism on written assignments Never 6 4 11.04* Very seldom 70 62 Seldom/sometimes 396 223 Often 345 161 Very often 96 48

Cheating during tests or Never 10 6 13.99** examinations Very seldom 167 125 Seldom/sometimes 398 213 Often 236 121 Very often 100 33 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Race/ethnicity There was a significant difference in responses to the question “How often, if ever, have you seen another student cheat during a test or examination?” by race/ethnicity, with American Indians that responded “a few times”. See Table 4.40. 134

Table 4.40 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate

Frequency W B/AA H/L A OPI AI O X2 How often, if ever, have Never 565 33 18 6 1 0 13 40.77* you seen another Once 157 16 5 2 0 0 2 student cheat during a A few times 385 22 7 2 0 2 19 test or examination? Several times 113 5 4 0 1 0 0 Many times 30 2 2 0 0 1 1

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, AI = American Indian, and O = Other * p < 0.05

Age There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Inappropriately sharing work in group assignments” by age, with the 20-21 groups that responded

“often”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the question “How often, if ever, have you seen another student cheat during a test or examination?” with the 30+ age group that responded “never”. See Table 4.41.

Table 4.41

Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Undergraduate

Frequency 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 19 21 23 25 27 29

Inappropriately Never 3 5 2 0 1 0 2 71.20*** sharing work in Very seldom 17 25 18 1 2 1 12 group Seldom/sometimes 111 110 62 16 9 4 48 assignments Often 184 277 97 15 12 10 34 Very often 86 137 83 7 5 4 11

How often, if ever, Never 216 205 96 23 18 12 71 92.54*** have you seen Once 68 67 29 1 3 1 14 another student A few times 91 209 99 12 5 5 16 cheat during a test Several times 22 58 32 2 3 0 6 or examination? Many times 8 16 8 1 0 1 2

*** p < 0.001

135

Academic class standing

Regarding the frequency of specific types of behaviors that participants believe

occur at their institution, there was a significant difference in responses to the item

“Plagiarism on written assignments” by academic class standing, with first-year students that responded “very often”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the

items “Inappropriately sharing work in group assignments” and “Cheating during tests or

examinations” with non-degree students that responded “seldom/sometimes”. In

addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the question “How often, if

ever, have you seen another student cheat during a test or examination?” with first-year

students that responded “a few times”. See Table 4.42. 136

Table 4.42

Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Academic Class Standing – Undergraduate

Frequency 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND X2 Year Year Year Year Year+ Plagiarism on Never 2 4 2 1 1 0 46.22** written Very seldom 34 25 28 29 16 0 assignments Seldom/sometimes 142 114 141 141 73 11 Often 82 89 129 135 64 7 Very often 9 28 31 45 31 0

Inappropriately Never 4 2 4 1 2 0 53.23*** sharing work in Very seldom 18 16 20 14 8 0 group Seldom/sometimes 72 75 67 85 50 11 assignments Often 129 104 174 150 65 7 Very often 45 64 65 102 58 0

Cheating Never 7 4 2 0 3 0 51.11*** during tests or Very seldom 77 53 58 66 35 3 examinations Seldom/sometimes 113 116 145 157 71 12 Often 62 57 94 95 46 3 Very often 9 31 31 33 29 0

How often, if Never 174 117 131 135 74 10 92.38*** ever, have you Once 42 43 35 36 22 5 seen another A few times 41 75 129 129 61 3 student cheat Several times 9 22 31 41 20 0 during a test or Many times 5 6 7 11 7 0 examination?

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Cheating during tests or exam” with students in Health and Human Services that responded “very often”. See

Table 4.43. 137

Table 4.43

Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Undergraduate

Frequency A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2

Cheating Never 2 3 8 0 1 0 1 1 0 48.89* during tests Very seldom 111 35 71 3 29 10 19 1 13 or exam Seldom/sometimes 240 62 160 2 69 19 46 2 10 Often 132 40 108 3 37 10 16 3 7 Very often 57 10 40 3 6 3 11 0 2

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, BC = Branch Campus, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, UD = Undecided * p < 0.05

Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Demographic Characteristics, Graduate

Students

Sex/gender

Regarding the frequency of specific types of behaviors that participants believe

occur at their institution, there was a significant difference in responses to the items

“Plagiarism on written assignments” and “Inappropriately sharing work in group

assignments.” by sex, with females that responded “often”. See Table 4.44. 138

Table 4.44

Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Graduate

Frequency Female Male X2 Plagiarism on written assignments Never 1 3 10.09* Very seldom 13 12 Seldom/sometimes 105 69 Often 100 37 Very often 23 14

Inappropriately sharing work in Never 0 3 15.57** group assignments Very seldom 7 9 Seldom/sometimes 58 44 Often 131 51 Very often 45 27

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Race/ethnicity

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Plagiarism on written assignments”; “Inappropriately sharing work in group assignments” and

“Cheating during tests or examinations” by race/ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander that responded “seldom/sometimes” and “often” respectively.

See Table 4.45. 139

Table 4.45 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Graduate

Frequency W B/AA H/L A NH OPI O X2 Plagiarism on Never 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 85.55*** written Very seldom 14 1 1 10 0 0 0 assignments Seldom/sometimes 148 9 3 11 0 1 3 Often 117 10 4 2 1 0 3 Very often 32 0 0 4 0 0 0

Inappropriately Never 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 78.92*** sharing work in Very seldom 9 1 0 6 0 0 0 group Seldom/sometimes 80 7 3 11 0 1 1 assignments Often 155 12 6 6 1 0 2 Very often 66 0 0 3 0 0 3

Cheating during Never 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 1.03*** tests or Very seldom 47 4 3 12 0 0 0 examinations Seldom/sometimes 176 10 2 6 0 1 3 Often 69 5 4 2 1 0 3 Very often 16 1 0 3 0 0 0

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, NH = Native Hawaiian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, and O = Other *** p < 0.001

Age

Regarding the frequency of specific types of behaviors that participants believe occur at their institution, there was a significant difference in responses to the item

“Plagiarism on written assignments” by age, with the 30+ group that responded

“seldom/sometimes”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item

“Inappropriately sharing work in group assignments” with the 20-21 age groups that responded “a few times”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the question “How often, if ever, have you seen another student cheat during a test or examination?” with the 30+ age group that responded “never”. See Table 4.46. 140

Table 4.46 Frequency of Academic Misconduct by Age – Graduate

Frequency 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

Plagiarism on written Never 1 1 1 0 0 1 31.61* assignments Very seldom 1 5 6 6 2 6 Seldom/sometimes 2 48 28 19 15 63 Often 1 40 27 13 11 45 Very often 0 9 7 3 7 11

Inappropriately sharing Never 0 0 2 0 0 1 31.50* work in group Very seldom 1 2 1 3 2 7 assignments Seldom/sometimes 3 19 16 13 7 45 Often 1 58 34 20 15 55 Very often 0 23 14 5 11 19

How often, if ever, have Never 2 69 40 25 21 98 34.11* you seen another Once 1 8 12 6 5 15 student cheat during a A few times 2 23 16 6 6 12 test or examination Several times 0 3 0 3 4 4 Many times 0 0 1 2 0 1

* p < 0.05

Academic class standing and primary major

There were no statistics computed for “academic class standing” for graduate

students because “academic class standing” is a constant at the graduate level. In addition, there were no significant differences in responses to “frequency of academic misconduct” for graduate students by primary major.

Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Demographic Characteristics,

Undergraduate Students

After participants were asked to identify the types and frequency of specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating, they were further asked to indicate their perceived seriousness of those same behaviors. 141

Sex/gender

There was a significant difference in responses to all the items in Table 4.47 by sex/gender, with females that responded “serious” with the exception of the item

“Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge.” With this item, the significant difference in responses was with males that responded “trivial”.

Table 4.47 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate

Perceived Seriousness Female Male X2 Helping someone else cheat on a Not cheating 16 21 13.36** test Trivial 58 47 Moderate 249 143 Serious 566 281

Copying from another student during Not cheating 13 12 8.79* a test or examination without his or Trivial 22 25 her knowledge Moderate 140 70 Serious 719 384

Paraphrasing or copying a few Not cheating 30 31 11.35* sentences from a book, magazine, Trivial 202 130 or journal (not electronic or Web- Moderate 326 175 based) without footnoting them in a Serious 336 156 paper you submitted

Turning in a paper from a “paper Not cheating 11 13 12.44** mill” (a paper written and previously Trivial 16 15 submitted by another student) and Moderate 70 57 claiming it as your own work Serious 796 405

Paraphrasing or copying a few Not cheating 28 35 21.21*** sentences of material from an Trivial 202 131 electronic source – e.g., the Internet Moderate 313 180 – without footnoting them in a paper Serious 349 146 you submitted

142

Perceived Seriousness Female Male X2 Submitting a paper you purchased or Not cheating 12 11 29.89*** obtained from a Web site (such as Trivial 18 19 www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed Moderate 36 52 it as your own work Serious 828 411

Using unpermitted handwritten crib Not cheating 11 11 10.76* notes (or cheat sheets) during a test Trivial 30 32 or exam Moderate 189 111 Serious 663 337

Using electronic crib notes (stored in Not cheating 11 10 17.85*** PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat Trivial 37 44 on a test or exam Moderate 179 112 Serious 664 326

Using an electronic/digital device as Not cheating 14 11 13.71** an unauthorized aid during an exam Trivial 33 35 Moderate 188 124 Serious 655 321

Turning in a paper copied, at least in Not cheating 15 10 18.96*** part, from another student’s paper, Trivial 31 35 whether or not the student is Moderate 191 136 currently taking the same course Serious 651 309

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Race/ethnicity There was a significant difference in responses to all the items in Table 4.48 by race/ethnicity, with Other Pacific Islanders that responded “serious” with the exception of two items. With the items “Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work” and “Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test” the significant difference in responses was with

Hispanic/Latinos that responded “trivial” and “serious”, respectively. See Table 4.48. 143

Table 4.48 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate

Perceived Seriousness W B/AA H/L A OPI AI O X2 Working on an Not cheating 150 18 10 2 0 0 5 37.71** assignment with others (in Trivial 641 32 8 5 1 1 14 person) when the Moderate 311 17 13 2 1 0 12 instructor asked for Serious 117 9 3 1 0 2 4 individual work

Getting questions or Not cheating 76 15 3 2 0 0 1 37.80** answers from someone Trivial 241 13 6 0 1 1 9 who has already taken a Moderate 478 19 16 5 0 0 9 test Serious 424 29 9 3 1 2 16

Helping someone else Not cheating 28 6 2 1 0 0 0 30.93* cheat on a test Trivial 82 12 4 1 0 1 4 Moderate 353 20 8 4 0 0 7 Serious 753 39 20 4 2 2 24

Fabricating or falsifying Not cheating 30 5 2 2 0 1 1 36.84** research data Trivial 183 17 4 0 0 0 4 Moderate 430 22 8 5 0 1 12 Serious 575 32 20 3 2 1 18

Copying from another Not cheating 17 4 2 1 0 1 2 48.00*** student during a test with Trivial 68 9 1 0 0 0 3 his or her knowledge Moderate 261 23 7 2 0 0 2 Serious 873 41 24 7 2 2 28

Copying from another Not cheating 17 3 2 1 0 1 1 54.62*** student during a test or Trivial 35 10 1 0 0 0 1 examination without his Moderate 191 10 5 0 0 0 3 or her knowledge Serious 978 53 26 9 2 2 30

Using digital technology Not cheating 20 5 2 1 0 1 1 49.84*** (such as test messaging) Trivial 52 10 2 0 0 0 1 to get unpermitted help Moderate 233 16 5 3 0 0 2 from someone during a Serious 915 44 25 6 2 2 31 test or examination

Receiving unpermitted Not cheating 89 13 5 2 0 1 5 40.30** help on an assignment Trivial 420 23 7 1 0 0 8 Moderate 452 26 13 6 0 0 10 Serious 248 13 9 1 2 2 12

144

Perceived Seriousness W B/AA H/L A OPI AI O X2 Copying (by hand or in Not cheating 27 7 2 1 0 1 1 38.98** person) another Trivial 263 21 9 4 0 0 5 student’s homework Moderate 460 25 11 2 0 0 12 Serious 467 23 12 3 2 2 17

Copying (using digital Not cheating 25 7 2 1 0 0 1 33.70* means such as Instant Trivial 251 17 10 4 0 1 6 Messaging or email) Moderate 476 24 10 3 0 0 8 another student’s Serious 464 28 12 2 2 2 19 homework

Turning in a paper from Not cheating 15 5 2 1 0 0 1 51.07*** a “paper mill” (a paper Trivial 24 5 0 0 0 1 1 written and previously Moderate 109 9 7 0 0 0 2 submitted by another Serious 1073 55 25 9 2 2 31 student) and claiming it as your own work

Submitting a paper you Not cheating 15 4 2 1 0 0 1 45.90*** purchased or obtained Trivial 27 7 1 0 0 1 1 from a Web site (such as Moderate 76 7 4 0 0 0 1 www.schoolsucks.com) Serious 1105 58 27 9 2 2 32 and claimed it as your own work

Using unpermitted Not cheating 14 4 2 1 0 0 1 34.51* handwritten crib notes Trivial 50 7 1 0 0 1 3 (or cheat sheets) during Moderate 273 16 7 1 0 0 3 a test or exam Serious 883 49 24 8 2 2 28

Using an Not cheating 17 4 2 1 0 0 1 29.22* electronic/digital device Trivial 56 8 1 0 0 1 2 as an unauthorized aid Moderate 282 17 7 2 0 0 4 during an exam Serious 865 46 24 7 2 2 27

Copying material, almost Not cheating 16 5 2 1 0 0 1 44.18** word for word, from any Trivial 29 6 0 0 0 1 1 written source and Moderate 165 11 4 1 0 0 1 turning it in as your own Serious 1008 54 28 7 2 2 32 work

Turning in a paper Not cheating 15 5 2 1 0 0 2 48.93*** copied, at least in part, Trivial 54 9 0 1 0 1 1 from another student’s Moderate 287 14 15 2 0 0 9 paper, whether or not the Serious 859 47 17 6 2 2 23 student is currently taking the same course 145

Perceived W B/AA H/L A OPI AI O X2 Seriousness Turning in work done by Not cheating 14 5 1 1 0 0 1 35.17** someone else Trivial 39 5 2 0 0 1 1 Moderate 206 14 7 3 0 0 4 Serious 962 51 23 6 2 2 29

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, AI = American Indian, and O = Other *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Age There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography”; “Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test”; “Helping someone else cheat on a test”; “Fabricating or falsifying lab data”; “Fabricating or falsifying research data”; “Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge”; “Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment”;

“Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student’s homework”; “Using an electronic/ digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam”; and “Cheating on a test in any other way” by age, with the 30+ group that responded

“serious”. See Table 4.49.

There a significant difference in responses to the items “In a course requiring computer work, copying another student’s program rather than writing your own”;

“Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge”; “Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination”; “Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes

(or cheat sheets) during a test or exam”; “Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam”; and “Using a false or forged excuse to 146

obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam” with the 28-29 age group

that responded “serious”.

There was also a significant difference in responses to the items “Copying (by

hand or in person) another student’s homework” and “Paraphrasing or copying a few

sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without

footnoting them in a paper you submitted” with the 24-25 age group that responded

“trivial”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the items

“Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for

individual work” and “Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant

Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work” with the 20-21 age group that

responded “trivial”.

Table 4.49 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Age – Undergraduate

Perceived Seriousness 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 19 21 23 25 27 29

Fabricating or falsifying a Not 23 21 11 2 1 0 2 56.27*** bibliography cheating 129 183 80 14 7 4 13 Trivial 141 224 96 11 13 6 41 Moderate 97 114 72 12 7 9 54 Serious

Working on an Not 64 74 36 3 4 1 3 1.62*** assignment with others (in cheating 206 314 130 17 12 5 21 person) when the Trivial 82 126 72 14 11 6 47 instructor asked for Moderate 38 27 21 5 2 7 38 individual work Serious

Working on an Not 60 76 36 3 4 1 2 1.47*** assignment with others cheating 207 302 134 16 14 5 24 (via email or Instant Trivial 83 133 65 13 8 6 43 Messaging) when the Moderate 40 32 23 7 3 7 41 instructor asked for Serious individual work 147

Perceived 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 Seriousness 19 21 23 25 27 29

Getting questions or Not cheating 36 31 25 3 1 0 1 98.31*** answers from Trivial 77 128 51 3 4 1 7 someone who has Moderate 144 230 93 19 12 6 24 already taken a test Serious 133 152 89 14 11 12 78

In a course requiring Not cheating 10 6 6 1 0 0 0 53.48*** computer work, Trivial 38 51 16 1 0 0 3 copying another Moderate 130 187 80 7 7 2 18 student’s program Serious 212 298 157 30 22 17 89 rather than writing your own

Helping someone Not cheating 16 10 9 1 1 0 0 48.46*** else cheat on a test Trivial 32 45 21 2 1 1 2 Moderate 121 176 64 9 5 2 15 Serious 219 310 164 27 21 16 93

Fabricating or Not cheating 23 17 9 2 0 0 0 90.87*** falsifying lab data Trivial 91 126 47 4 2 1 3 Moderate 139 223 88 12 11 7 28 Serious 138 176 115 21 16 11 78

Fabricating or Not cheating 20 14 5 2 0 0 0 88.78*** falsifying research Trivial 75 96 31 1 2 1 3 data Moderate 141 210 79 13 8 7 21 Serious 152 223 143 23 19 11 84

Copying from another Not cheating 10 8 6 2 1 0 0 46.72*** student during a test Trivial 28 35 13 1 0 0 4 with his or her Moderate 94 135 48 8 3 1 6 knowledge Serious 256 364 193 28 25 18 99

Copying from another Not cheating 12 5 6 1 1 0 0 36.28** student during a test Trivial 17 19 7 1 0 0 3 or examination Moderate 67 99 34 2 1 1 6 without his or her Serious 294 417 213 35 27 18 101 knowledge

Using digital Not cheating 13 7 8 1 1 0 0 36.50** technology (such as Trivial 24 26 11 1 0 0 4 text messaging) to Moderate 87 107 49 1 2 1 12 get unpermitted help Serious 267 397 192 36 26 18 94 from someone during a test or examination 148

Perceived 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 Seriousness 19 21 23 25 27 29

Receiving Not cheating 41 43 23 3 3 0 2 81.78*** unpermitted help on Trivial 139 188 96 11 8 4 12 an assignment Moderate 132 215 90 13 11 8 41 Serious 74 88 51 12 6 6 53 Copying (by hand or Not cheating 15 15 7 1 1 0 0 60.61*** in person) another Trivial 96 128 54 12 4 1 9 student’s homework Moderate 152 215 81 12 12 8 29 Serious 127 180 117 14 12 10 71

Copying (using digital Not cheating 13 14 7 1 1 0 0 52.69*** means such as Trivial 89 22 58 7 3 1 9 Instant Messaging or Moderate 160 214 88 13 11 8 29 email) another Serious 128 189 102 17 14 10 72 student’s homework

Paraphrasing or Not cheating 18 29 10 1 2 0 1 29.99* copying a few Trivial 93 135 66 13 10 3 13 sentences from a Moderate 136 206 93 12 7 8 39 book, magazine, or Serious 144 171 90 13 10 8 57 journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted

Using unpermitted Not cheating 11 5 5 0 1 0 0 32.52* handwritten crib Trivial 15 23 15 2 0 1 6 notes (or cheat Moderate 103 124 49 7 6 1 10 sheets) during a test Serious 262 388 190 30 22 17 93 or exam

Using electronic crib Not cheating 10 4 5 1 1 0 0 30.57* notes (stored in PDA, Trivial 24 35 15 2 0 1 4 phone, or calculator) Moderate 96 122 51 5 6 1 11 to cheat on a test or Serious 259 379 189 31 22 17 95 exam

Using an electronic/ Not cheating 10 6 7 1 1 0 0 36.63** digital device as an Trivial 18 30 14 1 0 0 5 unauthorized aid Moderate 113 118 58 5 5 3 10 during an exam Serious 249 383 180 32 23 16 95

149

Perceived 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 Seriousness 19 21 23 25 27 29

Using a false or Not cheating 35 38 14 4 2 2 4 38.53** forged excuse to Trivial 79 113 74 10 10 2 14 obtain an extension Moderate 130 191 82 13 5 3 31 on a due date or Serious 146 199 90 12 12 12 61 delay taking an exam

Cheating on a test in Not cheating 12 9 8 2 1 0 0 52.14*** any other way Trivial 31 21 15 1 0 0 3 Moderate 126 167 65 7 6 4 12 Serious 220 341 171 29 22 15 95

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Academic class standing

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Working on an

assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work” and

“Fabricating or falsifying research data” by academic class standing, with non-degree students that responded “trivial” and “serious”, respectively. See Table 4.50.

