Journal of Academic Ethics

, 9:217 | Cite as

Encouraging Active Classroom Discussion of Academic Integrity and Misconduct in Higher Education Business Contexts

  • Mark Baetz
  • Lucia Zivcakova
  • Eileen Wood
  • Amanda Nosko
  • Domenica De Pasquale
  • Karin Archer
Article

Abstract

The present study assessed business students’ responses to an innovative interactive presentation on academic integrity that employed quoted material from previous students as launching points for discussion. In total, 15 business classes (n = 412 students) including 2nd, 3rd and 4th year level students participated in the presentations as part of the ethics component of ongoing courses. Students’ perceptions of the importance of academic integrity, self-reports of cheating behaviors, and factors contributing to misconduct were examined along with perceptions about the presentation. Discussion sessions revealed that academic misconduct is a complex issue. For example, knowledge of what constitutes misconduct was not consistent across domains (e.g. exam contexts versus group work), penalties were not wholly known, and there was variation in perceived responsibility for reporting and representing academic integrity. Survey measures revealed that self-reported academic misconduct was more prevalent than expected with only 7.5% of students indicating they had never cheated in any way. Furthermore, results showed gender and year of study as predictive factors for issues related to academic misconduct. In general, students were receptive to this form of presentation. The implications of such instructional interventions for enhancing ethical behaviors in higher education classrooms are discussed.

Keywords

Academic integrity Academic misconduct Classroom discussion Classroom intervention Higher education 

References

  1. Abrami, P. C. (2001). Understanding and promoting complex learning using technology. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmon, D. E., Page, D., & Roberts, R. (2000). Determinants of perceptions of cheating: Ethical orientation, personality and demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bean, D. F., & Bernardi, R. A. (2005). Accounting ethics courses: A professional necessity. CPA Journal, 75(12), 64–65.Google Scholar
  4. Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2008). Toward a model of academic integrity institutionalization: Informing practice in postsecondary education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(2), 25–44.Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, P. J., Justice, M., & Weeks, S. (2009). Promoting academic integrity in a higher education context. The Community College Enterprise, 15(1), 45–61.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen Hughes, J. M., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Academic misconduct within higher education in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
  8. Compton, J., & Pfau, M. (2008). Inoculating against pro-plagiarism justifications: Rational and affective strategies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(1), 98–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 683–700.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, S., Drinan, P., & Bertram Gallant, T. (2009). Cheating in School: What we know and what we can do. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Delany, J. T., & Sockell, D. (1992). Do company ethics training programs make a difference? An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elzubier, M. A., & Rizk, D. E. (2003). Exploring perceptions and attitudes of senior medical students and interns on academic integrity. Medical Education, 37, 389–396.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, J. C., Christian, B., Dayman, J., Kaufman, D., & Schmidt, N. (2002). Understanding and reducing academic misconduct at the University of Guelph. A report and TSS Learning Commons Project prepared by the University of Guelph, November, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Kidwell, L. A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among university students on and off campus. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17, S3–S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirkland, K. D. (2010). Academic honesty: Is what students believe different from what they do? Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 70, 32–93.Google Scholar
  17. Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplation. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: William Morrow & Co.Google Scholar
  20. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Cheating among business students: A challenge for business leaders and educators. Journal of Management Education, 19, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and Contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus examination. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCabe, D. L., Feghali, T., & Abdallah, H. (2008). Academic dishonesty in the Middle East: Individual and contextual factors. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oduwaiye, R. O. (2005). Students’ perception of factors and solutions to examination malpractices in Nigerian universities: A case study of the University of Ilorin. Ilorin Journal of Education, 24, 146–148.Google Scholar
  25. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  26. Sahin, T. Y. (2003). Student teachers’ perceptions of instructional technology: Developing materials based on a constructivist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sims, R. R. (2004). Business ethics teaching: Using conversational learning to build an effective classroom environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soto, J. G., Anand, S., & McGee, E. (2004). Plagiarism Avoidance: An empirical study examining teaching strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 42–48.Google Scholar
  29. Stanovich, K. (2010). How to think straight about psychology. Boston: Pearson/Allyn Bacon.Google Scholar
  30. Staub, F., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 144–155.Google Scholar
  31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures ad techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2009). Faculty and peer influences on academic integrity: College cheating in Romania. Higher Education, 57(3), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Baetz
    • 1
  • Lucia Zivcakova
    • 2
  • Eileen Wood
    • 3
  • Amanda Nosko
    • 2
  • Domenica De Pasquale
    • 2
  • Karin Archer
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of BusinessWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations