A Study of Faculty and Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty at a Large Public Midwestern University Tanisha Nicole Stevens University of Missouri-St
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Dissertations UMSL Graduate Works 1-4-2013 Promoting a Culture of Integrity: A Study of Faculty and Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty at a Large Public Midwestern University Tanisha Nicole Stevens University of Missouri-St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Stevens, Tanisha Nicole, "Promoting a Culture of Integrity: A Study of Faculty and Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty at a Large Public Midwestern University" (2013). Dissertations. 327. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/327 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROMOTING A CULTURE OF INTEGRITY: A STUDY OF FACULTY AND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AT A LARGE PUBLIC MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY by TANISHA N. STEVENS M.A., Human Development Counseling, Saint Louis University, 2002 B.A., Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999 A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ST. LOUIS In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in EDUCATION with an emphasis in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies December, 2012 Committee Shawn Woodhouse, Ph.D. Chairperson Patricia Boyer, Ph.D. Margaret Barton-Burke, Ph.D. Cody Ding, Ph.D. PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY ii COMMITTEE APPROVAL PAGE PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY iii ABSTRACT Research reveals that reducing academic misconduct requires an understanding of factors that influence the two key stakeholders in the epidemic: students who engage in academically dishonest behaviors and faculty who are charged with the responsibility of reporting and deterring the behavior (e.g., Prenshaw, Straughan & Albers-Miller, 2000). In response, a body of research reveals that in order to alter the environment in which academic dishonesty occurs, an understanding of how individuals perceive dishonesty and its severity is of great importance (Roberts & Rabinowitz, 1992). Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine faculty perceptions and student perceptions of academic dishonesty. The study involved 561 undergraduate students and 112 faculty members who primarily teach undergraduate courses at a large public Midwestern institution during the Fall Semester 2011. Participants completed an anonymous, online questionnaire that was composed of three preexisting scales: the Attitudes toward Academic Dishonesty Scale (Davis et al., 1992; Bolin, 2004), the Academic Dishonesty Scale (McCabe & Trevino, 1997c) and the Academic Integrity Survey (McCabe, 2008d). Utilizing a series of frequency counts, mean scores and one-way ANOVAs, similarities and differences were found within faculty perceptions and student perceptions for the dependent variables under study. Results of the study revealed statistically significant differences within faculty responses to student engagement in behaviors identified as academically dishonest and within student responses and faculty responses to perceptions of institutional policies and procedures that address dishonesty. Further, the results of the study support research that reveals students may not perceive certain behaviors as constituting dishonesty (e.g., Brown, 2002; Carpenter, Harding & Finelli, PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY iv 2006; Godfrey & Waugh, 1998; Rabi, Patton, Fjortoff & Zgarrick, 2005; Rakovsky & Levy, 2007) and that faculty perceptions of student engagement in specific behaviors identified as academically dishonest may be more negative than student self-reports of engagement (e.g., Nolan, Smith & Dai, 1998; Pe Symaco & Marcelo, 2002). PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “May the LORD now show you kindness and faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor because you have done this.” 2 Samuel 2:6 This process would not be complete until I acknowledge and thank those who have supported me on this “roller coaster” of a journey. My family…this accomplishment would not have been attainable if it was not for each one of you. To my husband, Ladarrius Stevens, thank you for being my strength during this process and for believing in me even in those moments in which I did not believe in myself. To my mother, Cynthia Smith and sister, Ebony Smith, I thank you for your encouragement, your prayers and your love. To my grandmother, Dorothy Emsweller, whose prayers were heartfelt and answered. To my daughters, Lanisha, Laniya, Lanora and Lanivia, this process should not only serve as a test of endurance and perseverance but also a testament to what hard work, faith and determination will bring you in this life. To my dissertation committee, I am truly honored that you all agreed to assist me on this journey. To my Chairperson, Dr. Shawn Woodhouse, I thank you for believing not only in my research but also for believing in me. To Dr. Pat Boyer, I thank you for your words (and revisions ) of encouragement. To Dr. Margaret Barton-Burke, I thank you for challenging me to think “outside of the box.” To Dr. Ding, I thank you for your knowledge and insight. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends, (my sisters in Christ) Cora Grandberry, Dr. Orinthia Montague and Natissia Small and my “partner in crime”, Dr. D’Andre Braddix. A special thank you to Barbara Trauterman for not only listening to my rants but also in sharing my joyous moments. And so it is written… PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….v TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………..vii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….4 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………7 Research Questions………………………………………………………………..8 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………...9 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...10 Delimitations……………………………………………………………………..11 Limitations……………………………………………………………………….12 Assumptions……………………………………………………………………...13 Definitions………………………………………………………………………..13 Summary…………………………………………………………………………15 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………...17 Research on Academic Dishonesty………………………………………………18 Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty…………………………………….18 Ambiguity in Definitions………………………………………………...19 Ambiguity in Academically Dishonest Behaviors……………………….21 Student Cheating Methods……………………………………………….24 Characteristics of Students who engage in Academically Dishonest Behaviors...25 Motivational Factors……………………………………………………..26 Decision Making…………………………………………………26 Self-Efficacy……………………………………………………..27 Perceived Opportunity…………………………………………...27 Grades…………………………………………………………….28 Diminishing Sense of Integrity…………………………………………..29 Lack of Self Control and Deviant Behavior……………………………..30 PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY vii Individual/Demographic Factors………………………………………...31 Age……………………………………………………………….31 Gender……………………………………………………………32 Race/Ethnicity……………………………………………………32 Contextual/Situational Factors…………………………………………...33 Peers……………………………………………………………...34 Fraternity/Sorority Membership…………………………………35 Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty…………………………………...36 Value Systems……………………………………………………………36 Student perceptions and Academic Majors………………………………38 Business………………………………………………………….38 Engineering………………………………………………………40 Healthcare………………………………………………………..41 Student Perceptions and Peers…………………………………………...44 Cross-Cultural Studies of Student Perceptions…………………………..45 Faculty Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty…………………………………...47 Faculty and Student Perceptions…………………………………………48 Responses to Academic Dishonesty……………………………………..55 Honor Codes/Institutional Policies………………………………56 Consequences of Reporting……………………………………...58 Moral Development and Reasoning……………………………………………...60 Kohlberg…………………………………………………………………61 Theory of Moral Reasoning……………………………………..62 Gilligan…………………………………………………………………..65 Moral Development Theory……………………………………...65 Rest………………………………………………………………………66 Four Component Model of Morality…………………………….67 Moral Reasoning and Academically Dishonest Behaviors………………………69 Summary…………………………………………………………………………74 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………….76 Research Design………………………………………………………………….76 PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY viii Research Questions…………………………………………………………........78 Hypothesis…………………………………………………………......................78 Sample Setting…………………………………………………………...............79 Sample Participants………………………………………………………………80 Sampling Procedures…………………………………………………………….81 Selection of Participants…………………………………………………81 Online Survey Instrument………………………………………………..81 Delivery of the Survey Instruments……………………………………...82 Data Collection…………………………………………………………..82 Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………..83 Measures…………………………………………………………………84 Attitudes toward Academic Dishonesty Scale…………………...84 Academic Dishonesty Scale……………………………………...85 Academic Integrity Scale………………………………………...86 Data Analyses……………………………………………………………………87 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….88 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/DISCUSSION……………………………………………......89 Introduction………………………………………………………………………89 Survey Instruments..……………………………………………………………..89 Participants…………………………………………………………………….....90 Demographics: Student Survey…………………………………………………..91 Engagement in Academic Dishonesty…………………………………………...93