Moreover, there was a significant difference in responses to the items “Helping someone else cheat on a test” and “Fabricating or falsifying lab data” with students in their fifth-year and beyond that responded “serious” and “moderate”, respectively. 150

Table 4.50

Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Academic Class Standing –

Undergraduate

Perceived 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND X2 Seriousness Year Year Year Year Year+ Working on an Not cheating 32 44 43 39 24 3 28.30* assignment with Trivial 135 129 175 171 93 2 others (in person) Moderate 61 58 80 104 49 6 when the instructor Serious 31 25 27 31 18 6 asked for individual work Helping someone Not cheating 13 3 8 8 5 0 33.20** else cheat on a test Trivial 16 27 34 18 9 1 Moderate 83 61 100 104 39 5 Serious 145 163 183 216 131 12

Fabricating or Not cheating 14 12 8 12 5 0 31.36** falsifying lab data Trivial 59 48 78 60 29 1 Moderate 89 98 122 140 51 8 Serious 98 98 117 134 99 9

Fabricating or Not cheating 12 11 6 8 4 0 30.72* falsifying research Trivial 50 40 53 49 17 1 data Moderate 86 95 125 114 53 6 Serious 110 108 142 174 110 11

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test” by primary major, with students that self-reported their major as “Other” and that responded “serious”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “In a course requiring computer work, copying another student’s program rather than writing your own” with students at the

Branch Campus that responded “serious”. See Table 4.51. 151

Table 4.51

Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Undergraduate

Perceived A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2 Seriousness Getting Not 37 11 29 0 8 1 7 1 2 40.17* questions or cheating 103 37 84 0 23 6 14 0 5 answers from Trivial 182 58 145 3 68 23 32 1 14 someone who Moderate 205 46 121 8 42 9 38 6 11 has already Serious taken a test

In a course Not 7 5 7 0 0 0 4 0 0 40.04* requiring cheating 34 14 33 0 14 2 11 1 1 computer Trivial 154 52 122 1 55 7 20 2 15 work, copying Moderate 332 81 220 10 71 31 56 5 16 another Serious student’s program rather than writing your own

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, BC = Branch Campus, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, UD = Undecided * p < 0.05

Perceived Seriousness by Demographic Characteristics, Graduate Students

Sex/gender

Participants were asked to indicate their perceived seriousness of behaviors that

some people might consider cheating. There were no significant differences in

responses to perceived seriousness of academic misconduct for graduate students by

sex/gender.

152

Race/ethnicity

There was a significant difference in responses to both items in Table 4.52 by race/ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders that responded

“serious”. See Table 4.52.

Table 4.52 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Race/Ethnicity – Graduate

Perceived Seriousness W B/AA H/L A NH OPI O X2 Helping someone else Not 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 37.34** cheat on a test cheating 11 1 3 0 0 0 2 Trivial 73 4 0 9 0 0 1 Moderate 225 15 6 20 1 1 3 Serious

Submitting a paper you Not 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 39.10** purchased or obtained from cheating 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Web site (such as Trivial 7 0 0 7 0 0 1 www.schoolsucks.com) and Moderate 299 20 9 22 1 1 5 claimed it as your own work Serious

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, NH = Native Hawaiian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, and O = Other ** p < 0.01

Age

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work”;

“Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work” and “Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment” by age, with the 20-21 group that responded “serious” In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the items “Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test” and “In a course requiring computer work, 153

copying another student’s program rather than writing your own” with the 20-21 age group that responded “moderate”. See Table 4.53.

There was a significant difference in responses to the remaining items in Table

4.53 with the 30+ age group that responded “serious”.

Table 4.53 Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Age – Graduate

Perceived Seriousness 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

Working on an assignment Not cheating 0 11 3 3 3 4 53.28*** with others (in person) when Trivial 1 40 23 7 12 24 the instructor asked for Moderate 2 43 36 21 13 56 individual work Serious 2 8 5 11 6 49

Working on an assignment Not cheating 0 10 4 3 3 3 51.59*** with others (via email or Trivial 1 42 22 8 13 27 Instant Messaging) when the Moderate 2 41 35 20 13 51 instructor asked for individual Serious 2 9 7 11 6 53 work

Getting questions or answers Not cheating 0 8 1 1 2 4 56.55*** from someone who has Trivial 0 18 8 3 4 6 already taken a test Moderate 3 39 35 15 9 25 Serious 2 36 23 23 20 98

In a course requiring computer Not cheating 0 4 1 1 2 2 26.47* work, copying another Trivial 0 7 2 3 2 1 student’s program rather than Moderate 2 27 18 9 11 16 writing your own Serious 3 64 46 29 20 114

Helping someone else cheat Not cheating 0 3 1 1 3 2 36.86** on a test Trivial 1 8 0 4 2 2 Moderate 0 27 21 9 12 18 Serious 4 64 46 28 18 112

Fabricating or falsifying lab Not cheating 0 5 0 1 2 2 45.14*** data Trivial 0 12 3 0 2 4 Moderate 1 32 14 10 4 12 Serious 4 52 51 31 27 116

154

Perceived Seriousness 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

Fabricating or falsifying Not cheating 0 5 0 1 2 2 41.50*** research data Trivial 0 8 2 0 1 2 Moderate 1 30 13 6 3 10 Serious 4 59 52 35 29 119

Copying from another student Not cheating 0 3 0 1 2 2 26.38* during a test or exam without Trivial 0 0 3 1 0 1 his or her knowledge Moderate 1 16 9 6 6 4 Serious 4 82 56 34 27 127

Receiving unpermitted help on Not cheating 0 5 0 2 2 2 47.32*** an assignment Trivial 1 31 21 9 9 17 Moderate 0 43 36 11 12 49 Serious 3 21 11 20 12 64

Copying (by hand or in Not cheating 0 3 1 1 2 2 34.65** person) another student’s Trivial 0 18 5 5 2 6 homework Moderate 2 39 29 12 11 29 Serious 3 42 33 24 18 97

Copying (using digital means Not cheating 0 3 0 1 2 2 34.24** such as Instant Messaging or Trivial 0 16 5 5 2 7 email) another student’s Moderate 2 38 31 14 11 27 homework Serious 3 45 32 22 20 98

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Academic class standing

There were no statistics computed for academic class standing for graduate students because “academic class standing” is a constant at the graduate level.

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work” by primary major, with students in Arts & Sciences that responded “moderate”. There was 155

also a significant difference in responses to the item “Fabricating or falsifying research

data” with students in Technology that responded “serious”. See Table 4.54.

Table 4.54

Perceived Seriousness of Academic Misconduct by Primary Major – Graduate

Perceived A&S BA EDHD HHS MA Tech O X2 Seriousness Working on an Not cheating 5 2 9 2 0 2 3 30.30* assignment with Trivial 36 13 30 6 8 4 10 others (in person) Moderate 78 13 52 9 11 5 3 when the instructor Serious 22 9 37 4 2 3 4 asked for individual work

Fabricating or Not cheating 4 1 1 2 0 0 2 30.63* falsifying research Trivial 3 1 7 1 0 0 0 data Moderate 16 12 22 4 6 0 3 Serious 118 23 99 14 15 14 15

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other * p < 0.05

Level of Familiarity about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP) by

Demographic Characteristics, Undergraduate Students

Participants were asked how often in the past year, on average, instructors

discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might consider

cheating.

Sex/gender

There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Academic Honesty

Committee” and “Sanctions for Academic Honesty Policy Violations” with males that

responded “very seldom” and “seldom/sometimes”, respectively. There was also a 156

significant difference in responses to the last two items in Table 4.55 with females that responded “often” and “never”, respectively.

Table 4.55 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Sex/Gender – Undergraduate

Level of Familiarity Female Male X2 Academic Honesty Committee Never 340 167 12.15* Very seldom 194 132 Seldom/sometimes 185 119 Often 129 56 Very often 62 22

Sanctions for Academic Honesty Never 248 116 10.08* Policy Violations Very seldom 220 127 Seldom/sometimes 239 157 Often 139 77 Very often 61 19

Guidelines on group work or Never 117 70 15.46** collaboration Very seldom 175 119 Seldom/sometimes 260 164 Often 267 113 Very often 90 32

Falsifying/fabricating course lab data Never 380 175 10.56* Very seldom 179 117 Seldom/sometimes 167 116 Often 118 61 Very often 54 24

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Race/ethnicity Participants were asked if they were informed about the University’s Academic

Honesty Policy. If participants responded “yes”, they were further asked where and how

much they learned about the policies. There was a significant difference in responses

to the item “Program Counselor, Residential Advisor, or Faculty Advisor” by

race/ethnicity, with Hispanic/Latino students that responded “little to nothing”. There 157

was a significant difference in responses to the item “Teaching Assistant/Graduate

Assistant” with Other Pacific Islanders that responded “little to nothing”.

In addition, participants were asked how often in the past year, on average,

instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might

consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the remaining two items in Table 4.56 with American Indians that responded “never”.

Table 4.56 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Race/Ethnicity – Undergraduate

Level of Familiarity W B/AA H/L A OPI AI O X2 Program Counselor, Little to nothing 492 23 16 3 1 1 5 22.81* Residential Advisor, Some 348 28 9 4 1 1 12 or Faculty Advisor A lot 150 19 4 0 0 0 8

Teaching Assistant/ Little to nothing 492 26 9 4 2 1 7 23.12* Graduate Assistant Some 336 33 14 3 0 1 9 A lot 144 11 5 1 0 0 10

Sanctions for Never 332 8 11 1 1 2 10 36.66* Academic Honesty Very seldom 309 15 11 5 0 0 7 Policy Violations Seldom/sometimes 344 34 4 3 1 1 6 Often 184 15 7 1 0 0 8 Very often 67 5 3 0 0 0 4

Falsifying/fabricating Never 448 16 10 3 1 2 11 36.96* research data Very seldom 256 13 13 3 0 0 9 Seldom/sometimes 282 20 2 2 1 1 5 Often 169 16 7 2 0 0 6 Very often 73 12 4 0 0 0 3

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, AI = American Indian, and O = Other * p < 0.05 158

Age There was a significant difference in responses to the question “Have you been informed about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy?” by age, with the 20-21 groups that responded “yes”. Participants that responded “yes” were further asked where and how much they learned about the policies. There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Campus Website” with the 20-21 age groups that responded “little to nothing”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the items “First- year undergraduate orientation program” and “Student Handbook” with the

24-25 age group that responded “little to nothing”; to the item “Program Counselor,

Residential Advisor, or Faculty Advisor” with the 28-29 age group that responded

“some”; to the item “Faculty (e.g., discussed in class, course syllabi, or course outlines)” with the 26-27 age group that responded “a lot”; and to the item “Teaching

Assistant/Graduate Assistant” with the 30+ age group that responded “little to nothing”.

See Table 4.57. 159

Table 4.57 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Age – Undergraduate

Level of Familiarity 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 19 21 23 25 27 29

Have you been Yes 316 504 237 34 26 14 93 36.73*** informed about the No 73 37 25 5 3 5 15 University’s Academic Honesty Policy?

First- year Little to nothing 72 132 102 22 10 6 31 84.05*** undergraduate Some 172 255 79 6 5 4 30 orientation program A lot 84 116 37 1 5 2 8

Campus Website Little to nothing 155 288 121 15 7 4 23 53.57*** Some 114 157 74 12 5 6 33 A lot 36 26 19 4 5 1 19

Student Handbook Little to nothing 85 129 61 13 4 3 15 27.00** Some 164 279 106 11 10 5 35 A lot 71 95 58 8 8 4 32

Program Counselor, Little to nothing 124 235 112 16 9 5 40 21.21* Residential Advisor, Some 121 179 63 10 8 5 18 or Faculty Advisor A lot 62 59 40 5 4 1 13

Faculty (e.g., Little to nothing 30 21 8 3 0 2 8 34.76** discussed in class, Some 150 224 95 11 5 3 30 course syllabi, or A lot 145 270 131 20 21 9 51 course outlines)

Teaching Assistant/ Little to nothing 128 243 99 12 7 6 48 29.55** Graduate Assistant Some 119 165 71 15 7 3 16 A lot 56 61 42 2 5 2 5

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

160

Academic class standing

There was a significant difference in responses to the question “Have you been informed about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy?” by academic class standing, with non-degree students that responded “yes”. Participants that responded “yes” were further asked where and how much they learned about the policies. There was a significant difference in responses to the items “First- year undergraduate orientation program” and “Program Counselor, Residential Advisor, or Faculty Advisor” with non- degree students that responded “little to nothing”. In addition, there was a significant difference in responses to the item “First-year graduate orientation program” with students in their fifth-year and beyond that responded “little to nothing”; and to the item

“Faculty (e.g., discussed in class, course syllabi, or course outlines)” with first-year students that responded “some”. See Table 4.58

Participants were also asked how often in the past year, on average, instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Plagiarism” with third-year students that responded “often”. There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Cheating”, “Sanctions for Academic Honesty Policy Violations”,

“Falsifying/ fabricating course lab data” and “Falsifying/ fabricating research data” with non-degree students that responded “often”, “never”, “never”, and “never”, respectively.

There was also a significant difference in responses to the items “Proper citation/ referencing of written sources” and “Proper citation/ referencing of Internet sources” with first-year students that responded “often”. 161

Table 4.58

Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Academic Class Standing –

Undergraduate

Level of 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND X2 Familiarity Year Year Year Year Year+ Have you been Yes 198 223 300 324 170 9 80.46*** informed about No 62 31 24 21 16 9 the University’s Academic Honesty Policy?

First- year Little to nothing 40 60 77 116 79 3 67.14*** undergraduate Some 119 106 146 137 43 1 orientation A lot 48 56 72 53 24 0 program

First-year Little to nothing 126 146 190 191 105 3 19.63* graduate Some 40 28 36 31 8 1 orientation A lot 8 9 8 10 7 1 program

Program Little to nothing 73 96 143 151 74 4 31.73*** Counselor, Some 85 75 112 92 40 1 Residential A lot 33 44 29 43 35 0 Advisor, or Faculty Advisor

Faculty (e.g., Little to nothing 22 17 15 6 11 1 35.78*** discussed in Some 103 88 128 141 57 2 class, course A lot 80 121 164 179 99 4 syllabi, or course outlines)

Plagiarism Never 13 12 10 9 4 3 37.40* Very seldom 31 34 40 49 26 7 Seldom/sometimes 95 80 98 114 64 6 Often 93 87 127 127 54 2 Very often 38 49 57 53 36 0

162

Level of 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ND X2 Familiarity Year Year Year Year Year+ Cheating Never 23 12 8 12 11 4 41.76** Very seldom 47 53 58 64 33 5 Seldom/sometimes 92 88 121 140 60 6 Often 83 71 109 101 54 3 Very often 23 37 31 32 27 0

Sanctions for Never 87 67 74 85 43 11 35.84* Academic Very seldom 63 68 78 90 47 1 Honesty Policy Seldom/sometimes 75 68 97 101 51 4 Violations Often 35 39 59 58 23 2 Very often 9 18 19 15 19 0

Proper citation/ Never 14 15 16 22 13 6 51.22*** referencing of Very seldom 27 32 33 43 31 3 written sources Seldom/sometimes 53 64 83 89 40 5 Often 115 90 133 131 49 2 Very often 57 59 67 66 52 2

Proper citation/ Never 14 20 17 25 12 5 37.78** referencing of Very seldom 31 30 47 40 30 3 Internet Seldom/sometimes 57 69 77 93 47 6 sources Often 112 83 123 127 48 3 Very often 55 59 65 66 48 1

Falsifying/ Never 118 96 130 142 58 13 32.31* fabricating Very seldom 36 60 74 81 43 2 course lab Seldom/sometimes 59 48 61 73 41 2 data Often 37 33 44 37 27 1 Very often 15 20 16 13 14 0

Falsifying/ Never 107 88 111 126 49 11 33.88* fabricating Very seldom 39 57 72 79 43 4 research data Seldom/sometimes 67 56 66 80 45 2 Often 37 35 58 43 28 1 Very often 15 25 18 17 18 0

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

163

Primary major

There was a significant difference in responses to the question “Have you been

informed about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy?” by primary major, with

students in Arts & Sciences that responded “yes”. Participants that responded “yes” were further asked where and how much they learned about the policies. There was a

significant difference in responses to the item “First- year graduate orientation program” with students whose primary major is “undecided” that responded “little to nothing”.

There was also a significant difference in responses to the item “Faculty (e.g., discussed in class, course syllabi, or course outlines)” with students at the Branch

Campus that responded “a lot”. See Table 4.59.

Participants were further asked how often in the past year, on average, instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the item “Proper citation/ referencing of Internet sources” with students with an undecided major that are undecided that responded “very often”. 164

Table 4.59

Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Primary Major – Undergraduate

Level of A&S BA EDHD BC HHS MA Tech O UD X2 Familiarity Have you Yes 485 123 341 8 114 36 82 8 21 17.41* been No 46 26 43 2 24 5 10 1 6 informed about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy?

First- year Little to nothing 317 71 198 7 76 18 53 4 12 29.46* graduate Some 43 17 43 0 16 5 10 1 9 orientation A lot 13 6 18 1 2 0 3 0 0 program

Faculty Little to nothing 19 3 28 0 8 1 5 2 5 39.37** (e.g., Some 194 50 145 2 59 14 36 2 15 discussed A lot 277 69 167 7 52 22 41 4 6 in class, course syllabi, or course outlines)

Proper Never 27 15 21 0 17 2 9 1 0 51.82* citation/ Very seldom 77 24 43 2 16 5 6 0 6 referencing Seldom/sometimes 140 38 99 1 35 4 19 1 10 of Internet Often 188 48 146 5 44 12 36 3 13 sources Very often 108 28 77 3 31 19 22 3 3

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, HHS = Health & Human Services, M/A = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, UD = Undecided ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

165

Level of Familiarity about the University Academic Honesty Policy (AHP) by

Demographic Characteristics, Graduate Students

Sex/gender

Participants were asked how often in the past year, on average, instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Cheating”,

“Academic Honesty Committee”, and “Falsifying/fabricating course lab data” by sex/gender, with females that responded “seldom/sometimes”, “very seldom”, and

“never”, respectively. See Table 4.60.

Table 4.60

Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Sex/Gender – Graduate

Level of Familiarity Female Male X2 Cheating Never 48 24 12.09* Very seldom 68 36 Seldom/sometimes 84 38 Often 39 25 Very often 5 13

Academic Honesty Committee Never 107 54 10.50* Very seldom 68 29 Seldom/sometimes 51 31 Often 18 15 Very often 0 4

Falsifying/fabricating course lab data Never 145 59 15.28** Very seldom 45 22 Seldom/sometimes 28 22 Often 16 18 Very often 6 10

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

166

Race/ethnicity

Participants were asked if they had been informed about the University’s

Academic Honesty Policy. Participants that responded “yes” were further asked where

and how much they learned about these policies. There was a significant difference in

responses to the items “First-year undergraduate orientation program” and “Other

Students” by race/ethnicity, with students that self-identified their race as “Other” that responded “little to nothing” and “some”, respectively. There was also a significant

difference in responses to the item “Program Counselor, Residential Advisor, or Faculty

Advisor” with Asians that responded “some”. See Table 4.61.

Participants were further asked how often in the past year, on average,

instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might

consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the item

“Falsifying/fabricating course lab data” with Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders that responded “often” and “very seldom”, respectively. 167

Table 4.61 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Race/Ethnicity – Graduate

Level of Familiarity What They W B/AA H/L A NH OPI O X2 Learned First-year Little to nothing 105 5 1 7 0 0 2 15.69* undergraduate Some 20 2 1 6 0 0 0 orientation program A lot 6 2 0 0 0 0 0

Program Counselor, Little to nothing 93 4 2 3 0 0 0 21.65** Residential Advisor, Some 49 3 1 10 0 0 1 or Faculty Advisor A lot 28 4 0 6 0 0 3

Other Students Little to nothing 111 5 1 5 0 0 0 36.87*** Some 48 3 1 10 0 0 3 A lot 7 3 2 4 0 0 0

Falsifying/fabricating Never 181 12 2 7 0 0 3 54.28*** course lab data Very seldom 56 3 3 3 0 1 1 Seldom/sometimes 40 2 1 6 0 0 1 Often 20 2 2 7 1 0 2 Very often 10 1 0 5 0 0 0

W = White, B/AA = Black/African American, H/L = Hispanic/Latino, A = Asian, NH = Native Hawaiian, OPI = Other Pacific Islander, and O = Other *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Age

Participants were asked if they had been informed about the University’s

Academic Honesty Policy. Participants that responded “yes” were further asked where and how much they learned about the policies. There was a significant difference in responses to the items “Campus website” and “Dean or other administrator” by age, with the 20-21 group that responded “some”. See Table 4.62.

In addition, participants were asked how often in the past year, on average, instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the items 168

“Plagiarism” with the 22-23 year age group that responded never; and to the items

“Falsifying/fabricating course lab data” and “Falsifying/fabricating research data” with the 20-21 year age group that responded “often”.

Table 4.62 Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Age – Graduate

Level of Familiarity 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30+ X2 21 23 25 27 29

Campus website Little to nothing 1 35 24 8 9 16 27.06** Some 3 21 19 14 10 32 A lot 0 4 4 2 5 18

Dean or other Little to nothing 2 48 37 11 18 41 22.53* administrator Some 2 4 5 1 3 6 A lot 0 1 4 5 1 10

Plagiarism Never 1 6 5 12 8 23 34.22* Very seldom 0 22 15 7 11 21 Seldom/sometimes 1 29 19 10 8 46 Often 2 36 24 8 7 28 Very often 1 11 6 2 2 15

Falsifying/fabricating Never 1 46 41 23 18 77 62.55*** course lab data Very seldom 1 32 8 7 5 14 Seldom/sometimes 0 20 9 2 6 13 Often 3 4 2 6 6 13 Very often 0 1 6 0 0 9

Falsifying/fabricating Never 1 35 31 18 13 62 41.55** research data Very seldom 1 29 12 7 5 14 Seldom/sometimes 0 27 10 6 7 19 Often 3 9 6 6 9 22 Very often 0 3 8 1 2 12

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

169

Academic class standing

There were no statistics computed for academic class standing for graduate

students because “academic class standing” is a constant.

Primary major

Participants were asked if they had been informed about the University’s

Academic Honesty Policy. Participants that responded “yes” were further asked where

and how much they learned about the policies. There was a significant difference in

responses to the item “First-year graduate orientation program” by primary major, with

students that self-reported their major as “Other” and that responded “some”. See

Table 4.63

In addition, participants were asked how often in the past year, on average,

instructors discussed policies concerning specific behaviors that some people might

consider cheating. There was a significant difference in responses to the items

“Plagiarism” and “Cheating” with students in Technology that responded “often” and

“very seldom”, respectively. There was a significant difference in responses to the

items “Proper citation\ referencing of written sources” and “Proper citation\ referencing

of Internet sources” with students in Education and Human Development that

responded “very often”. There was also a significant difference in responses to the

item “Falsifying/fabricating course lab data” with students in Musical Arts that responded

“never”; and to the item “Falsifying/fabricating research data” with students that self-

reported their major as “Other” that responded “never”. 170

Table 4.63

Level of Familiarity about the University’s AHP by Primary Major – Graduate

Level of A&S BA EDHD HHS MA Tech O X2 Familiarity First-year Little to nothing 21 5 41 9 0 1 2 45.3** graduate Some 57 17 40 8 11 2 11 orientation A lot 24 5 4 1 5 2 1 program

Plagiarism Never 31 4 14 1 0 0 5 52.93** Very seldom 27 1 33 4 2 5 4 Seldom/sometimes 44 13 35 8 5 1 7 Often 25 13 36 9 11 8 3 Very often 11 6 15 1 3 0 1

Cheating Never 32 6 27 4 0 0 5 39.92* Very seldom 36 2 42 4 7 7 6 Seldom/sometimes 39 14 40 9 11 1 7 Often 23 11 16 5 3 5 1 Very often 7 3 5 1 0 1 1

Proper citation\ Never 30 1 6 2 0 0 2 93.54** referencing of Very seldom 21 4 8 4 3 2 2 written sources Seldom/sometimes 31 13 12 4 1 4 4 Often 37 15 45 9 9 6 5 Very often 17 3 62 4 8 1 7

Proper citation\ Never 36 1 7 2 0 0 3 97.74*** referencing of Very seldom 25 4 6 4 3 2 1 Internet sources Seldom/sometimes 28 14 21 6 2 4 4 Often 33 14 42 8 8 6 6 Very often 15 3 58 3 8 1 6

Falsifying/ Never 78 18 74 8 13 3 12 42.12* fabricating Very seldom 22 4 24 7 4 3 3 course lab data Seldom/sometimes 19 4 14 5 3 2 2 Often 9 9 9 2 0 5 5 Very often 7 0 7 1 0 0 1

171

Level of A&S BA EDHD HHS MA Tech O X2 Familiarity Falsifying/ Never 63 16 57 6 6 2 10 36.95* fabricating Very seldom 25 4 24 5 5 3 2 research data Seldom/sometimes 24 6 19 7 7 2 4 Often 14 10 17 4 2 6 2 Very often 11 0 13 1 0 0 1

A&S = Arts & Sciences, BA = Business Administration, EDHD = Education & Human Development, HHS = Health & Human Services, MA = Musical Arts, Tech = Technology, O= Other, *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

172

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Findings from the present study can help faculty and administrators develop

strategies that address issues related to academic misconduct and identify ways to

increase and continually reinforce students’ familiarity with the University’s Academic

Honesty Policy (AHP). In addition, these findings provide faculty and administrators some insights into what students think and believe about ethics and character versus what they actually do as it relates to academic misconduct.

Through an adaptation of McCabe’s (2003) and Josephson’s (2004) work on academic integrity, the present research examined the beliefs and experiences toward academic misconduct of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Midwestern

State University. Specifically, I examined students’ ethical beliefs, the types and

frequency with which students cheat, students’ perceived seriousness of academic

misconduct, students’ level of familiarity with the University’s AHP, as well as each of

these variables across demographic characteristics, which included sex/gender,

race/ethnicity, age, academic class standing, and primary major.

This concluding chapter includes three sections – discussion, conclusions, and

recommendations. The first section, which is structured by research question, is a

review of the study as well as a discussion of the findings for each research question.

The second section draws conclusions resulting from the findings. The last section

provides recommendations for future research in higher education as well as leadership

policy and practice. 173

Discussion

This section presents a review of the study as well as a discussion of the findings for each research question. This discussion focuses on what students think and believe versus what they actually do as it relates to behaviors that some people may consider cheating. Moreover, this discussion includes a comparison and contrast of the findings between undergraduate and graduate students as well as a comparison and contrast of the findings to previous research on academic integrity, but more specifically of

McCabe’s and Josephson’s work.

Research Question One: What are the ethical beliefs of undergraduate and graduate students?

The ethical beliefs statements from the survey were grounded in Josephson’s

Report Card 2004: The Ethics of American Youth conducted with high school students.

I found no major disparities in responses between undergraduate and graduate students regarding their beliefs as it relates to ethics and character. Likened to some responses from the Josephson study, and as the following pages will illustrate, most students’ responses were what would be expected based on society’s values – most students know the difference between right and wrong. Roig and Ballew and Stevens and Stevens (cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) suggest that the decision of whether or not to cheat inherently lies within the individual’s personal value system.

According to Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, Level II – conventional

– is defined as “conforming to and upholding the rules and expectations and conventions of society or authority just because they are society’s rules, expectations, or conventions” (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 172). By and large, the respondents in the present 174

study appeared to align well with Level II. For example, the majority of undergraduate

and graduate students believe that ethics and character are important; they

acknowledge that lying and cheating are wrong under any circumstance; they believe

that trust is important in any relationship; and they believe that most people they know

believe them to be ethical. While the high school students in the Josephson study

believe that “it’s not cheating if everyone is doing it”, I found that both undergraduate

and graduate students in this study disagree with this notion – they know it is cheating.

Therefore, applying Kohlberg’s theory, I was not surprised to find that the college

students in this study differed from Josephson’s participants in this regard.

I was also not surprised to find that a much larger percentage (57.4%) of

undergraduate students than graduate students (48%) were more likely to agree than

disagree that cheating has become a cultural norm in American society, in part because

undergraduate students reported higher incidents of cheating. This finding supports

Josephson's finding that students contend that “it’s not cheating if everyone is doing it”.

McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (1999) suggest that while cheating is viewed as

pathetic, it is completely acceptable (somewhat encouraged) by society – it is simply

viewed as human nature. Rawwas and Isakson (2000) contend that pressures that cause some students to consider unethical behavior are inherently stronger than the factors that encourage ethical behavior.

Moreover, Kohlberg (1984) suggests that a Level III postconventional person differentiates him or herself from the rules and expectations of others and defines his or her values in terms of self-chosen principles. Kohlberg also suggests that individuals, particularly college students, at the postconventional level understand and accept 175 society’s rules; but, acceptance of those rules is based on formulating and accepting the general moral principles that underlie those rules. I found that while students’ responses indicated an understanding of the difference between honest and dishonest behavior; 15% of the undergraduate students and 12% of the graduate students admitted that they did not answer every question on this survey with complete honesty.

And, while a very small percentage of both undergraduate and graduate students indicated that people they know would not view them as ethical, I found that every student in the study reported being satisfied with his or her own ethics and character.

And although many of these students see nothing wrong with what they do, they agree that cheating is unethical (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Dickhoff, 1990).

Another interesting finding was that there appears to be a disconnect between what undergraduate students self-reported doing as it relates to cheating versus what they think and believe other students do as it relates to cheating. Specifically, all but 16 of the 1459 undergraduate students participating in this study indicated that they think or believe cheating on tests or exams occur with some frequency on campus. However, only 81.3% of the undergraduate students reported/admitted to incidents of cheating, which is possibly explained by the number of undergraduate students (14.6%) that reported not answering all of the questions on the survey with complete honesty.

Research Questions Two and Three: What types of academic misconduct do undergraduate and graduate students commit? How frequently do undergraduate and graduate students engage in academic misconduct?

Survey statements about the types and frequency of behaviors related to cheating were grounded in McCabe’s Academic Integrity Survey conducted with college 176

students. McCabe and Trevino (1993) conducted the second landmark multi-campus

study on the individual and contextual influences of academic dishonesty with more

than 6,000 students at 31 campuses nationally. However, the first landmark study was conducted by William Bowers (1964) and involved more than 5,000 students on 99

campuses of varying size and description.

Bowers’ (1964) study revealed that three out of four students admitted they

engaged in at least one of 13 questionable academic behaviors studied (e.g., using unauthorized crib notes on a test, copying from another student on a test, padding a few items on a bibliography, or collaborating on homework assignments after being explicitly told not to). McCabe and Trevino (1993) found that two out of three students engaged in at least one of 14 questionable academic behaviors studied. Moreover, McCabe’s

(1999) longitudinal study found that 80% of respondents admitted to cheating at least once during their college career. Similarly, Brown (cited in Rawwson and Isakson,

2000) found that out of 207 graduate business students, over 80% committed at least 1 out of 15 incidents of academic dishonesty. And Davis’ (1993) findings from a study of

8,153 students at a variety of institutions showed that the lowest percentage of self- reported academic dishonesty in college was 42%, the highest was 64%. Forty-eight percent of those who cheated did so many times and virtually all (98.64%) of the students who reported cheating on multiple occasions in college had also cheated on multiple occasions in high school (Davis). Findings from the present study revealed that at least one undergraduate student and at least one graduate student, with one exception, engaged one or more times in all of the 26 questionable academic behaviors studied. The one exception was not one graduate student reported that they submitted 177

a paper purchased or obtained from a Web site and claimed it as their own. More specifically, 100% of the undergraduate students and 99.9% of the graduate students admitted to cheating one or more times within the past 12 months.

The major difference between undergraduate and graduate students’ responses was the sheer number of students that reportedly engage in cheating incidents.

Undergraduate students out-numbered graduate students by 15-22% in reporting incidents of cheating. Specifically, undergraduate students (35.8%) were more likely to collaborate with others when the instructor asked for individual work than graduate students (20.1%) were; undergraduate students (30.0%) were more likely to get questions or answers from someone who had already taken a test than graduate students (14.7%) were; and undergraduate students (29.5%) were more likely to copy another student’s homework than graduate students (6.9%) were.

A comparison and contrast of the findings from McCabe’s 2001 study as summarized by Underwood and Szabo (2003), to the findings in this study is provided below:

• McCabe’s study found that 74% of the students admitted to serious test

cheating, while findings from the present study indicate that 78.5% of the

undergraduate and 28.2% of the graduate students’ responses indicate

serious test cheating. The notion is that any form of test cheating is serious.

The forms of test cheating that make up these findings include getting

questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test, helping

someone else cheat on a test, using digital technology to get unpermitted

help from someone or as an aid during a test, using unpermitted handwritten 178

or crib notes (stored in a PDA, phone, etc.) to cheat on a test, or cheating on

a test in any other manner.

• McCabe’s study found that 72% of the students admitted to serious cheating

on written work. Findings from the present study indicate that 93.5% of the

undergraduate and 50.9% of the graduate students’ responses indicate

cheating on written work. McCabe (1999) used a longitudinal study involving

7,000 undergraduates in 1990, 1992, and 1995 to examine the levels of

cheating by college students. The present study did not examine levels of

cheating, but rather only types and frequency of cheating which could

possibly account for the higher response rate in the present study. The types

of cheating on written work that make up the findings in the present study

include working on an assignment (in person, via email, or Instant Messaging)

when unauthorized, copying another student’s computer program rather than

writing your own, receiving unpermitted help on an assignment, turning in a

paper from a “paper mill” and claiming it as your own, turning in a paper

copied, at least in part, from another student, and turning in work done by

someone else which are all directly related to types of cheating than levels of

cheating.

• McCabe’s study found that 97% of the students admitted to copying

homework or to test copying. Findings from the present study show that 71%

of the undergraduate and 23% of the graduate students admitted to copying

homework or to test copying. The types of behaviors that make up copying

homework or test copying include copying another student’s program rather 179

than writing your own, copying from another student during a test with or

without their knowledge, copying by hand or digitally another student’s

homework, and turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another

student’s paper. The low number of responses from graduate students

possibly stems from the fact that graduate students take fewer tests and are

required to write more research papers which limits their opportunity to cheat

on tests.

• McCabe’s study found that 15% of the students had obtained a term paper

from the Internet, while findings from the present study show that only 1.2% of

the undergraduate students reported submitting a paper obtained from a Web

site and claiming it as their own. No graduate student reported this behavior.

• McCabe’s study found that 52% of the students had copied a few sentences

from a website without citing the source, while findings from the present study

show that 30.2% of the undergraduate students and 20.6% of the graduate

students reported paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from an

electronic source – without citing the source. While undergraduate students

self-reported on every behavior, digital technology and/or web-based

methods as an unauthorized aid appear to have the lowest usage by

undergraduate students. Less than 3% self-reported “using digital technology

(such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test

or examination” (2.8%); “turning in a paper from a ‘paper mill’ (a paper written

and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as their own

work” (1.6%); “submitting a paper purchased or obtained from a Web site 180

(such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claiming it as their own work” (1.2%);

and “using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an

exam” (2.9%) all of which possibly account for the big difference with

McCabe’s findings.

• McCabe’s study found that of the 52% of students that used the Internet to

plagiarize 90% also plagiarized from written sources. Findings from the

present study indicate that of the 30.2% of undergraduate students and

20.6% of graduate students that used the Internet to plagiarize 82% and 78%

respectively, had also plagiarized from written sources.

Findings from the present study further indicate that the use of technology is becoming the front-runner in terms of methods for accessing unpermitted materials on a test or exam. While it is assumed that cheating is more prevalent in web-based classes than in traditional classes, due to the absence of direct interaction between students and faculty, a survey of students who had an online course during the 2001 fall semester revealed that academic dishonesty is no more prevalent online than it is in traditional classrooms (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; Underwood & Szabo, 2003).

However, I found that both undergraduate (23.9%) and graduate (13.2%) students indicated the Internet was the most frequently used method for accessing unpermitted materials and that hard (paper) copies of sources was the least used. While nearly half

(49.1%) of the students participating in the present study reported some experience with online tests and/or exams, at least one undergraduate and one graduate student admittedly engaged in every questionable behavior associated with online cheating. 181

The major difference between undergraduate and graduate students’ experience

with online cheating was the sheer number of students that admitted to cheating online.

Underwood and Szabo (2003) note that word processing conveniences provide easy

abstraction of material from electronic media, and small hand-held scanners further

broaden the array of accessible data. I found that behaviors with the highest number of

incidents show that undergraduate students (15.9%) were more likely to use notes or

books on a closed book online test or exam than graduate students were (4.6%). And, for the behaviors with the lowest number of incidents, undergraduate students (6.7%) were more likely to receive unauthorized help from someone on an online test or exam than graduate students were (2%). Benning and Berls (as cited in Underwood & Szabo,

2003) suggest that students can purchase or download research papers from web sites and collaborate through electronic discussion groups using answers provided in their work from others. Walker (as cited in Underwood & Szabo, 2003) further suggests that students can passively listen in and extract ideas in discussion groups without making a contribution as well as download papers stored in campus computer labs and use them as their own.

Moreover, findings from the present study indicate that while 99% of both undergraduate and graduate students think that plagiarism, inappropriately sharing work in group assignments, and cheating during tests or examinations occur at their institution, only 62.4% actually observed another student cheat one or more times. And, while a large number of students indicated that they have observed cheating, only 4%

(58) of the undergraduate and 7.9% (31) of the graduate students actually reported incidents. Whitley (cited in Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006) suggests that 182

observation of others cheating may create an attitude in which academic dishonesty is

viewed as normal behavior which possibly explains why incidents go unreported.

Research Question Four: What is the perceived seriousness of academic misconduct

among undergraduate and graduate students?

The University that served as the site for the present study defines cheating as using or attempting to use unauthorized assistance, materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise; submitting substantial portions of the same academic work more than once without permission; or using another person as a substitute to take an exam or quiz. While sanctions vary based on the type of academic misconduct, simply put, cheating is cheating with no varying degrees.

Findings from the present study indicate that while most participants perceive every behavior as cheating to some degree, there were some participants who absolutely did not view any of the behaviors as cheating. While the three most egregious behaviors (serious cheating) identified by both undergraduate and graduate students were submitting a paper purchased from a Web site, turning in a paper from a

“paper mill”, and copying material word for word and submitting it as your own, 21 of the undergraduate students and 8 of the graduate students did not perceive any of the 26 questionable behaviors on the survey as cheating.

Moreover, I found that 50% of the undergraduate students and 33% of the graduate students indicated that working on an assignment with others when unpermitted is either “not cheating” or “trivial cheating”. While most universities consider the unauthorized access and use of exams and tests as cheating, the defining line of what constitutes cheating versus collaboration varies (Stearns, 1997). McCabe, 183

Trevino and Butterfield (1999) found that many students identified ethical "grey areas" they really do not consider as cheating, like helping another person out and the well- known, commonly accepted tradition that fraternities and sororities are a repository for old exams/homework. Most students do not think that a simple cut and paste of a sentence or two into a research paper without citing the appropriate source is a serious issue (McLemee, 2004). Johns and Strand’s (2000) survey conducted at four universities examined the ethical beliefs and attitudes of business students. While students believed that taking a test for someone and copying someone’s exam were most unethical, they were uncertain about using someone’s notes to study and failing to report unfavorable errors in grading (Johns and Strand). However, some students stretch the definition of cheating beyond conventional standards, while others claim ignorance – they did not know they were cheating.

Research Question Five: What level of familiarity do undergraduate and graduate students have about their University’s Academic Honesty Policy?

First, the majority of the undergraduate (83.9%) and graduate students (85.8%) reported having some level of knowledge or familiarity about the University’s Academic

Honesty Policy (AHP). While first-year orientation programs are intended to disseminate information about campus life as well as the AHP, I found that the resource from which both undergraduate and graduate student’s indicate they “learned a lot” was from faculty during class discussions, course syllabi, or outlines. Findings further indicate that both undergraduate and graduate students “learned little to nothing” from

Deans or other administrators. While faculty was identified as the primary resource for information about the AHP, I found that proper citation/referencing from written or 184

Internet sources was more often discussed than information on falsifying/fabricating

course lab or research data, the Academic Honesty Committee, or sanctions for AHP

violations. Likened to Melendez’s (1985) notion that while having an honor code helps

to create a culture of integrity, it is meaningless if students don’t know about it. While

the University that served as the site for this study has an AHP, knowledge of or

familiarity about the policy has failed to reach approximately 15% of the participants in this study.

Research Question Six: Do ethical beliefs, types of academic misconduct, frequency of academic misconduct, perceived seriousness of academic misconduct, or level of familiarity with the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP) vary across demographic characteristics (sex/gender, race/ethnicity, age, academic class standing, and primary major)?

Sex/gender

What was not surprising about the ethical beliefs of undergraduate and graduate students was that females were more likely to agree with statements that inferred ethics and character were important than males were; and more likely to disagree with statements that inferred cheating is acceptable under any circumstance than males were. Another expected finding was that undergraduate female students were more likely to perceive cheating behaviors as “serious” than males were. Hence, it was not a surprise that more females than males believe that almost all the people they know would put them on a list of the most ethical people they know. While some studies report lower cheating levels for women than men (Davis, 1993; McCabe & Trevino

2002; Underwood & Szabo, 2003), some find an exception among active Internet users 185 who were often female: that is, females who joined the Internet culture were more prone to plagiarize than their non-active peers (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006).

I found that while males were more likely to indicate that cheating very seldom occurs during tests or exams, they were the group more likely to cheat on tests multiple times. But, with undergraduate students, males (32%) were less likely to collaborate with others in person when individual work was requested than females were (39%); and with graduate students, males (18%) were less likely to collaborate via email or

Instant Messaging when individual work was required than females were (21%). I also found that with graduate students, males were less likely than females were to get questions or answers from someone who had already taken a test and less likely to fabricate/falsify lab data.

As it relates to the regularity in which faculty discussed policies, I found that undergraduate male students believe that faculty seldom discussed the Academic

Honesty Committee or sanctions for AHP violations, while undergraduate female students indicated faculty often discussed guidelines on group work or collaboration, but never discussed falsifying/fabricating course lab data. Female graduate students indicated that faculty seldom discussed cheating or the Academic Honesty Committee and never discussed falsifying or fabricating course lab data. While both female undergraduate and graduate students indicated falsifying or fabricating course lab data was never discussed, they were more likely to engage in these behaviors than males were. 186

Race/ethnicity

I found that undergraduate Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Asians and

graduate students who self-identified as “Other” or White were more likely to agree with

statements that inferred ethics and character were important; and more likely to

disagree with statements that inferred cheating is acceptable under any circumstance

than students from other races were. However, Black/African-Americans reported in

higher percentages than other races that they answered all the questions on the survey with complete honesty.

I found that undergraduate Native Hawaiian, Asian, and Other Pacific Islander undergraduate students were less likely to report cheating than other races were, but

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander graduate students believe plagiarism, inappropriately sharing work in group assignments, and cheating during tests occur more often at their institution than other races believed. Hence, I was not surprised to

find that undergraduate students who were Other Pacific Islanders and graduate

students who were Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander were more likely to

perceive cheating behaviors as “serious” than other races.

According to Langlais (2006), some evidence suggests that students of different

cultural backgrounds hold dissimilar definitions of misconduct and professional

behavior. For example, it has been reported that plagiarism is prevalent in China

because the culture has had little concept of intellectual property ownership.

Consequently, some students may not view plagiarism or some cheating behaviors as

an ethical issue. While helping and collaboration is valued in schools in the United 187

States, in the classroom, it takes a subordinate position to the values of personal

responsibility and individual achievement (Rothstein-Fisch, et al., 2003).

The United States is the most individualistic culture in the world. Actually, most

of the recent immigrants to the United States come from highly collectivistic cultures

such as those found in Latin America, Asia, and Africa (Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull,

Isaac, Daley, & Perez 2003). According to Rothstein-Fisch, et al., “individualism and

collectivism are associated with different child-rearing goals; norms of communication; notions of social roles; and concepts of development, learning, and schooling” (p. 125).

In an individualistic society, children are responsible for their own learning and are expected to work independently. However, children from a collectivistic society are

“socialized with different “developmental” scripts that emphasize working together interdependently to ensure success of all members of the group” (Rothstein-Fisch, et al., p. 125) unlike children in the United States.

Age

Cognitive-developmental theories are traditionally characterized by their use of some type of stage model and age related sequential reorganizations in the development of moral attitudes (Kohlberg, 1984). The concept of stages refers to the structure of one’s reasoning with three primary characteristics. First, “stages are

‘structured wholes’ or organized systems of thought. This means individuals are consistent in their level of moral judgment” (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 54). Second, stages form an invariant sequence, an unchanging relationship in which movement is always forward, never backward except under extreme conditions like with trauma, and stages are never skipped (Kohlberg & Hersh). Lastly, “stages are ‘hierarchical 188

integrations.’ Thinking at a higher stage includes or comprehends within it lower stage

thinking. There is a tendency to function at or prefer the highest stage available” (p.

54).

Findings from the study indicate that older undergraduate students in the 28-29

and 30+ group and graduate students in the 24-25 and 30+ age group were more likely

to agree with statements that inferred ethics and character were important than younger students were; and more likely to disagree with statements that inferred that cheating is acceptable under any circumstance than younger students were. What is most interesting with graduate students is that while the 24-25 age group thinks and believes that ethics and character are important, it was the 26-27 age group that was more likely to report answering all the questions on the survey with complete honesty, which could simply imply the older the age group, the higher the ethics as it relates to doing the right thing.

Another interesting finding was that while older undergraduate students in the 28-

29 and 30+ age groups indicated they were more likely to “never” use unpermitted handwritten crib notes or an electronic digital device as an unauthorized aid during a test/exam, they were more likely to admit to looking up information on the Internet when not permitted. This finding possibly speaks to a generational issue that older students may be less prone to use technology (PDA, iPod, text messaging, etc.) to cheat during tests than younger students are. Moreover, this finding possibly indicates that older students are less likely to engage in what is considered “planned cheating” – use of crib

notes or an electronic digital device as an unauthorized aid during a test or exam. 189

Researchers such as Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper; Alschuler and Bliming; and

Mixon (each as cited in Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006) view the decision to cheat as the result of a cognitive process that involves considerable planning. Bunn, et al. (1992) suggest that students break down cheating behavior into two categories: planned cheating and panic cheating. Planned cheating requires front-end preparation with the understanding that it is wrong – making crib sheets for tests, copying homework, or plagiarizing a paper; whereas panic cheating is spontaneous, unplanned, the most common, and occurs when a student is at a loss for an answer during a test or other assignment (Bunn, et al., 1992; Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; Hard, Conway, &

Moran, 2006). For example, with panic cheating, a student does not plan to cheat, but looks at another student’s paper and copies the answer. However, planned cheating is premeditated, is viewed as more dishonest, and is perceived as having a greater social cost.

I also found that graduate students in the 20-21 age groups were less likely to engage in academic misconduct on one or more occasions than students in other age groups. It was not surprising to find that undergraduate students in the 20-21 age groups think inappropriate sharing of work in group assignments occurs more often than graduate students at the same age believe because as indicated earlier, students rationalized their cheating behavior by saying that they usually work in groups and are accustomed to helping one another out in that way (West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader,

2004). While graduate students in the 30+ group think plagiarism occurs at their institution, both undergraduate and graduate students in the 30+ group reported they have never seen another student cheat during a test or exam. However, Bunn, et al.’s 190

study at Auburn University revealed that 358 of 476 students reported that they primarily

observe panic cheating (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006), a behavior older students

were least likely to engage in.

I was not surprised to find that older undergraduate and graduate students in the

28-29 and 30+ groups perceive most behaviors as “serious” in higher percentages than

younger students did, with the exception of graduate students in the 20-21 age group,

who also perceive working on assignments with others when not permitted and

receiving unpermitted help on an assignment as “serious”. According Payne and Nantz

(1994), students indicate a significant difference between cheating on exams (“blatant” cheating) and other forms of academic misconduct which is often viewed as less

serious or “not really” cheating. In a study conducted by West, Ravenscroft, and

Shrader (2004), collaboration was found to be less serious than obtaining solutions from

the computer. Students rationalized their allegedly cheating behavior by saying that

they usually worked in groups and were accustomed to helping one another out in that

way (West, Ravenscroft, & Shrader).

While undergraduate students in the 20-21 age group appeared to be the most

informed about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP), I found that they

learned little to nothing from the campus website, whereas graduate students in the 20-

21 age groups learned some from the campus website, Dean or other administrators.

Moreover, I found a variation among the other age groups about the University’s AHP

from which they learned the least and most. The 24-25 age groups learned “little to

nothing” from the first-year undergraduate orientation program which seems reasonable

since the average age of first-year students is in the 18-19 age groups. The 26-27 age 191 groups indicated that they “learned a lot” from faculty discussions or course syllabi or outlines. The 28-29 age groups learned “little to nothing” from counselors and advisors and the 30+ group learned “little to nothing” from Teaching/Graduate Assistants, which again seems logical because I suspect that most non-traditional undergraduate students tend to navigate the campus differently for resources and information than first-year students. Specifically, nearly all first-year students live on campus, which allows daily and continuous access to and contact with deans, administrators, counselors, advisors and teaching/graduate assistants. Whereas, older students who tend to be non- traditional students who do not live on campus, have more life’s challenges (family, children, full-time employment, etc.) and use networks for what they need when they need it. McCabe and Trevino (2002) suggest that the relationship between student cheating and their acknowledgment of it goes well beyond what they perceive as unreasonable workloads because many students have jobs, extracurricular activities, and active social lives.

Academic class standing

There were no results for academic class standing for graduate students because the variable “academic class standing” is a constant at the graduate level.

However, findings from the study indicate that non-degree students were more likely to agree with statements that inferred ethics and character were important than other students were. But, non-degree and third-year students were more likely to disagree with statements that inferred cheating was acceptable under any circumstance than other students were. What was not surprising was that first-year students believed that

“cheating has become a cultural norm in American society” more than other students 192

did. Since first-year students most recently graduated from high school, they are more closely likened to the high school students from Josephson’s (2004) study in which student’s contend that “it’s not cheating if everyone is doing it”.

Findings from the present study further indicated that non-degree students were less likely to engage in academic misconduct on one or more occasions than other students were. When asked what they believe occur at their institution, while non- degree students indicated that inappropriate sharing of work in group assignments and cheating during tests or exams very seldom occurred, they were more likely to perceive working on an assignment with others when individual work was requested as “trivial”.

Classrooms in the United States replicate the values of the dominant European

American culture in which students are expected to work independently and with emphasis on competition (Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003).

Some researchers suggest using the cultural values framework of individualism and collectivism orientations to determine what constitutes helping versus cheating

(Rothstein-Fisch, et al., 2003). Cultures that give priority to the needs of the individual over the group are individualistic, whereas those that give priority to the needs of the group (family or community) are described as collectivist because the power of the group is in ensuring everyone’s success (Rothstein-Fisch, et al., 2003) unlike in

America’s individualistic culture.

Moreover, findings indicate that non-degree students learned little to nothing about the University’s AHP in the first-year undergraduate orientation program or from counselors or advisors; and further indicate that sanctions for AHP violations and falsifying or fabricating research or lab data was never discussed in class. With these 193

findings, it is possible that non-degree students who are undeclared in their major are

somewhat disconnected from the campus community. I suspect that non-degree

students do not participate in first-year undergraduate orientation programs and see

little value in spending time with counselors or advisors particularly if they are only

taking classes to fulfill personal or requirements for employment opportunities and are

not in a degree program.

Primary major

Findings from the study indicate that undergraduate students that were

undecided about their major as well as those in Musical Arts and graduate students in

Musical Arts and Arts & Sciences were more likely to agree with statements that

inferred ethics and character were important than students in other majors. And,

undergraduate students whose primary major was “Other” were more likely to disagree

with statements that inferred cheating was acceptable under any circumstance than were students in other majors.

An interesting finding was that students at the Branch Campus reported answering all the questions on the survey with complete honesty in higher percentages than students in other majors (at the Main Campus). While students at the Branch

Campus indicate they learned a lot about the University’s AHP from faculty discussion in class or on course syllabi or outlines, they were more likely than students in other majors to use a false or forged excuse to delay taking an exam on more than one occasion and identified the Internet as the source for accessing material without citation.

I liken students at the Branch Campus to non-degree students with an

undeclared major. The Branch Campus has predominantly two-year degree programs 194

and is considered a commuter campus in which students are more prone to take

classes without declaring a major. These students are also somewhat disconnected

from the campus community (counselors, advisors, etc.). So it would stand to reason

that most of what they learn would come from faculty during classroom discussions or in

course syllabi or outlines.

Findings from the present study also indicate that undergraduate students in

Musical Arts were more likely to work on an assignment with others when unpermitted

multiple times, than graduate students in Business Administration. While students in

Musical Arts develop their individual craft/skills on a particular instrument, I suspect that

they are more inclined to collaborate on musical arrangements in order to determine how their piece is grounded in the total composition – similar to performing in a band or choir in which every artist has a role. However, graduate students in Musical Arts and students whose primary major was “Other” were less likely to engage in academic misconduct on one or more occasions. Moreover, findings indicate that students that were undecided in a major learned “little to nothing” about the University’s AHP from the

first-year graduate orientation program, but indicated that proper citation and/or referencing of internet sources was discussed very often by instructors. Here again, I suspect that students that were undecided in their major are less likely to see any value in participating in or attending first-year undergraduate orientation programs designed for students in degree programs.

Conclusions

Participants in the present study were likened to the students in McCabe’s studies in which they reported even higher levels of cheating in some situations and 195

were as unlikely to report incidents of cheating when they observed their colleagues

doing it. However, participants in the present study were somewhat unlike those

studied by Josephson. Specifically, both undergraduate and graduate students think

and believe ethics and character are important, but unlike those in the Josephson study,

they know that even if everyone is doing it, including themselves, it is still cheating

under any circumstance. While many of these students see nothing wrong with what

they do, they do agree that cheating is unethical (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Dickhoff,

1990). However, a much larger percentage (57.4%) of undergraduate students than

graduate students (48%) was likely to agree that cheating has become a cultural norm

in American society which tends to support Josephson's finding in which student’s

contend that “it’s not cheating if everyone is doing it”.

In summary, six primary conclusions are drawn from the findings of the present

study. First, similar to the findings of studies that report lower cheating levels for

females than males (Davis, 1993; McCabe & Trevino 2002; Underwood & Szabo,

2003), females in the present study also reported lower levels of cheating than the males reported and perceived themselves as having higher ethical standards than males did. However, I conclude that while females may cheat less frequently, they were more likely to engage in unethical behaviors that most students viewed as “not cheating” or “trivial cheating”, like working on an assignment with others when not permitted. For example, females indicated that faculty often discussed collaboration on group work, but they were more likely than males to collaborate on group work when the instructor specifically asked for individual work and had discussed unpermitted collaboration in class. 196

According to Payne and Nantz (1994), students indicate that a significant

difference exists between cheating on exams (“blatant” cheating) and other forms of

academic misconduct, which are often viewed as less serious or “not really” cheating.

Moreover, McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (1999) found that many students identified

ethical "grey areas" they really do not consider as cheating, like helping another person

out and the well-known, commonly accepted tradition in fraternities and sororities of

keeping a repository for old exams/homework assignments. In the United States,

students are responsible for their own learning and are expected to work independently

unlike in cultures that stress collaboration and copying as a way of learning (Rothstein-

Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003). While collaboration is valued in the

United States, it takes a subordinate position to the values of personal responsibility and

individual achievement in the classroom (Rothstein-Fisch, et al.). Consequently, some students are mystified when they are approached about plagiarism or other cheating behaviors.

Second, I conclude that both undergraduate and graduate students were more likely to plagiarize from an electronic source than they were to plagiarize from a hard copy source. Similarly, Grijalva, Nowell, and Kerkvliet (2006) found that females who joined the Internet culture were more prone to plagiarize than their non-active peers. In the present study, the primary source for accessing materials from written or electronic sources without citation (plagiarism) was the “internet or other electronic means only” –

23.9% (348) undergraduate and 13.2% (52) graduate students; whereas, hard paper copies were least used – 1.6% (23) undergraduate and 1.3% (5) graduate students. 197

I further conclude that Internet plagiarism is the resource of choice; and that personal computer software applications such as word processors provide easy extraction of data from online sources, with apparently minimal risk of getting caught

(Underwood & Szabo, 2003). The most common social account given for plagiarism was perceived lack of risk (Payne & Nantz, 1994). Thirty percent (441) of the undergraduates and 20.6% (81) of the graduate students reported paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from an electronic source without citation, while 24.7% (360) of the undergraduates and 16% (63) of the graduate students reported paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a written source without citation. Most students do not think that a simple cut and paste of a sentence or two into a research paper without citing the appropriate source is a serious issue (McLemee, 2004).

An ongoing survey conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity found that the number of college students who have used “the Internet to construct papers based on unattributed text excerpts from online web sites” has quadrupled over the past five years (Etter, Cramer, & Finn, 2006, p. 133). As society continues to embrace technological innovations, the opportunities for dishonest and illegal actions will increase due to the easy, low-cost access to the World Wide Web which provides the temptation of Internet plagiarism (Kiehl, 2006; Underwood & Szabo, 2003).

Third, in the present study, most of the significant findings related to race were with students of color – Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian.

However, what is of significance here is that of the 1853 students participating in the study, only two self-identified as Native Hawaiian, three as Other Pacific Islander, and three as American Indian. And, of the 1459 undergraduate students who responded to 198 statements on ethics and cheating, only one was Native Hawaiian, two were Other

Pacific Islanders, and two were American Indian. Therefore, I conclude that the findings in the present study based on race/ethnicity may not be an adequate representation of these groups due to the small sample size.

However, the institution that served as the site for the present study has a predominantly White (80.2%) student population. Asian Pacific Islanders make up less than 1% (183) of the total student population and American Indians are slightly more than one-half a percent (118). Therefore, it was not surprising to find that White graduate students were more likely to agree with statements that inferred ethics and character are important; and more likely to disagree with statements that inferred cheating is acceptable under any circumstance than students from other races were because they are the majority sample in this study and the sample sizes of other races were too small. Bolton and Kammeyer (1967) suggest that students tend to conform to the cultural norms of their particular college or university.

Fourth, undergraduate students cheat more than graduate students. Specifically, undergraduate students (78.5%) were more likely to cheat on tests/exams than graduate students were (28.2%), and undergraduate students (93.5%) were more likely to cheat on written work than graduate students were (50.9%). However, I contend that the course structure for most graduate programs do not include frequent opportunities for routine test-taking or end of the semester exams. In most cases, graduate programs are laden with research papers and projects, not exams, which I conclude account for the higher number of graduate students (50.9%) that were more likely to cheat on written work than on exams. I also conclude that infrequent opportunities for test-taking 199

account for why older graduate students in the 30+ group reported they had never seen

another student cheat on a test or exam – in most disciplines, graduate students rarely

take exams during coursework.

Some researchers suggest that social norms influence cheating behavior.

McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2002) found that academic dishonesty is related to a

“cheating culture” that develops on campuses. Michaels and Miethe (cited in Grijalva,

Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006) suggest that support from peers or pro-attitudes about cheating act to facilitate cheating. Payne and Nantz (1994) suggest that success and saving time and effort are the primary categories of student social accounts related to certain forms of cheating. Peer pressure and desire to help others was the most common social account for collaborating on assignments intended for individuals, allowing others to cheat off one’s exam, and giving exam answers to others (Payne &

Nantz). And, receiving exam answers from others who had already taken the test was the most common social account given for time and effort. These tendencies can lead students to construct and reproduce “social realities” in a student culture that defines

cheating as more acceptable and normal, and less serious misconduct than previously

considered (Payne & Nantz).

Fifth, what students admit to, what they believe other students do, and what they

have observed as it relates to cheating are totally different from one another. While a

significant number of both undergraduate and graduate students self-reported incidents

of cheating, almost all (99%) think that plagiarism, unauthorized sharing work on group

assignments, and cheating during tests/exams occur at their institution. However, of the

99% that believe cheating occurs at their institution, only 62.4% reported that they 200

actually observed cheating one or more times. And of the 62.4% that actually observed

cheating only a mere 4.8% of the incidents were reported by either undergraduate or

graduate students. Whitley (cited in Grijalva, et al.) notes that observation of others

cheating may create an attitude in which academic dishonesty is viewed as normal

behavior.

According to Jacob (1957), while students are not inclined to censor those who

depart from the standards, they consider leniency a common occurrence in observing

the rules regarding academic honesty because systematic cheating is customary rather

than the exception. McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (1999) suggest the stigma

associated with a ‘tattle tale’, fear of making an enemy or causing another students’ expulsion, and concern about reporting a friend all has a tendency to silence students because they perceive squealing to be worse than cheating. I am also inclined to conclude that students in the present study were not unlike other students who considered leniency and other perceptions about squealing when they failed to report

cheating.

Johnston’s (1996) study of college students’ perception of an incident involving

cheating on a mid-term exam revealed that friendship was the primary determinant

when students faced an ethical dilemma to report misconduct. For many students,

friendship silenced them; one student indicated that losing her social status was at

stake, while others walked a fine line between the teacher and loyalty to other students.

“We teach students about individual achievement and individual responsibility, but fail to

teach them about collective responsibility” (Johnston, p. 165). 201

Finally, while participants admitted to engaging in practically all of the 26

questionable behaviors studied, they were not completely honest. For example, 801

(54.9%) undergraduate and 144 (36.6%) graduate students indicated that they paraphrased or copied materials from written or electronic sources without citation. This same group was further asked how they accessed the material. While a relatively large number of undergraduate 674 (46.2%) and graduate students 116 (29.4%) self-reported various methods for accessing the materials, not every student revealed their sources.

Clearly 155 students – 127 undergraduate and 28 graduate students – failed to report how they accessed the material. Therefore, I conclude that this group of students was not completely honest or consistent in their responses.

Based on the concept of situational ethics, rules for college cheating may be rigid but behaviors depend on the circumstances involved (Norris & Dodder, cited in LaBeff,

Clark, Haines, & Dickhoff, 1990). Situational factors can exacerbate the opportunity for and frequency of cheating. For example, as noted by Houston (cited in Davis, 1993), very large, crowded lecture classes that administer multiple-choice tests are prone to cheating behaviors. Fletcher (cited in LaBeff, et al.) argues that social circumstances determine whether an action is considered good or bad. Basically, what is wrong in a situation might be considered right or acceptable if the end justifies the means. Drake

(1941) contends that the examination and/or test is a roadblock to a realm of clubs,

teams, societies, and organizations and that degrees or certificates are the prerequisite

of the talented or creative. Consequently, cheating becomes the means to an end – to

achieve some desired goal in order to avoid some of the unpleasant and punitive

consequences associated with failure. 202

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings from the present study will contribute to the existing body of literature on academic dishonesty, particularly the disconnect between students’ ethical beliefs, which are counter to and in conflict with self-reported incidents of cheating, as well as students’ perceived seriousness of those behaviors. According to Hinman

(2002), the virtues approach to academic dishonesty requires a focused concentration on character – that we cultivate personal virtues within students so that they want to be honest and take responsibility for their own education.

While most of the significant findings related to race were with students of color, particularly Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians, the present study did not examine national origin based on the demographic data provided by the participants. Some researchers suggest that students of different cultural backgrounds hold dissimilar definitions of misconduct and professional behavior

(Langlais, 2006; Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003). For example, some cultures stress copying and collaboration as a way of learning (Rothstein-Fisch,

Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, & Perez, 2003). Because very little research has been conducted to determine if prevalence is influenced by culture, future research should explore this phenomenon. The sample size of the Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific

Islander, and Native American population in the study was very small. Therefore, further research is also recommended to explore the ethical beliefs, types and frequency of cheating, as well as perceptions of cheating as it relates to these groups.

An interesting finding occurred between students at the Branch Campus and the

Main Campus – two-year campus versus a four-year campus. One of the primary 203 differences here is a residential campus versus a commuter campus. The experience of students and relationships forged at a four-year residential campus are quite different from those at two-year Branch Campus, i.e. a type of community college. Branch

Campus students indicated they “learned a lot” about the University’s Academic

Honesty Policy (AHP) from faculty discussions in class or on course syllabi or outlines.

Future research should be conducted to determine if relationships forged in a residential environment impair students from “tattling” on their colleagues, unlike the environment of a commuter campus. In addition, future research should be conducted on non- traditional students’, a growing population of college students, because the participants in the higher age groups differed from the younger students in many aspects in this study.

Bowers (1964) argues that peer pressure explains why schools with honor systems generally have lower levels of cheating. Although most universities rely on traditional policies to discourage academic misconduct likened to Midwestern State

University, 62.4% of the students at this institution indicated that they observed cheating one or more times but only 4.8% of those students actually reported an incident.

Therefore, future research should explore scenarios that would encourage more students to report cheating at universities with traditional policies.

While the present study did not include faculty, future research should explore the degree to which faculty encounters cheating and impose sanctions to eliminate further violations. Stearns (1997) suggests two types of knowledge; one, what cheating is, and, two, university policy. While many colleges and universities have excellent and 204 strong academic dishonesty policies, faculty feel the rules are too complicated and too time consuming (Stearns, 1997).

Underwood and Szabo (2003) suggest that “an increasingly competitive educational system, a diminution of policing with the decline in staff student ratio, less homogeneous student intakes, and the ease of access to materials via the Internet provide a fertile environment encouraging dubious academic practices” (p. 469).

However, because graduate students were more likely to indicate that they never seen another student cheat on a test or exam, future research should explore whether the structure of graduate programs (paper laden) are indicative of lower levels of observable cheating.

Recommendations for Leadership Policy and Practice

Over the past couple of decades, a considerable number of stories have filled the newspapers and business journals with reports on lapses in professional and ethical judgment by top political, military, religious, business, and university leaders. As a result, many question the moral compass of Americans and speculate that our basic values have been damaged beyond repair (Johns & Strand, 2000). The Wall Street

Journal ran an article titled “Americans Decry Moral Decline” (Wysocki, 1999) describing results of a public opinion poll indicating that over half of the respondents said that the nation’s moral problems concern them more than the nation’s economic problems, and

64% thought that the country’s moral and cultural values have declined since the 1960s.

Gaps and lapses in professional judgment and personal moral standards are problematic in many segments of society and have undoubtedly influenced the high levels of cheating in higher education among college students. 205

For example, Enron’s former President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey

Skilling, was prosecuted for hiding debt and exaggerating profits (Sims & Brinkmann,

2003). Martha Stewart was found guilty of lying about her ImClone stock trade

(O'Rourke, 2004). Former FEMA Director, Michael Brown lied on his resume about being named “Outstanding Political Science Professor” at Central State University when

in fact he was only a student there and may have been an adjunct instructor, which is very different from that of a professor (Legum, Shakir, Pitney & Harvey, 2005). Ohioans called for the resignation of Governor Robert Taft after his criminal conviction in 2005 of four first-degree misdemeanors (Eder & Drew, 2005). House Majority Leader Tom

DeLay was indicted by a Texas grand jury for conspiring to violate fund-raising laws

(Magasak, 2005). Former American University President William Ladner was fired for lavish spending in excess of $600,000.00 (Fain, 2005). Student leaders at Ohio State

University campaigned in 2005 to oust Brian Hicks, Governor Bob Taft’s former chief of staff, from the school’s board of trustees because he was convicted of state ethics violations (Boak, 2005). Nick Benson, speaker of the University Student Government

Senate stated:

An undergraduate with a comparable ethical lapse, such as cheating on a test or

plagiarizing a term paper, would be forced to leave school. It sets a bad

precedent when students are held to one standard and the leaders of our

university are held to different standards (Boak, 2005).

Burton and Near (cited in Rawwas & Isakson, 2000) indicated that college cheating is a type of organizational wrongdoing similar to misconduct in business organizations. The ethics of American youth (2004) survey results revealed that 206 students believe that “in the real world” successful people do whatever it takes to win even if others consider it cheating, that a person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed, and that people who are willing to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people who do not.

Students are growing up in a culture where they have bared witness to ethical transgressions by leaders in government, business, and academe that were met with little to no consequence. Specifically, Robert Taft finished his term as Governor, Brian

Hicks did not resign from the Board of Trustees, Tom DeLay stepped down as the

House Majority Leader, but remained a Representative, and Martha Stewart resumed her previous lifestyle after serving six months in prison. In fact, she retained her own television show “Martha Stewart Living”. Thus, it is not surprising that students have such cynical attitudes when they arrive on campus and hear orientation speeches about the wonderful virtues of higher education. For most students, these virtues are not reflective of the “real world” in which they live.

Since more course deliverables than ever now require collaboration or some type of group effort, faculty should consider embedding collaboration into the curriculum to begin creating a culture that moves away from individualism to collectivism for which collaboration is not punished. Another recommendation for limiting academic misconduct is for faculty to initiate discussions of academic honesty as well as policy implications that begin to instill in students respect for honest and appropriate behavior.

Moreover, both students and faculty should initiate discussions that emphasize ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University, and denounce dishonest academic pursuits. 207

Challenges to Academic Integrity

While there is an abundance of literature available on the topic of academic dishonesty, there appears to be very little “real” effort to address it. Faculty are most often perceived to turn a blind eye claiming the process of taking students on is too laborious (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002; Moore, 2002; & Kiehl, 2006) and students most often will not “rat” on one another because they have their own honor code among cheaters (Drinan, 1999; Johnston, 1996; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield,

1999). Loyalty and friendship are often powerful forces in keeping cheating and other academic integrity violations from being discovered (Drinan, 1999). Convincing students that turning in friends who cheat or plagiarize is morally compelling and that it should be considered a primary objective of an academic integrity system is a tough sales pitch. Mai-Dalton (cited in Johns & Strand, 2000) maintained that we should not rely on students’ natural ethical stage of development as they progress through college; rather, students must be made aware of the ethical components of their decisions.

Consequently, students are provided with the opportunity to process relevant issues with enough frequency to sharpen their ethical decision-making process (Mai-Dalton).

Some professors suggest that an appropriate method for teaching ethics is to study and analyze cases that contain ethical dilemmas. Armstrong, Mintz, and Stewart

(cited in Johns & Strand, 2000) argued for the power of narrative to teach ethics.

Essentially, “narratives can actualize basic moral commitments such as integrity and courage by inviting the reader imaginatively to put themselves into another person’s shoes which also can give rise to a moment of recognition, of tough self-scrutiny” (p.

173). Johns and Strand (2000) suggest that we consider differences of opinion; 208

perhaps the objective of ethical instruction within the university system should be to

foster enhanced abilities to evaluate various alternatives of a situation, rather than to

change the moral attitudes of the individual.

One of the most telling statements indicated that “cheating in high school is for

grades, cheating in college is for a career” (Davis, 1993). Virtually nothing is being done to detect and prevent academic dishonesty and students know this. With such a cavalier attitude about cheating by faculty, administrators, and other school officials, it is no wonder that cheaters chalk their behavior off as no big deal. Until school officials make academic misconduct a big deal, it will not be one (Cizek, 2003). I solely recommend that when students cheat, enforce the policy. The policy does not need to be re-written, it needs to be enforced. Leaders, faculty as well as administrators must hold students accountable for cheating as well as for facilitating academic misconduct, no matter how minor the infraction. Faculty and administrators have a tendency to forgive minor infractions which sends mixed messages and reinforces students’ belief that it’s not really cheating or considered trivial. Not holding students accountable for minor infractions further blurs those ethical gray areas and the notion that “it’s not cheating if everyone is doing it”.

Likened to Melendez’s (1985) notion that while having an honor code helps to

create a culture of integrity, it is meaningless if students don’t know about it. Hence,

Midwestern State University has an Academic Honesty Policy (AHP), and a high

percent of undergraduate students (83.9%) and graduate students (85.8%) indicated

some level of knowledge or familiarity about the University’s AHP. Moreover, the

majority of undergraduate and graduate students indicated they learned most about the 209

AHP from faculty during class discussion, on course syllabi or outlines. And yet, what is

very telling here is that at least one undergraduate student and at least one graduate

student, with one exception, engaged in all of the 26 questionable academic behaviors

studied. The one exception was not one graduate student reported that they submitted

a paper purchased or obtained from a Web site and claimed it as their own. More specifically, 100% of the undergraduate students and 99.9% of the graduate student admitted to cheating one or more times within the past 12 months. Hence, students know about the policy, but engage in academic misconduct regardless – so enforcement is the key. Since faculty is the first-line defense in observing or receiving reports of infractions, they should consistently hold students accountable.

Many researchers contend that honor codes and academic honesty policies must be introduced during orientation, included in the student handbook and the course syllabi, as well as be part of an ongoing dialogue on campus (Dichtl, 2003; Kiehl, 2006;

McCabe & Trevino, 2002). Knowledge of the policy is not enough and should not primarily be shouldered by faculty. And while faculty members must consistently discuss cheating with their classes and clearly delineate the penalties for such behavior, the policy as well as its contents must be communicated, upheld and enforced by all constituents – deans, administrators, as well as parents. Parents that challenge the system on behalf of their child who violates the AHP and unjustly uses removal from the institution as a weapon further exacerbates an already challenging enforcement process. Likewise, parents cannot continue to uphold bad behavior and must hold their children accountable. However, faculty, leaders and administrators can no longer 210

continue to allow disgruntled parents to drive or dictate the level of enforcement in

exchange for enrollment numbers.

Graduating students are currently in route to occupy key positions of leadership

and authority in our society. Consequently, our future leaders (police officers,

politicians, accountants, lawyers, doctors, and other business professionals) will be

entering the workforce as shameless cheaters, liars and thieves (Josephson, 2004). At the end of the day, a moral compass is required for the conduct of students who are our future leaders that cannot be superseded by inflated quarterly earnings reports, initial public offering opportunities, stock options, or untruths stated in a resume or vita as it relates to work experience and publications. While we are experiencing a crisis in leadership – present and future, not all leaders are bad. However, if our educational systems continue to permit an immunity to academic misconduct, then it puts pressure on every organization and institution to adapt a culture that becomes the norm (Torres,

2003).

Whether or not cheating is on the increase is disputed by researchers (McCabe and Bowers, 1994; & Spiller and Crown, 1995), concern about the issue remains high

(Crown and Spiller, 1998). And while the second landmark study that was conducted some thirty years later by McCabe and Trevino (1993) corroborated the major conclusions from Bowers’ (1964) first landmark study, the present study further documents that academic misconduct is a significant problem and is on the rise. 211

REFERENCES

Bartlett, T. (2006). Ohio U. says 37 former graduate students committed plagiarism and

could face a range of penalties [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved June 5 2006 from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/04/2006040301n.htm.

Boak, J. (2005, September 27). Hicks must leave osu board, students say. The Toledo

Blade.

Bolton, C. D., & Kammeyer, K.C.W. (1967). The university student: A study of student

behavior and values. New Haven, CT: College & University Press Services, Inc.

Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college (No. OE 1672). New

York: Columbia University.

Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S.B., & Gropper, D.M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An

economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. The Journal of

Economic Education, 23(3), 197-207.

Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K.M., & Schuhmann, P.W. (2007). Self-reports of student

cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter? Journal of Economic

Education(Winter), 3-16.

Cizek, G. J. (2003). Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in

assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 212

Davis, S. F. (1993, March 24-27). Cheating in college is for a career: Academic

dishonesty in the 1990s. Paper presented at the The 39th Annual Meeting of the

Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.

Dichtl, J. (2003). Teaching integrity. The History Teacher, 36(3), 367-373.

Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat: A statistical search for the incentives which

induce college students to dishonesty on examinations. The Journal of Higher

Education, 12(8), 418-420.

Drinan, P. (1999). Loyalty, learning, & academic integrity. Liberal Educator, 85(1), 28-

33.

Eder, S., & Drew, J. (2005, August 29). Hundreds of ohioans call for governor to step

down. The Toledo Blade.

Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2002). Creating ethical administrators: A challenge for both

professor and practitioner. Paper presented at the Conference Name|. Retrieved

Access Date|. from URL|.

Etter, S., Cramer, J.J., & Finn, S. (2006). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical

orientations and personality factors associated with attitudes about cheating with

information technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2),

133-155.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 46, 1365-1375.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in

education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 213

Grijalva, T. C., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses.

College Student Journal, 40(1), 180-185.

Hard, S. F., Conway, J.M., & Moran, A.C. (2006). Faculty and college student beliefs

about the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Higher

Education, 77(6), 1058-1080.

Henshel, A. (1971). The relationship between values and behavior: A developmental

hypothesis. Child Development, 42, 1997-2007.

Hinman, L. M. (2002). Academic integrity and the world wide web. ACM SIGCSE

Computers and Society, 32(1), 33-42.

Jacob, P. E. (1957). Changing values in college: An exploratory study of the impact of

college teaching. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Johns, S. K., & Strand C.A. (2000). Survey results of the ethical beliefs of business

students. Journal of Education for Business, 75(6), 315-320.

Johnston, D. K. (1996). Cheating: Limits of individual integrity. Journal of Moral

Education, 25(2), 159-172.

Josephson, J., & Josephson, E. (2004). The ethics of American youth. 2004 report card:

press release and data summary. Retrieved May 17, 2005, from

http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/Survey2004/2004reportcard_pressrelease.htm

Kibler, W. L., Nuss, E.M., Paterson, B.G., & Pavela G. (1988). Academic integrity and

student development: Legal issues and policy perspectives: College

Administration Publications, Inc. 214

Kiehl, E. M. (2006). Using an ethical decision-making model to determine

consequences for student plagiarism. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(6), 199-

203.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of

moral stages (Vol. II). San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.

Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R.H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory

Into Practice, 16(2), 53-59.

LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R.E., Haines, V.J., & Dickhoff, G.M. (1990). Situational ethics and

college student cheating. Sociological Inquiry, 60(2), 190-198.

Langlais, P. J. (2006). Ethics for the next generation [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle

of Higher Education, 52, B11. Retrieved June 5, 2006 from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i19/19b01101.htm.

Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students' propensity to

cheat in the "real world"? Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 189-199.

Liang, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2005). Software piracy among college students: A

comprehensive review of contributing factors, underlying processes, and tackling

strategvies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 115-140.

Mangan, K. (2006). Survey finds widespread cheating in M.B.A. programs [Electronic

Version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/09/2006091902n.htm.

McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college

students. Sociological Inquiry, 62(3), 365-374. 215

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L.K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other

contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522-538.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L.K. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1).

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor

code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. The Journal

of Higher Education, 70(2), 211-234.

McLemee, S. (2004). What is plagiarism? [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, 51, A9. Retrieved June 5, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/cgi2-

bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i17/17a00901.htm.

Melendez, B. (1985). Honor code study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Moore, B. J. (2002). Truth or consequences. About Campus, 25-28.

Pactor, S., McKeen, W., & Morris J. (1990). Students' ethics require new ways to cope

with cheating. Educator(Winter), 57-59.

Payne, S. L., & Nantz, K.S. (1994). Social accounts and metaphors about cheating.

College Teaching, 42(3), 90-98.

Powers, E. (2007). Cheating on a different level [Electronic Version]. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved May 14, 2007 from

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/10/cheating.

Rawwas, M. Y. A., & Isakson, H.R. (2000). Ethics of tomorrow's business managers:

The influence of personal beliefs and values, individual characteristics, and

situational factors. Journal of Education for Business, 75(6), 321-330. 216

Rothstein-Fisch, C., Trumbull, E., Isaac, A., Daley, C., & Perez, A.I. (2003). When

"helping someone else" is the right answer: Bridging cultures in assessment.

Journal of Latinos and Education, 2(3), 123-140.

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: Culture matters more than

codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 243-256.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1968). A note on ethical risk hypothesis. the Journal of Social

Psychology, 76, 117-122.

Snapper, J. W. (1999). On the web, plagiarism matters more than copyright piracy.

Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 127-136.

Stearns, S. A. (1997). Administrative ramifications of student cheating. Journal of the

Association for Communication Administration(2), 133-139.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of

delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670.

Torres, C. (2003). The seven deadly sins of leadership. Issues & Observations, 23(3),

20-22.

Underwood, J., & Szabo, A. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: Individual

propensities to cheating. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 467-

477.

Walker, J. R. (1998). Copyrights and conversations: Intellectual property in the

classroom. Computers and Composition, 15, 243-251.

West, T., Ravenscroft, S.P., & Shrader, C.B. (2004). Cheating and moral judgment in

the college classroom: A natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 173-

183. 217

Yankelovich, D., & Furth, I. (2005). The role of colleges in an era of mistrust [Electronic

Version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, B8. Retrieved September 16,

2005 from

http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=2e0pj2ad1duucjeng1j0sb1457uitame.

Young, J. R. (2006). South korean scientist admits to fabricating some findings in

discredited stem-cell study [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved July 5, 2006 from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/07/2006070503n.htm.

218

APPENDIX A

ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY

This document incorporates by reference the Academic Honesty Policy as stated in the Student Code. All references found in this document refer to other portions of the Academic Honesty Policy.

1. Introduction

The Academic Honesty Policy is designed to enhance and sustain an environment of ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University. This policy is based on respect for intellectual property as well as for one another. Academic honesty is essential to the academy. Honest pursuit of academic challenges and higher learning are the essence of the University experience. Respect for one another is fostered when our academic environment is free from cheating, lying, and stealing not only of property, but ideas as well. Individual, personal quests for knowledge will expand and challenge students’ creativity and intellect. Academic dishonesty is contrary to intellectual growth and pride in a job well done. University graduates have met the challenges of achieving scholarly excellence and higher learning. Compromising academic honesty negatively impacts the foundations of our academy. We strive to nurture the respect inherent in the honest attainment of scholarly excellence. Discussion of the Academic Honesty Policy provides an opportunity to instill in students respect for honest and appropriate behavior.

a) Objectives

(1) To communicate to all members of the University community the conviction of the University and its faculty that cheating and plagiarism are destructive of the mission of the University and are universally disapproved.

(2) To state procedures for accomplishing the above objective by students, faculty, academic deans, and the Academic Honesty Committee.

b) Suggestions for Limiting Academic Dishonesty

(1) Both students and faculty should initiate discussions that emphasize ethical and principled intellectual pursuit, consistent with the core values of the University, and denounce dishonest academic pursuits.

(2) Academic units may develop for their faculty and students a statement of the application of the Academic Honesty Policy in their courses provided that it is consistent with this policy. 219

(3) Each faculty member is encouraged to include in the introduction of a course:

(a) A statement of the application of the Academic Honesty Policy within the particular course provided that it is consistent with this policy.

(b) The statement that every instance of dishonesty will be reported.

(c) A definition of plagiarism and proper citation consistent with the accepted style (e.g., APA, MLA).

(4) Faculty is encouraged to remove temptation to potential violations insofar as possible.

(5) Faculty members should exemplify the highest levels of academic honesty at all times. c) Definitions of Academic Honesty Violations

This list is not exhaustive of possible violations of this policy. These definitions are based on Gehring, Nuss, and Pavela’s, Issues and Perspectives on Academic Integrity, published in 1986 by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. and on the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, 1998, the trustees of the University of Indiana. Lack of intent shall not be a defense against a charge of violating this policy. That is, it shall not be necessary to prove intent for a person to be in violation of this policy. Unawareness of the policy is not a defense.

(1) Cheating Using or attempting to use unauthorized assistance, materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise; submitting substantial portions of the same academic work more than once without permission; or using another person as a substitute to take an examination or quiz.

(2) Forgery Altering a score, grade, schedule change form or academic record; or forging an instructor’s or another student’s signature.

(3) Bribery/Threats Offering a bribe or making a threat or coercion related to a grade or an academic exercise.

(4) Fabrication Falsification or invention of any information, data, research or citation in any academic exercise. 220

(5) Plagiarism Representing as one’s own in any academic exercise the words or ideas of another, including but not limited to, quoting or paraphrasing without proper citation.

(6) Facilitating Academic Dishonesty Helping or attempting to help another to commit an act of academic dishonesty. d) Definition of Terms

(1) Academic dean is the Dean of the college in which the undergraduate student is enrolled. For graduate students, degree and non degree, the academic Dean is the Dean of the Graduate College. For guest students, the registrar is the academic Dean who may transfer the case to the appropriate academic Dean.

(2) A day is one day when the University is holding classes.

(3) A semester is one of the University’s three academic terms: Fall, Spring, or Summer.

(4) A year is three consecutive semesters.

(5) A mark or grade assigned as a result of a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy is considered a sanction. e) Time Limits

Time limits given in this policy are for the purposes of expediting hearings and appeals. Time limits for hearings may be extended at the Dean’s discretion. Time limits for appeals may be extended at the discretion of the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the Board of Trustees of the University for cases within their respective jurisdictions.

Time limits set forth are goals and are not jurisdictional. No action taken shall be voided unless it appears that there has been an unreasonable amount of delay and that the appellant’s right to a fair hearing has been violated. f) Statute of Limitations

(1) There is no statute of limitations on graduate theses or dissertations.

(2) The statute of limitations for all other academic honesty violations shall be one calendar year after the date of graduation of the person(s) involved. 221

(3) When violations of academic honesty escape notice at the time of their commission, but are discovered at a later time and the statute of limitations has not expired, penalties may be imposed at the time the violation is discovered.

g) Advisers

The student and instructor are responsible for presenting their own cases. Both the student and the instructor have the right to be accompanied and assisted by advisers, but the advisers are not permitted to participate directly in any hearing nor may they appear in lieu of the student or instructor. The academic unit may send a substitute for the instructor only in cases of undue hardship.

h) Applicability of the Policy

This policy governs all matters of academic honesty, and alternative policies or procedures not provided for herein shall not be used.

i) Interpretations of the Policy

Questions regarding interpretations of this Academic Honesty Policy should be directed to the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee.

j) Possibility of Legal Action

In addition to action taken by University officials for violations of the Academic Honesty Policy, violators may be subject to legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Violations Discovered Before Graduation This section shall apply to violations of the Academic Honesty Policy that are discovered before the student has graduated and that are within the statute of limitations. B-II.H.1.f)

(1) Jurisdiction

(1) Instructor

(a) In any case in which the sanction to be imposed for the alleged offense is less than suspension, the instructor in the course shall have original jurisdiction. The instructor shall determine and impose the sanction. B-II.H.2.b)(4)

222

(b) If necessary, the instructor may delegate responsibility for conducting a conference and determining and imposing the sanction, in writing, to the Chair of the department in which the course is taught.

(2) Academic Dean

(a) In any case in which the sanction to be imposed for the alleged academic honesty violation is suspension, dismissal or expulsion, or in which the alleged academic honesty violation is a second offense, the academic Dean shall have original jurisdiction. The academic Dean shall determine and impose the sanction. B-II.H.2.b)(5)

(b) The academic Dean may delegate to an individual or committee the responsibility for providing notices, arranging and conducting conferences/hearings, determining whether or not a violation has occurred, and recommending a course of action to the academic Dean. B-II.H.2.b)(5)

(c) Conferences/hearings shall be conducted under procedures established by the academic Dean.

(3) Academic Honesty Committee

(a) The Academic Honesty Committee shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases of academic dishonesty. An instructor may appeal decisions of the academic Dean to the Academic Honesty Committee. When acting as an appellate body, the Academic Honesty Committee will review the records involved to determine whether to grant a hearing. Appeal hearings shall be conducted under procedures established by the Academic Honesty Committee. B-II.H.2.d)

(b) The Academic Honesty Committee shall have the jurisdiction to initiate a full review of any case, including a consideration of the substance of the alleged offense. Review of cases shall be conducted under procedures established by the Academic Honesty Committee.

(c) In any appeal, the appellant shall have the burden of proof, and the standard of proof is “more likely than not”.

(d) The Academic Honesty Committee shall have the following powers:

i. Deny an appeal;

ii. Uphold the decision of the instructor or academic Dean;

223

iii. Suspend a sanction in whole or in part and impose other terms and conditions as a corollary; or

iv. Overturn a decision of the instructor or academic Dean. In cases where the instructor has jurisdiction, direct, the instructor to void the sanction. In cases where the academic Dean has jurisdiction, direct the academic Dean to void the sanction.

(e) The committee will be comprised of:

i. Eighteen faculty members, twelve of whom shall have

ii. Six undergraduate students, and

iii. Six graduate students.

(f) Committee appointments shall be made:

i. Each academic Dean will nominate a minimum of two faculty members to serve on the committee;

ii. Three faculty members shall be elected pursuant to Article V. Section B-1.

iii. The Committee on Committees will appoint the remaining members of the committee from the list of faculty received from the academic Deans. (See Article V. Section B-1)

iv. The VPAA will appoint six undergraduate students and six graduate students.

(g) Committee Coordinator

i. The VPAA shall appoint an individual who shall serve as the Coordinator of all administrative functions of the committee (e.g., maintaining case files, filing all paperwork, scheduling hearings).

ii. The Coordinator will be responsible for the coordination of the training of all new members on the committee.

iii. The Coordinator shall conduct the hearing, but is not a voting member.

224

(h) Hearing Board Composition

i. A quorum to conduct a hearing is five members; three faculty and two students.

ii. In cases involving graduate students, the hearing board must include only faculty with graduate appointments and only graduate students.

iii. If a quorum is not achieved, the VPAA shall have the power to appoint ad hoc members to and convene an academic honesty hearing board.

(4) Vice President for Academic Affairs

(a) The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be responsible for implementing and monitoring this policy, shall provide clerical support as necessary, and shall serve as the central repository for records of violations of the policy.

(b) Final appeal jurisdiction in any case discovered before graduation rests with the VPAA.

(c) When acting on an appeal of the decision of the Academic Honesty Committee, the VPAA will review the records of the case to determine if a hearing should be granted. The appeal shall be conducted under procedures established by the VPAA. The VPAA may delegate to an individual or committee the responsibility for conducting conferences/hearings, determining whether or not a violation has occurred, and recommending a course of action to be taken.

(d) The VPAA shall have the jurisdiction to initiate a full review of any case, including a consideration of the substance of the alleged offense. Review of the case shall be conducted under procedures established by the VPAA.

(e) In any appeal, the appellant shall have the burden of proof.

(f) The VPAA shall have the following powers:

i. Deny an appeal;

ii. Uphold the decision of the instruction or academic Dean or Academic Honesty Committee;

225

iii. Suspend a sanction in whole of in part and impose other terms and conditions as a corollary; or

iv. Overturn a decision of the instructor or academic Dean or Academic Honesty Committee and direct the instructor or academic Dean to apply or void the sanction.

(2) Procedures

(1) Reporting a Case of Academic Dishonesty

Cases of academic dishonesty shall be reported to the academic Dean by the instructor. If a student suspected of violating this policy, for example, facilitating academic dishonesty, is not in the course, the instructor shall report the matter to that student’s academic Dean, who shall assume original jurisdiction over that student.

(2) Evidence

Whenever possible, the instructor shall retain as evidence the original assignment (not a photocopy).

(3) Continuance of Coursework

A student accused of a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy shall be permitted to continue in the class pending final disposition of the case. If the final decision in the case results in a sanction of expulsion, dismissal, OR suspension, any course work completed during the disposition of the case shall be void as described in the penalties section of this policy. If the final decision in the case results in a sanction of withdrawal from the course and assignment of a grade of “WF”, work in the class completed during the disposition of the case shall be void.

(4) Notification

All written communications in a case starting with the academic Dean’s first letter to the student shall be copied to the instructor, the instructor’s chair or program director, the Dean of the College in which the course is taught if different from the student’s academic Dean, the registrar and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In cases involving international students the academic Dean shall notify the Director of the Center for International Programs. In cases involving athletes, the academic Dean shall notify the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. For graduate students, the Dean of the Graduate College will notify these parties and also the program graduate coordinator and the College Dean of the student’s degree program. 226

Communications from the Academic Honesty Committee shall be copied to these persons.

(5) Cases with Instructor Jurisdiction

(a) The instructor shall make a good faith effort to meet and confer with the student prior to making a decision in the case and assessing a sanction within five days of detection of the incident.

(b) At the conference, the instructor shall discuss with the student the nature of the charge(s) against the student and the evidence in the case. This conference should provide the student the opportunity to examine and to challenge the evidence.

(c) After the initial discussion, the student shall have two days to provide additional information, if desired.

(d) Within five days after the conference, the instructor shall make a determination in the case. If the instructor decides to impose a sanction the instructor should keep a written record outlining the substance of the conference with the student and notify the academic Dean in writing.

