Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 137–150 | Cite as

Examining the Impact of Dons Providing Peer Instruction for Academic Integrity: Dons’ and Students’ Perspectives

  • Lucia Zivcakova
  • Eileen Wood
  • Gail Forsyth
  • Navinder Dhillon
  • Danielle Ball
  • Brittany Corolis
  • Amanda Coulas
  • Stephen Daniels
  • Joshua Hill
  • Anja Krstic
  • Amy Linseman
  • Marjan Petkovski
Article

Abstract

A peer instruction model was used whereby 78 residence dons (36 males, 42 females) provided instruction regarding academic integrity for 324 students (125 males, 196 females) under their supervision. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to assess survey responses from both the dons and students regarding presentation content, quality, and learning. Overall, dons consistently identified information-based slides about academic integrity as the most important material for the presentations, indicating that fundamental information was needed. Although student ratings of the usefulness of the presentations were middling, students did indicate knowledge gains. Both interest and personal value for academic integrity were highly predictive of positive evaluations of the presentations. Dons and students provided suggestions for improvement and identified more global concerns.

Keywords

Peer instruction Instructional intervention Teaching academic integrity Students 

References

  1. Allen, T., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baetz, M., Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Nosko, A., De Pasquale, D., & Archer, K. (2011). Encouraging active classroom discussion of academic integrity and misconduct in higher education business contexts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(3), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balfakih, N. M. A. (2003). The effectiveness of Student Team-Achievement Division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bean, D. F., & Bernardi, R. A. (2005). Accounting ethics courses: A professional necessity. CPA Journal, 75(12), 64–65.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Black, C. (2010). The dynamic classroom: Engaging students in higher education. Madison: Atwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, C. A., & McIlroy, K. (2011). Group work in healthcare students’ education: What do we think we are doing? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buff, C. L., & Yonkers, V. (2005). Using student generated codes of conduct in the classroom to reinforce business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 727–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang, H. P., & Lederman, N. G. (1994). The effects of levels of cooperation within physical science laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman, H. (2005). Towards effective group-work in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 26, 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., Diener, E., & Kelem, R. T. (1977). Two, three, or four heads are better than one: Modification of college performance by peer monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillies, R. M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students’ behaviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29(3), 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldschmid, B., & Goldschmid, M. (1976). Peer teaching in higher education: A review. Higher Education, 5, 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hendershott, A., Drinan, P., & Cross, M. (2000). Toward enhancing a culture of academic integrity. NASPA Journal, 37(4), 587–593.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. King, A. (1995). Cognitive strategies for learning from direct teaching. In E. Wood, V. E. Woloshyn, & T. Willoughby (Eds.), Cognitive strategy instruction for middle and high schools (pp. 18–65). Cambridge: Brookline.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Leidenfrost, B., Strassnig, B., Schabmann, A., Spiel, C., & Carbon, C. C. (2011). Peer mentoring styles and their contribution to academic success among mentees: A person-oriented study in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(3), 347–364.Google Scholar
  25. Nordberg, D. (2008). Group projects: More learning? less fair? a conundrum in assessing postgraduate business education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Payne, B., Monk-Turner, E., Smith, D., & Sumter, M. (2006). Improving group work: Voices of students. Education, 126, 441–448.Google Scholar
  27. Polonsky, M. J. (1998). Incorporating ethics into business students’ research projects: A process approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1227–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Postholm, M. (2008). Group work as a learning situation: A qualitative study of a university classroom. Teachers and Teaching, 14, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Sherman, L. W., & Thomas, M. (1986). Mathematics achievement in cooperative versus individualistic goal-structured high school classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 79, 169–172.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52–54.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Education Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Topping, K. J., Thurston, A., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Murray, P., & Karagiannidou, E. (2011). Cooperative learning in science: Intervention in the secondary school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 746–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Zivcakova
    • 1
  • Eileen Wood
    • 1
  • Gail Forsyth
    • 1
  • Navinder Dhillon
    • 1
  • Danielle Ball
    • 1
  • Brittany Corolis
    • 1
  • Amanda Coulas
    • 1
  • Stephen Daniels
    • 1
  • Joshua Hill
    • 1
  • Anja Krstic
    • 1
  • Amy Linseman
    • 1
  • Marjan Petkovski
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations