New Research in Academic Misconduct Interventions

Topics: Blog, Research

Locquaio, J & Ives, B. (in press). First-year university students’ knowledge of academic misconduct (AM) and the association between goals for attending university and receptiveness of intervention. International Journal for Educational Integrity.

BACKGROUND The scholarly literature on academic integrity at the post-secondary level reports that:

  •  AM has been associated with inaccurate assessments and degrees that do not reflect accomplishments (Bouville, 2010; Munoz-Garcia & Aviles-Herrera, 2014), workplace misconduct (Nonis & Swift, 2001; Sims, 2010), and damage to the reputations of institutions of higher education (Downes, 2017; Engler et al., 2008, Soutar & Turner, 2002).
  • 50-80% of students in countries around the world acknowledge engaging in some kind of academic misconduct, typically plagiarism and cheating (Brimble & Stevenson-Clarke, 2005; Ives & Giukin, 2019; McCabe et al., 2012.
  • Students often disagree with faculty and each other about what constitutes AM (Burrus et al., 2007; Carpenter et al., 2010; Keener et al., 2019).
  • Both the quality and quantity of research on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce AM is limited (Baird & Clare, 2017; Ives & Nehrkorn, 2019; L. L. Marshall & Vernon, 2017; Obeid & Hill, 2017).

METHODS For this study, 356 first-year college students at a top-tier research university completed a self-paced online training program on academic integrity (AI) expectations as part of their orientation as new students. The students responded to items about their:

  • Knowledge of citations/references and cheating.
  • Goal type (intrinsic, extrinsic, or both) for attending college.
  • Receptiveness towards AM intervention.

Responses to these three topics were coded using Quantitative Content Analysis (Quant-CA) as described by Neuendorf (2002). Using this approach, we applied a priori categories to each response based on what the item was asking. Then each response was identified as nonresponsive, basic, or advanced, depending on the number and types of codes applied to each response, using predetermined criteria.

FINDINGS The authors of this study found that:

  • Students typically had beginner knowledge of citations/references. For example, they could describe what a citation looked like, but not the purpose of citations.
  • Students typically described citations/references in terms of procedures, and cheating in terms of consequences.
  • A large majority of students reported extrinsic goals for attending college.
  • A large majority of students reported neutral or positive views about AI training.
  • There was no significant relationship between the type of goals students reported (extrinsic/intrinsic) and their views about the value of the AI training.

WHAT’S NEXT We have recently collected anonymous data from more than 2,000 students of the same university on their engagement with AM. Our plan is to continue to implement and update the module in an increasing proportion of incoming students. In a few years we will collect data on student engagement in AM again, along with whether or not they have completed the AI training program. This should allow us to estimate the effect, if any, of the AI training program.

**note: The AI training program was created within the WebCampus/Canvas learning management system. The authors are happy to share the most recent update of the program with others who would be interested in implementation, with the hope of collecting data from a wider range of students.

REFERENCES:

Baird, M., & Clare, J. (2017). Removing the opportunity for contract cheating in business capstones: A crime prevention case study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), 6. doi:10.100740979-017-0018-1

Bouville, M. (2010). Why is cheating wrong? Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9148-0

Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19-44.

Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter? The Journal of Economic Education, 38(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.1.3-17

Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., & Finelli, C. J. (2010). Using research to identify academic dishonesty deterrents among engineering undergraduates. International Journal Engineering Education, 26(5), 1156-1165.

Downes, M. (2017). University scandal, reputation and governance. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0019-0

Engler, J. N., Landau, J. D., & Epstein, M. (2008). Keeping up with the Joneses: Students’ perceptions of academically dishonest behavior. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 99-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280801978418

Ives, B., & Giukin, L. (2020). Patterns and Predictors of Academic Dishonesty in Moldovan University Students. Journal of Academic Ethics 18 (1) 71-88. 10.1007/s10805-019-09347-z

Ives, B. & Nehrkorn, A. (2019). A Research Review: Post-Secondary Interventions to Improve Academic Integrity. In D. Velliaris (Ed.), Prevention and Detection of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education, Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Keener, T. A., Galvez Peralta, M., Smith, M., Swager, L., Ingles, J., Wen, S., & Barbier, M. (2019). Student and faculty perceptions: Appropriate consequences of lapses in academic integrity in health sciences education. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1645-4

Marshall, L. L., & Vernon, A. W. (2017). Attack on academic dishonesty: What ‘lies’ ahead? Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 13(2), 31–40.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Munoz-Garcia, A., & Aviles-Herrera, M. J. (2014). Effects of academic dishonesty on dimensions of spiritual well-being and stasifaction: A comparative study of secondary school and university students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 349-363

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320109599052

Obeid, R., & Hill, D. B. (2017). An intervention designed to reduce plagiarism in a research methods classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 155–159. doi:10.1177/0098628317692620

Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117614

Soutar, Geoffrey & Turner, Julia. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management. 16. 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210415523

About the Author
Bob Ives is an Associate Professor at the University of Nevada, Reno in the United States. His publications include research in academic integrity in higher education, international higher education, and diversity issues in education. He teaches undergraduate courses for licensure in special education, and graduate courses in research methods and statistics.
css.php