(e) If the instructor determines that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has not occurred, no action will be taken against the student, and the instructor shall so notify the student.

(f) If the instructor determines that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has occurred, the instructor is required in all cases to inform the academic Dean, in writing, of the facts (including whether or not a conference between the instructor and student took place) and the decision in the case.

i. If the sanction is partial or no credit, and the appeal deadline has passed with no appeal, or if the instructor’s decision in the case has been upheld on final appeal, the instructor shall calculate the sanction into the course grade and report the grade on the class grade sheet. Otherwise, the instructor shall report the “NGR” (no grade).

ii. If the sanction is withdrawal from the course and the assignment of a grade of “WF”, and the appeal deadline has passed with no appeal, or if the instructor’s decision in the case has been upheld on final appeal, the instructor shall report the sanction on the class grade sheet. Otherwise, the instructor shall report an “NGR” (no grade).

227

iii. The registrar shall not convert an “NGR” to a “WF” while an appeal is pending.

iv. Upon notification from the instructor, the academic Dean shall check with the VPAA to determine if the student has a prior violation of this policy.

v. Within five days following receipt of the notice from the instructor, if a conference between the instructor and student has take place, the academic Dean shall notify the student, in writing, of the following:

• the decision in the case; • the sanction imposed; • the student’s right to appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee; B-11.H.2.d) • that the student may confer with the academic Dean concerning the case.

vi. Within five days following receipt of the notice form the instructor, if the instructor was unable to confer with the student, the academic Dean shall notify the student, in writing, of the following:

• the receipt of the complaint; • the decision in the case; • the sanction imposed; • that the student should confer with the instructor; • the student’s right to appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee; B-11.H.2.d) • that the student may confer with the academic Dean concerning the case.

vii. For notification, see 2.b) (4)

(6) Cases with Academic Dean Jurisdiction

(a) Introduction i. Hearings conducted by the academic Dean are informal inquiries that do not follow formalized courtroom procedures.

ii. Due process rights under B-II.H.2.c) apply to these hearings.

iii. Only evidence introduced at the hearing can be considered.

228

iv. A taped record shall be made of all hearings conducted by an academic Dean.

v. The academic Dean shall invite the instructor to the hearing who shall have the right to make recommendations on the decision and on the sanction.

(b) Hearing

i. Upon receipt of written notice of an alleged violation of the Academic Honesty Policy, within fifteen days the academic Dean shall check with the VPAA to determine if the student has a prior charge pertaining to this policy and shall notify the student, in writing, of the charges made, the student’s right to examine the evidence in the case, and the student’s right to due process. B-II.H.2.c). For notification, see 2. B) (4) and the academic Dean shall convene a hearing and shall notify the student of its time and place and make a decision.

ii. If student has been properly notified of a hearing under this section and fails to appear, the student may be temporarily suspended by the academic Dean until the student requests and appears at a new hearing. If the student has not requested a new hearing within five additional days, the sanction takes effect and the academic Dean shall direct the registrar to bar the student from registration for future semesters and to drop the student from registration for any courses.

iii. If the academic Dean determines that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has not occurred, no action will be taken against the student, and the academic Dean shall so notify the student. If a grade of “NGR” has already been reported, the academic Dean shall direct the instructor to report the grade without the calculation of the sanction. For notification, see 2. b) (4).

iv. If the academic Dean determines that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has occurred, the academic Dean shall:

• before imposing the sanction, notify the VPAA that the student has been charged with the offense, that the academic Dean has determined that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has occurred, and request 229

any relevant information regarding the sanction to be imposed in the case;

• within five days after the decision in the case notify the student, in writing, of

o the decision in the case; o the sanction imposed; o the student’s right to appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee under B-II.H.2.d) o For notification, see 2. b) (4).

v. In cases under the academic Dean’s jurisdiction, after an appeal deadline has passed with no appeal or after the decision in the case was upheld on appeal, the academic Dean shall notify the registrar that the student has been withdrawn from the course, expelled, dismissed, or suspended from the University as a sanction for a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy. The academic Dean shall instruct the registrar to enter on the student’s transcript the grade and/or other sanction resulting from the decision.

(c) Hearing by Teleconference

Upon petition from the either the student or the instructor not to hold a hearing in person due to personal hardship the Dean, after providing the other party the opportunity to comment, may grant that the hearing be held by teleconference.

(3) Due Process Procedural Safeguards

(1) The student shall be given written notice of the charges against him/her, the time and place of the hearing, and the student’s right to examine the evidence in the case prior to the hearing.

(2) The student has the right to question evidence presented against him/her and to present evidence in his or her own behalf.

(3) The student has the right to be assisted by an adviser of his or her choice from among students, faculty, or staff of the University. In cases where expulsion or dismissal or suspension may be the sanction, the student may be accompanied by an external advisor. The external advisor may advise the student during the hearing, but may not participate in the hearing.

230

(4) The student has the right to receive notice of the decision in the case and notice of the right to appeal decisions to the Academic Honesty Committee under BII.H.2.d).

(4) Appeals to the Academic Honesty Committee

(1) The student shall have seven days from the date on which he/she receives notice of the sanction to file an appeal.

(2) The student shall send a written appeal to the coordinator of the Academic Honesty Committee in the Office of the VPAA and shall send a copy of the appeal to the Academic Dean. The student may request an oral presentation of the request before two faculty members of the committee.

(3) An appeal shall be based on new evidence, procedural error, or error in interpretation of evidence. The appellants must describe the basis of the appeal. (Severity of the sanction is not considered a ground for appeal unless it exceeds the maximum, which would be a procedural error.)

(4) The Coordinator of the Academic Honesty Committee shall inform the student in writing with a copy to the academic Dean whether a hearing is being granted.

(5) If the Academic Honesty Committee grants a hearing, the hearing process shall begin within fifteen days of receipt of the student’s written notice of appeal. A taped record shall be made of all appeal hearings conducted by the Academic Honesty Committee.

(6) In the event of a hearing, the Academic Honesty Committee shall furnish the instructor who imposed the original sanction and the academic Dean with a copy of the student’s written appeal along with any or all pieces of evidence introduced in the student’s behalf. A decision and notification shall be made within two days.

(7) If the decision of the instructor or academic Dean is overturned by the Academic Honesty Committee and the deadline to appeal to the VPAA has passed with no appeal, or if the decision of the Academic Honesty Committee is upheld on final appeal, the Coordinator of the Academic Honesty Committee shall notify the chair of the Academic Honesty Committee who shall direct the instructor or academic Dean in writing to void the sanction. When a sanction is a grade or affects the grade, the instructor shall be obligated to compute the student’s grade according to the decision of the Academic Honesty Committee regarding the sanction. 231

(5) Appeals to the Vice President for Academic Affairs

(1) The student, course instructor, or academic Dean shall have seven days from the date on which the person receives notice of the decision of the Academic Honesty Committee to file an appeal with the VPAA.

(2) The student, course instructor, or academic Dean shall send a written appeal to the VPAA and shall send a copy of the appeal to the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee and to the academic Dean.

(3) An appeal shall be based on procedural error alone (severity of the sanction is not considered a ground for appeal unless it exceeds the maximum, which would be a procedural error.)

(4) If the VPAA grants a hearing, the hearing process shall begin within fifteen days of receipt of the written notice of appeal. The VPAA shall invite the party bringing the appeal and a member of the hearing board.

(5) Decisions and sanctions shall be stayed until the VPAA has issued a decision. For notification, see 2. b) (4).

(6) If an appeal deadline has passed with no appeal or if the decision and sanctions have been upheld on appeal, the decision of the initial hearing body shall be in effect as provided for under B-II.H.2.f)(3). Sanctions shall be imposed and the Office of Registration and Records notified within three days of the decision by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

(6) Sanctions

(1) Definitions of sanctions

(a) Expulsion Administrative withdrawal from the University with no provision for re- admission. The student shall be withdrawn from all courses. A grade of “WF” shall be assigned as a sanction for the course in which the offense occurred. Grades of “WP” or “WF” shall be assigned to all other courses in accordance with University policy governing such grades.

(b) Dismissal Administrative withdrawal from the University for a stated period of time not less than one year. The student shall be withdrawn from all courses. A grade of “WF” shall be assigned as a sanction for the course in which the offense occurred. Grades of “WP” or “WF” shall be assigned to all other courses in accordance with the University policy governing such grades. After the time has elapsed, the student may apply for readmission on the 232

same basis as any student entering from another school. The student is subject to all regulations dealing with his or her status at the time of dismissal, e.g. academic warning.

(c) Suspension Administrative withdrawal from the University for a stated period of time not more than one year. The student shall be withdrawn from all courses. A grade of “WF” shall be assigned as a sanction for the course in which the offense occurred. Grades of “WP” or “WF” shall be assigned to all other courses in accordance with the University policy governing such grades. After the time has elapsed, the student may be readmitted. The student is subject to all regulations dealing with the student’s academic status at the time of suspension, e.g. academic warning. Suspension under this policy is different from academic suspension.

(d) Suspended Sanction Any of the three penalties stated above may be totally or partially suspended. In this case, a student who subsequently violates the Academic Honesty Policy is subject not only to the sanction prescribed for that subsequent offense, but also to the suspended portion of the previously imposed sanction.

(e) Withdrawal from the Course The student shall be assigned a grade of “WF” as a sanction for the course in which the offense occurred.

(f) Partial or No Credit on an Examination or Assignment Credit shall be determined in accordance with practices of the instructor.

(2) Other Terms and Conditions of Sanctions

Terms and conditions may be attached to and made part of any sanctions imposed under the Academic Honesty Policy.

(a) Mandatory terms and conditions of expulsion, suspension, or dismissal.

i. If the student is expelled, suspended, or dismissed under the terms of the Academic Honesty Policy, the student shall be denied all privileges accorded a student and shall be required to leave the University premises.

ii. The student may appeal to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for entrance to the University for specified purposes.

233

(b) Other terms and conditions may be attached to sanctions of suspended sanction or warning by the Academic Honesty Committee and the academic Dean. (c) Failure to observe the terms and conditions attached to and made part of a sanction may constitute cause for the extension of the time period during which the sanction is in effect.

(d) The VPAA shall have the power to direct the registrar to print on the transcript the reason for a student’s expulsion, dismissal, or suspension as due to a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy in cases of repeated or egregious violations.

(e) No refunds of tuition or fees shall be granted as result of course work dropped in connection with this policy.

(3) Effective Date of Sanction

If no appeal is submitted, the sanction shall take effect when the appeal deadline has passed. Otherwise, the sanction shall take effect when the decision of the initial hearing body is upheld on final appeal. If the decision of the initial hearing body is upheld on final appeal, the instructor/academic dean shall report the graded sanction to the registrar.

(4) Academic credit earned at another institution during a period of expulsion, suspension, or dismissal for violation of the Academic Honesty Policy shall not be accepted at the University.

(5) Grades assigned in connection with this policy shall not be changed. The effect on the grade point average of a “D”, “F” or “WF” assigned in connection with a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy shall not be eliminated by the Course Retake Policy or the Academic Forgiveness Policy.

(6) Sanctions for first academic honesty violations when discovered before graduation shall be in accordance with the following table: 234

VIOLATIONS DISCOVERED BEFORE GRADUATION

Minimum Maximum Original Offense Sanction Sanction Jurisdiction Cheating, Partial or no credit Withdrawal from Instructor in course fabrication or on examination or course and plagiarism on assignment assignment of examinations or sanction grade “WF” other assignments in course in a course by an undergraduate student

Cheating, Partial or no credit Expulsion * fabrication or on examination or plagiarism on assignment examinations or other assignments in a course by a graduate student

Forgery, bribery, Suspension Expulsion Academic Dean threats (related to academic activities)

Using a person or Suspension Dismissal (Under- Academic Dean agency to prepare graduate student) papers or other Expulsion assignments in a (Graduate student) course

Substitution in an Suspension (for Dismissal (for both Academic Dean examination both enrollee and enrollee & substitute) substitute) (Undergraduate student) Expulsion for both enrollee & substitute (Graduate student)

Plagiarism, Suspension Expulsion Academic Dean fabrication, or other forms of dishonesty by a graduate student associated with non-formal 235

course material (e.g., thesis, dissertation, preliminary or comprehensive examination, field experiences)

Stealing, Suspension Expulsion Academic Dean duplicating, or selling examinations or examination books to be given

Possession and/or Suspension Expulsion Academic Dean use of stolen examinations, papers, or other course assignments

Misrepresentation of Dismissal Expulsion Academic Dean academic materials

Other academic Partial or no Credit Expulsion Instructor/Academic dishonesty on Assignment* Dean

Facilitating Suspension** Expulsion** Academic Dean* academic Suspension Suspension Graduate Dean dishonesty (Graduate Student) (Graduate Student)

*If the sanction involves a course grade it is the instructor’s jurisdiction; if the sanction involves suspension or higher, then the jurisdiction is with the academic Dean.

**A student charged with facilitating academic dishonesty shall be subject to the minimum/maximum sanction for the academic honesty violation that was facilitated. If the offense is cheating, fabrication, or plagiarism on examinations or other assignments and the facilitator is not in the course, the range of sanctions shall be from suspension to expulsion.

For second and subsequent academic honesty violations, other than misrepresentation of academic credentials, the minimum sanction is suspension. The academic Dean has original jurisdiction in cases involving second and subsequent violations. The maximum sanction for these violations is expulsion. In addition to the minimum/maximum sanction, other appropriate educational intervention is encouraged.

236

3. Violations Discovered After Graduation

This section shall apply to violations of the Academic Honesty Policy that are discovered after the student has graduated and that are within the statute of limitations defined in B-II.H.1.d).

a) Jurisdiction

(1) Academic Dean

(a) In any case in which the alleged violation is discovered after the student has graduated, the academic Dean of the college from which the student graduated shall have original jurisdiction. The academic Dean shall inform the VPAA about the reported case of suspected violation of the Academic Honesty Policy and shall check with the VPAA to determine if the student has committed a prior violation of this policy.

(b) Hearings shall be conducted under procedures established by the academic Dean.

(2) Academic Honesty Committee

The Academic Honesty Committee shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases of violation of the Academic Honesty Policy discovered after graduation. Appeal hearings shall be conducted under procedures established by the Academic Honesty Committee. The Academic Honesty Committee shall have the following powers:

(a) Uphold the decision of the academic Dean; or

(b) Suspend a sanction in whole or in part and impose other terms and conditions as a corollary; or

(c) Overturn a decision of the academic Dean. In cases where the academic Dean has jurisdiction, direct the academic Dean to void the sanction.

(3) Vice President for Academic Affairs and Board of Trustees

(a) Final appeal jurisdiction in any case discovered after graduation not involving withdrawal of a degree or revocation of a degree rests with the VPAA. Withdrawal of a degree or revocation of a degree shall be approved by the Board of Trustees.

(b) When acting on an appeal, the VPAA will review the records of the case to determine if a hearing should be granted. The appeal shall be conducted under procedures established by the VPAA. 237

(c) The VPAA shall have the jurisdiction to initiate a full review of any case, including a consideration of the substance of the alleged offense. Review of the case shall be conducted under procedures established by the VPAA.

(d) The VPAA shall have the following powers:

i. Deny an appeal;

ii. Uphold the decision of the academic Dean or Academic Honesty Committee

iii. Suspend a sanction in whole or in part and impose other terms and conditions as a corollary; or

iv. Overturn a decision of the academic Dean or Academic Honesty Committee and direct the academic Dean to void the sanction. b) Reporting a Case of Academic Dishonesty

Cases of suspected violations of the Academic Honesty Policy discovered after the student has graduated shall be reported to the academic Dean.

c) Hearing Procedures

(1) Pre-Hearing Procedures

(a) A college committee composed of three faculty members shall be appointed by the academic Dean. The academic Dean shall delegate to the committee the responsibility for providing notices and arranging conferences and hearings, determining whether or not a violation has occurred, and recommending a course of action to the academic Dean.

(b) The academic Dean shall notify the graduate, in writing, of the charges made, the evidence in the case, the intent to conduct a hearing in the matter, and the graduate’s right of due process under B-II.H.3.c)(3).

(2) Hearing Procedures

(a) Introduction

i. Hearings conducted by the college committee under the following procedures are informal inquiries that do not follow formalized courtroom procedures. ;

ii. Due process rights apply to these hearings. 238

iii. Only evidence introduced at the hearing can be considered.

iv. Uphold the decision of the academic Dean or Academic Honesty Committee

v. Suspend a sanction in whole or in part and impose other terms and conditions as a corollary; or

(b) Hearing

i. Within thirty days following the date of the notice to the graduate under B-II.H.3.c) (1), the academic Dean shall notify the graduate and the college committee, in writing, of the time and place of the hearing.

ii. Within fifteen days following the date of the notice to the graduate and the college committee, the academic Dean shall convene the hearing.

iii. Within ten days after the hearing, the college committee shall make a determination in the case and recommend a course of action, in writing, to the academic Dean.

iv. Within thirty days following the written notice from the college committee, the academic Dean shall make a decision in the case.

v. If the academic Dean determines that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has not occurred, no action shall be taken against the graduate.

vi. If the academic Dean determines that a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy has occurred, the academic Dean shall, before imposing the sanction notify the VPAA that the graduate has been charged with the offense. The academic Dean shall provide the VPAA with all relevant information and shall confer with the VPAA about the case.

vii. Within ten days following the decision in the case, the academic Dean shall notify the graduate, in writing, of:

• the decision in the case • the sanction imposed • the graduate’s right to appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee under B-11.H.3.d).

239

viii. The academic Dean shall send written notice stating the nature of the case and the decision concerning it to the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee and the VPAA.

ix. If the graduate has not appealed within thirty days as provided for in B-II.H.3.e), the academic Dean shall notify the registrar of the sanction imposed.

(3) Due Process Procedural Safeguards

The following due process procedural safeguards shall be followed in all hearings conducted under B-II.H.3.c) (2):

(a) The graduate shall be given written notice of the charges against him/her and the time and place of the hearing, and the graduate’s right to examine the evidence prior to the hearing.

(b) The graduate has the right to question evidence presented against him/her and to present evidence in his/her own behalf.

(c) The graduate has the right to be assisted by an external advisor who may not participate in the hearing

(d) The graduate has the right to receive notice of the decision in the case and notice of the right to appeal decisions to the Academic Honesty Committee under B-II.H.3.d). d) Appeals to the Academic Honesty Committee

(1) The graduate shall have thirty days from the date on which he/she receives notice of the sanction to file an appeal.

(2) The graduate shall send a written appeal to the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee and shall send a copy of the appeal to the academic Dean.

(3) An appeal shall be based on new evidence, procedural error, or error in interpretation of evidence. (Severity of the sanction is not considered a ground of appeal unless it exceeds the maximum.) The appellant shall describe the new evidence and/or the error that is the basis of the appeal.

(4) All appeals shall be heard within thirty days of receipt of the graduate’s written notice of appeal.

240

(5) Decisions of the initial hearing body shall be stayed until the appellate body has given its decision.

(6) The decision of the initial hearing body, if upheld on appeal, shall be in effect as provided for under B-II.H.3.f)(2).

(7) The Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee shall notify the graduate, the VPAA, and the academic Dean of all decisions arising from the appeal. If the decision of the initial hearing body is upheld on appeal and the appeal deadline has passed with no appeal, or if the decision of the Academic Honesty Committee is upheld on final appeal, the academic Dean shall notify the Registrar of the sanction imposed. If the decision of the initial hearing body is overturned on appeal, no action will be taken against the graduate. e) Appeals to the Vice President for Academic Affairs

(1) The graduate or academic Dean shall have thirty days from the date on which the graduate receives notice of the decision of the Academic Honesty Committee to file an appeal with the VPAA.

(2) A written appeal shall be sent to the VPAA and a copy of the appeal shall be sent to the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee.

(3) An appeal shall be based on procedural error alone (severity of the sanction is not considered a ground for appeal unless it exceeds the maximum, which would be a procedural error.)

(4) All appeals shall be heard within thirty days of receiving the written notice of appeal.

(5) Decisions of the initial hearing body shall be stayed until the VPAA has given a decision.

(6) If an appeal deadline has passed with no appeal, or if the decision has been upheld on appeal, the decision of the initial hearing body shall be in effect as provided for under B-II.H.3.f)(2).

(7) The VPAA, as appropriate, shall notify the graduate, the Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee, and the academic Dean of all decisions arising from the appeal. If the decision of the initial hearing body is upheld on appeal. The academic Dean shall notify the Registrar of the sanction imposed. The academic Dean with the concurrence of the VPAA may instruct the Registrar to print on the transcript that the reason for the sanction was a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy. If the sanction is revocation of degree, the reason shall always be printed on the transcript. If the decision of 241

the initial hearing body is overturned on appeal, no action will be taken against the graduate. f) Sanctions

(1) Definition of Sanctions

(a) Revocation of Degree The degree awarded to the graduate shall be rescinded with no possibility for reinstatement. This action is subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees.

(b) Withdrawal of Degree The degree awarded to the graduate shall be rescinded with the possibility for reinstatement. This action is subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees.

(c) Withdrawal from Course The graduate shall be assigned a grade of “WF” as a sanction for the course in which the offense occurred. When withdrawal from course and assignment of a grade of “WF” as a sanction results in the graduate not meeting requirements for graduation (e.g., course is required for graduation or GPA falls below 2.0), the degree awarded to the graduate is withdrawn with provision for reinstatement of the degree. Reinstatement of the degree results when the graduate enrolls in the course in which the offense occurred and receives credit for the course in a way that the graduate then meets requirements for graduation.

(d) Partial or No Credit on an Examination or Assignment Credit shall be determined in accordance with the practices of the instructor. When partial or no credit on an examination or assignment is given as a sanction and results in the graduate not meeting requirements for graduation (e.g., the final grade assigned as a direct result of the sanction does not meet credit requirements in a course required for graduation or the GPA falls below 2.0), the degree awarded to the graduate is withdrawn with provision for reinstatement of the degree. Reinstatement of the degree results when the graduate enrolls in the course in which the offense occurred and receives credit for the course in a way that the graduate then meets requirements for graduation.

(2) Effective Date of Sanction

If no appeal is submitted, the sanction shall take effect when the appeal deadline has passed. Otherwise, the sanction shall take effect when the decision of the initial hearing body is upheld on final appeal.

242

(3) Penalties for academic honesty violations discovered after graduation shall be in accordance with the following table:

VIOLATIONS DISCOVERED AFTER GRADUATION

Minimum Maximum Original Offense Sanction Sanction Jurisdiction Cheating, Partial or no credit Withdrawal from Academic Dean fabrication or on examination or course and plagiarism on assignment assignment of examinations or sanction grade “WF” other assignments in course in a course (Undergraduate student) Revocation of degree (Graduate student)

Using a person or Withdrawal from Withdrawal of Academic Dean agency to prepare course and degree papers or other assignment of (Undergraduate assignments in a sanction grade “WF” student) course for both enrollee Revocation of and substitute degree (Graduate student)

Substitution in an Withdrawal from Withdrawal of Academic Dean examination course and degree for both assignment of enrollee and sanction grade “WF” substitute for both enrollee (Undergraduate and substitute student) Revocation of degree for both enrollee and substitute (Graduate student)

Possession and/or Loss of credit Revocation of Academic Dean use of stolen degree examinations, papers or other course assignments

243

Stealing, Loss of credit Revocation of Academic Dean duplicating, or degree selling examinations or examination books to be given

Plagiarism, Revocation of Academic Dean fabrication, or other degree forms of dishonesty by a graduate student associated with non-formal course material (e.g., thesis, dissertation, preliminary or comprehensive examination, field experiences)

Misrepresentation of Revocation of Academic Dean academic degree credentials

Other academic Withdrawal from Withdrawal of Academic Dean dishonesty course and degree assignment of sanction grade “WF” in course

Facilitating academic dishonesty*

*A student charged with facilitating academic dishonesty shall be subject to the minimum/maximum sanction for the violation that was facilitated.

For second academic honesty violations, the maximum sanction is revocation of degree.

Academic Honesty Policy approved by Faculty Senate on December 2, 2003 Academic Honesty Policy approved by the Board of Trustees on March 2, 2004 244

APPENDIX B

MEMORANDUM ABOUT THE STUDY AND CONSENT

November 12, 2008

Dear University Student;

I am a doctoral student in the Leadership Studies program at the University and invite you to participate in the research study that I am conducting for my dissertation. Your participation will be greatly appreciated and should take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. I am inviting all students to participate in an Academic Honesty Policy Survey. By clicking on http://survey.bgsu.edu/surveys/ir/academicmisconduct/academicmisconduct.htm you will be taken directly to the survey website. The survey asks a variety of questions regarding your beliefs and experiences toward academic misconduct. Specifically,

• Ethical beliefs • Types of academic misconduct • Frequency of academic misconduct • Students perceived seriousness of academic misconduct • Students familiarity with the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP)

Your participation is voluntary and will not put you at risk. Your return of this survey implies consent. If you decide to participate, please complete the Web-based survey by going to the website address indicated below.

Your responses will be strictly confidential. The Office of Institutional Research staff will be the only person(s) to view the raw data. Only summary data from all survey participants will be included in the final paper. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will not be disclosed. Findings will be presented in aggregate form only and no individual responses will be linked to any single respondent. Due to the Web-based nature of the survey, there exists a minimal chance that your responses could be intercepted during transmission by individuals not involved in this study. However, if you choose to participate, I will receive data in aggregate, electronic form and will not be able to trace responses back to individual participants. Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice any future relationships with the University or any other person or organization. If you decide to participate, you are free to discontinue participation at any time without penalty.

All individuals who complete this Academic Honesty Policy Survey and provide their contact information will be eligible to win the following prizes: 245

• Two $250 cash prizes • Three $50 gas cards

The Office of Institutional Research will notify winners who will be randomly selected in a drawing that will be held on December 5, 2008.

We certainly hope you will take the time to complete this survey. Your opinions and experiences as a member of this community are important and influential; the input you provide us will help to shape future policies, procedures, programs, and resources. The data collected will help the University better understand the needs and experiences of its entire student population. This increased understanding and awareness will not only help to improve education at the University, but will move the institution closer to realizing its mission to aspire to be the premier learning community in Ohio, and one of the best in the nation.

The survey will be administered from November 12th through November 24, 2008. Please take the time to complete the survey now; if that is not possible, then for certain by November 24, 2008.

If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact Kim D. Kirkland, Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis at [email protected] or (317) 274-2306. You may also contact my dissertation Chair, Dr. Patrick Pauken, at [email protected] or (419) 372-2550. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the chair of the Human Subjects Review Board at the University at (419) 372-7716 or [email protected].

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this important information. Again, please visit by clicking on http://survey.bgsu.edu/surveys/ir/academicmisconduct/academicmisconduct.htm to complete the survey.

Sincerely,

Kim D. Kirkland Director, Equal Opportunity Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Cc: Dr. Bill Knight, Assistant Vice President for Planning and Accountability Dr. Patrick D. Pauken, Associate Professor, Educational Administration & Leadership Studies

246

APPENDIX C

ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT STUDENT SURVEY

SECTION I – DEMOGRAPHICS (Required): PLEASE DO NOT GO ON UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS SECTION

1. What is your academic class standing?

o 1st year undergraduate (Freshman) o 2nd year undergraduate (Sophomore) o 3rd year undergraduate (Junior) o 4th year undergraduate (Senior) o 5th year undergraduate or beyond o Graduate student o Non-degree

2. Sex: (Female/Male)

3. Race/Ethnicity: White, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Other

4. Age: under 18, 18-19, 20-21, 22-23, 24-25, 26-27, 28-29, 30+ 5. In what college is your primary major?

o Arts & Sciences o Business Administration o Education & Human Development o Branch Campus o Health & Human Services o Musical Arts o Technology o Other o Undecided

6. If you actively participate in any of the following, please tell us about how much time you spend on each activity in an average week. (Do not Participate, 1-9 Hours, 10-19 Hours, More Than 19 Hours)

o Paid employment o Caring for a dependent o Social fraternity/sorority/club 247

o Attend honors classes o Student leadership role o Serve on committees o Professional academic clubs and organizations

7. SECTION II: WHAT DO YOU THINK/BELIEVE? (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, No Opinion) • It is important for me to be a person with good character • Most adults in my life consistently set a good example of ethics and character • My parents/guardians always want me to do the ethically right thing, no matter what the cost • Being a person with good character is more important than being rich • When it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know • In personal relationships, trust and honesty are essential • In business and the workplace, trust and honesty are essential • In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating • A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed • It is acceptable to lie because so few people tell the truth anymore • People who are willing to lie, cheat or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people who are not • My parents/guardians would rather I cheat than get bad grades • It’s important to me that people trust me • It’s not worth it to lie or cheat because it hurts your character • In sports, if you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough • People should play by the rules even if it means they lose • It’s not cheating if everyone is doing it • It is acceptable to pad or inflate your resume in order to get a job • Cheating has become a cultural norm in American society • I am satisfied with my own ethics and character

Note: Statements are directly reprinted with permission from Josephson Institute’s Report Card Survey on the Ethics, Attitudes, and Behaviors of American Youth. For information about the research conducted by Josephson Institute, please visit: www.josephsoninstitute.org 248

8. SECTION III: HAVE YOU DONE THESE THINGS WITHIN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?

This section asks you some questions about specific behaviors that some people might consider cheating. Please remember that this survey is completely anonymous and there is no way that anyone can connect you with any of your answers.

Please mark how often, if ever, in the past year you have engaged in any of the following behaviors (Never, Once, More Than Once, Not Relevant). If a question does not apply to any of the courses you took in the last year, please check the 'Not Relevant' column. For example, if you had no tests/exams in the last year, you would check 'Not Relevant' for questions related to tests/exams.

o Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography o Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work o Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work o Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test o In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's program rather than writing your own o Helping someone else cheat on a test o Fabricating or falsifying lab data o Fabricating or falsifying research data o Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge o Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge o Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination o Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment. o Copying (by hand or in person) another student's homework o Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student's homework. o Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted. o Turning in a paper from a "paper mill" (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work. o Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source - e.g., the Internet - without footnoting them in a paper you submitted. o Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work. o Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or exam 249

o Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam. o Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam. o Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work. o Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course. o Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam o Turning in work done by someone else o Cheating on a test in any other way.

9. Please mark how serious you think each type of behavior is (Not cheating, Trivial Cheating, Moderate cheating, Serious Cheating).

o Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography o Working on an assignment with others (in person) when the instructor asked for individual work o Working on an assignment with others (via email or Instant Messaging) when the instructor asked for individual work o Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test o In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's program rather than writing your own o Helping someone else cheat on a test o Fabricating or falsifying lab data o Fabricating or falsifying research data o Copying from another student during a test with his or her knowledge o Copying from another student during a test or examination without his or her knowledge o Using digital technology (such as text messaging) to get unpermitted help from someone during a test or examination o Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment. o Copying (by hand or in person) another student's homework o Copying (using digital means such as Instant Messaging or email) another student's homework. o Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a book, magazine, or journal (not electronic or Web-based) without footnoting them in a paper you submitted. o Turning in a paper from a "paper mill" (a paper written and previously submitted by another student) and claiming it as your own work. o Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences of material from an electronic source - e.g., the Internet - without footnoting them in a paper you submitted. o Submitting a paper you purchased or obtained from a Web site (such as www.schoolsucks.com) and claimed it as your own work. o Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or exam 250

o Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam. o Using an electronic/digital device as an unauthorized aid during an exam. o Copying material, almost word for word, from any written source and turning it in as your own work. o Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student's paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course. o Using a false or forged excuse to obtain an extension on a due date or delay taking an exam o Turning in work done by someone else o Cheating on a test in any other way.

10. If you indicated above that you paraphrased or copied material from a written or electronic source without citing, it, please tell us how you accessed this material:

o Internet or other electronic means only o Have only used hard (paper) copies of sources o Have primarily used Internet or other electronic means o Have primarily used hard (paper) copies of sources o Have used both methods pretty equally

11. Have you ever taken an online test or exam at the University (Yes or No)

12. If you have taken an online test or exam at the University, have you ever: (Check all that apply.)

o Collaborated with others during an online test or exam when not permitted? o Used notes or books on a closed book online test or exam? o Received unauthorized help from someone on an online test or exam? o Looked up information on the Internet when not permitted?

13. How likely is it that: (Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Likely, Very Likely)

o You would report an incident of cheating that you observed? o The typical student at the University would report such violations? o A student would report a close friend?

14. If you had cheated in a course and the following individuals knew about it, how strongly would they disapprove? (Very strongly, Fairly strongly, Not very strongly, Not at all)

o A close friend o One of the students you go around with o Your parents 251

15. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Agree, Strongly Agree)

o Cheating is a serious problem at my university o The investigation of suspected incidents of cheating is fair and impartial at my university o Students should be held responsible for monitoring the academic integrity of other students o Faculty members are vigilant in discovering and reporting suspected cases of academic dishonesty o Faculty members change exams and assignments on a regular basis o The amount of course work I'm expected to complete is reasonable for my year level and program o The degree of difficulty in my exams and assignments is appropriate for my year level and program o The types of assessment used in my courses are effective at evaluating my level of understanding of course concepts o The types of assessment used in my courses are effective at helping me learn course concepts

SECTION IV: WHAT DO YOU KNOW – How clear or familiar are you with the University’s Academic Honesty Policy?

Please tell us about the academic environment at the University

16. How would you rate: (Very low, Low, Medium, High, Very high)

o The severity of penalties for cheating at the University? o The average students’ understanding of campus policies concerning student cheating? o Faculty understanding of these policies? o Student support of these policies? o The effectiveness of these policies?

17. Have you been informed about the University’s Academic Honesty Policy? Yes/No

18. If yes, where and how much have you learned about these policies? (Respond to all that apply.) Options: Learned Little or Nothing, Learned Some, Learned a Lot

o First-year undergraduate orientation program o First-year graduate orientation program o Campus website o Student Handbook 252

o Program Counselor, Residential Advisor, or Faculty Advisor o Other students o Faculty (e.g., discussed in class, course syllabi, or course outlines) o Teaching Assistant/Graduate Assistant o Dean or other administrator o Other (Please specify)

19. In the past year, how often, on average, did your instructors discuss policies concerning? (Never, Very Seldom, Seldom/Sometimes, Often, Very Often)

o Plagiarism o Cheating o Academic Honesty Committee o Sanctions for Academic Honesty Policy violations o Guidelines on group work or collaboration o Proper citation/referencing of written sources o Proper citation/referencing of Internet sources o Falsifying/fabricating course lab data o Falsifying/fabricating research data

20. How frequently do you think the following occur at your institution? (Never, Very Seldom, Seldom/Sometimes, Often, Very Often)

o Plagiarism on written assignments o Inappropriately sharing work in group assignments o Cheating during tests or examinations

21. How often, if ever, have you seen another student cheat during a test or examination at your institution?

o Never o Once o A few times o Several times o Many times

22. Have you ever reported another student for cheating? Yes or No

SECTION V 23. If people you know were asked to list the most ethical people they know, how many would put you on their lists? (Almost All, Most, Half, Almost None, None)

253

24. How many questions on this survey did you answer with complete honesty (All, All but 1 or 2, All but 3-5, All but 6-10)

25. Do you think ethics and character are really important? Why or why not? (Write your answer in the box below).

Note: Questions 8-22 are directly reprinted with permission from Donald L. McCabe, Academic Integrity Student Survey.

Drawing: All individuals who complete the Academic Honesty Policy Survey and provide their contact information will be included in the following drawings.

• (2) $250 cash prizes • (3) $50 gas cards

In order to enter the drawing, please include your contact information in the text box below. The Office of Institutional Research will notify winners, who will be randomly selected in the drawing before the end of the fall 2008 semester.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

254

APPENDIX D

MEMORANDUM ABOUT THE PILOT AND CONSENT

September 26, 2008

Dear University Student;

I am a doctoral student in the Leadership Studies program at the University and invite you to participate in a pilot study that I am conducting for my final research dissertation. Your participation will be greatly appreciated and should take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. By clicking on http://survey.bgsu.edu/surveys/EALS/academicmisconduct/academicmisconduct.htm you will be taken directly to the survey website. The survey asks a variety of questions regarding your beliefs and experiences toward academic misconduct. Specifically,

• Ethical beliefs • Types of academic misconduct • Frequency of academic misconduct • Students perceived seriousness of academic misconduct • Students familiarity with the University’s Academic Honesty Policy (AHP)

Your participation is voluntary and will not put you at risk. Your return of this survey implies consent. If you decide to participate in this pilot, please complete the Web- based survey by going to the Web site address indicated above.

Your responses will be strictly confidential. The Office of Institutional Research staff will be the only person(s) to view the raw data. Only summary data from all survey participants will be included in the final paper. Any information that is obtained in connection with this pilot and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will not be disclosed. Findings will be presented in aggregate form only and no individual responses will be linked to any single respondent. Due to the Web-based nature of the survey, there exists a minimal chance that your responses could be intercepted during transmission by individuals not involved in this pilot. However, if you choose to participate, I will receive data in aggregate, electronic form and will not be able to trace responses back to individual participants. Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice any future relationships with the University or any other person or organization. If you decide to participate, you are free to discontinue participation at any time without penalty.

We certainly hope you will take the time to participate in this pilot. Your opinions and experiences as a member of this community are important and influential and the input you provide us will help to shape the final survey.

255

If you have any questions regarding this pilot study, please contact Kim D. Kirkland, Director, Equal Opportunity at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis at [email protected] or (317) 274-2306. You may also contact my dissertation chair, Dr. Patrick Pauken, at [email protected] or (419) 372-2550. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the chair of the Human Subjects Review Board at the University at (419) 372-7716 or [email protected].

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this important information. Again, please visit http://survey.bgsu.edu/surveys/EALS/academicmisconduct/academicmisconduct.htm to complete the survey.

Sincerely,

Kim D. Kirkland Director, Equal Opportunity Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Cc: Dr. Bill Knight Assistant Vice President for Planning and Accountability