Kansas State University Faculty Perspective, Opinions, and Practices Concerning Undergraduate Student Academic Dishonesty and Moral Development
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 465 330 HE 034 970 AUTHOR Marcoux, Helene Elizabeth TITLE Kansas State University Faculty Perspective, Opinions, and Practices Concerning Undergraduate Student Academic Dishonesty and Moral Development. PUB DATE 2002-00-00 NOTE 316p.; Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Kansas State University. PUB TYPE Dissertations/Theses Doctoral Dissertations (041) Tests/Questionnaires (160) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC13 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Cheating; *Codes of Ethics; *College Faculty; College Students; Focus Groups; Higher Education; Knowledge Level; *Moral Values; Plagiarism; *Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Role; Teacher Surveys IDENTIFIERS *Kansas State University ABSTRACT A study with both quantitative and qualitative components was conducted with undergraduate teaching faculty at Kansas State University for fall 1999 to spring 2001 to study faculty role in addressing cheating at the collegiate level and faculty awareness of the University's honor system and cheating policies. Data were gathered through a variety of methods and techniques. Two focus groups involving 10 teaching faculty members helped refine a survey developed by the researcher, and a campus-wide survey was then conducted. From 339 to 365 responses per question were received from undergraduate teaching faculty. Offered in the survey was the opportunity to be interviewed about personal experiences with academically dishonest students, and 13 faculty members responded and were interviewed. The researcher also observed faculty members communicating information about academic dishonesty to students. Findings show that faculty perceptions about what constitutes cheating differ, suggesting the need for more dialogue among faculty members to develop a better consensus about what is academic dishonesty and what is acceptable behavior, especially in the area of collaboration. Most faculty members reported familiarity with the University's honor system, but only a minority indicated that they were familiar or very familiar with the policy or procedures of the system. National figures suggest that there is much cheating at the college level, and Kansas State University appears to have its share of episodes. However, faculty responses to this student behavior varied greatly, and they indicated that they had not received training in how to handle academic dishonesty. Some specific recommendations are made to provide further opportunities for faculty to discuss academic dishonesty and receive training in the honor system. Fifteen appendixes contain supplemental information and materials used in the surveys and interviews. (Contains 33 tables and 144 references.) (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERSPECTIVE, OPINIONS. AND, PRACTICES CONCERNING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND MORAL -DEVELOPMENT by HELENE ELIZABETH MARCOUX B.S., North Texas State University, 197417.- M.S., Emporia State University, 1986 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the dearee DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling and Educational Psycholoay College of Education KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan. Kansas 2002 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY Office of Educational Research and improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) %M. gyr5rdocument has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. ID Minor changes have been made to TO THE EDUCATIONAL improve reproduction quality. INFORMATION RESOURCES CENTER (ERIC) Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. BEST COPY AVAILABLE ABSTRACT Much of the research on academic dishonesty heretofore has been conducted with a student perspective. A review of literature revealed a need for research on faculty's role in addressing cheating at the collegiate level, specifically the dissemination of information and the handling of student academic misconduct. Additionally, a deeper insight was needed into whether faculty use a student development perspective when addressing academic dishonesty issues. This study has both quantitative and qualitative components and was conducted with participating undergraduate teaching faculty at Kansas State University (KSU) during four semesters from fall 1999 to spring 2001. Since KSU implemented a modified honor system in fall 1999, this study also partially describes faculty's awareness of its policy and procedures. Data-gathering was conducted with a variety of methods and techniques. Initially, two focus groups of faculty helped to refine a survey designed by the researcher. The focus group transcripts turned into a rich source of data about faculty roles in relation to students' academic dishonesty. A campus-wide survey was then conducted on a population of full time, undergraduate teaching faculty. Offered in the survey the opportunity to be interviewed about personal experiences with academically dishonest student behavior, several faculty responded and were interviewed. Throughout the two- year study, the researcher also conducted first-day sessions to observe faculty practices in communicating information on academic dishonesty. Artifacts such as the university mission statement and instructor syllabi were also analyzed. 3 Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered.from KSU undergraduate teaching faculty resulted in deeper insights into how participatinu. faculty (1) made meaning of the termacademic dishonesty;(2) responded to scenarios of student misconduct; (3) reported the dissemination of both verbal and written information about cheating and the KSU Undergraduate Honor System; (4) reported handling personal episodes of student cheating; (5) reported being trained or given orientation on academic dishonesty issues; and (6) whether faculty had a student development perspective when addressing academic misconduct. 4 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERSPECTIVE. OPINIONS, AND PRACTICES CONCERNING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT by HELENE ELIZABETH MARCOUX B.S.. North Texas State University, 1974 M.S., Emporia State University. 1986 A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology College of Education KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2002 Approved by: Dr. Gerald Hanna Major Professor 5 COPYRIGHT KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERSPECTIVE, OPINIONS, AND PRACTICES CONCERNING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT HELENE ELIZABETH MARCOUX 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Tables vii Acknowledgments Dedication xii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 Purpose of the Study 5 Guiding Questions of the Study 6 Definition of Terms 7 Academic Dishonesty 7 Student Moral Judgment Development 9 Undergraduate Teaching Faculty 10 Participating Faculty 10 Faculty Perspective, Opinions, and Practices 10 Significance of the Study 11 Setting 13 Kansas State University 13 Historical Context 14 Limitations of the Study 16 Chapter II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 17 Introduction 17 Ethical Theory 17 Principle Ethics 17 Casuistic Ethics 18 Virtue Ethics 19 Relational Ethics ')0 Moral Judgment Development ,1 Lawrence Kohlberg 21 Carol Gilligan 25 James Rest 30 College Environment 33 William Perry 33 Earnest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini 36 Arthur Chickering and Lori Reisser 37 Academic Dishonesty 38 Introduction 38 Description and Definition 39 Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty 40 Characteristics of Violators 42 Circumstances Related to Academic Dishonesty 44 Strategies for Controlling Academic Dishonesty 46 Summary 49 7 Chapter III. METHODS AND PROCEDTURES 50 Introduction and Overview 50 Research Design 50 Researcher's Biases or Presuppositions Components of the Study 54 The Undergraduate Teaching Faculty Survey 54 Description 54 Rationale 55 Participants 55 Procedures 57 Pilot Testing with Focus Groups 58 Description 58 Rationale 59 Participants 59 Procedures 60 Pre-survey Evaluation 61 Description 61 Rationale 61 Participants 61 Procedures 61 Survey Faculty Interviews 62 Description 61 Rationale 63 Participants 63 Procedures 63 Non-participant Observation 64 Description 64 Rationale 65 Selection of Classrooms to Observe 65 Artifacts 66 Description 66 Rationale 66 Selection of Artifacts 67 Instrumentation 67 Questionnaire 67 Construction 67 Page 1 68 Page 2 68 Page 3 69 Page 4 69 Page 5 70 Page 6 71 Analyses 71 Analysis of Survey Data 71 Analysis of Qualitative Components Summary 76 ii 8 Chapter 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS 78 Introduction 78 Kansas State University Undergraduate Honor System 79 Definition of a Modified Honor System 79 Early History of the KSU Honor System 81 1994 Principles of Biology 101 Cheating Episode 81 Structure and Implementation of the KSU Honor System 84 Beginnings 84 Mission Statement 84 The Honor Pledge 85 The Honor Council 85 Faculty Reporting Procedure 85 Case Procedure 86 H.I.P.E.-Believe It! 87 Case Adjudication 88 The XF Sanction 88 The Academic Integrity Course 88 The Honor System Web Site 89 Summary 91 Demographics of Study Participants 92 Focus Group Participants Survey Participants 93 Non-participant Observation Faculty 96 Self-Selected Survey Faculty Interview Participants 96 Summary 97 Response Rates for the Campus-Wide Survey 97 Returned Questionnaires 97 Qualifying