Skip to main content

Assessing the Connection between Self-Efficacy for Learning and Justifying Academic Cheating in Higher Education Learning Environments

Abstract

This study was aimed at formulating a model to examine the potential value of perceived constructivist pedagogical practices in decreasing tendency to neutralize (justify) academic cheating through a psychological outcome of academic self-efficacy (SE), in three academic learning settings: new learning environments (NLE), traditional face-to-face learning environments (TLE) and distance learning environments (DLE). Data were collected from a sample of 289 undergraduate college students. Path analysis main results showed positive connections between the extent to which constructivist practices are present in the learning settings, as perceived by the participants, and SE, which in turn reduced the tendency toward justifying academic cheating. Analysis of variance results showed that most of the constructivist dimensions were perceived by students enrolled in the NLE as relatively highly present compared with the other groups. Moreover, NLE students held more positive academic SE beliefs and were less inclined toward academic cheating justification than the other groups. Interpretation of these results and implications for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(193), 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among in-service science teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouville, M. (2010). Why is cheating wrong? Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(1), 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Como, L., & Snow, E. R. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 605–629). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: differences related to gender, class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E., Clark, R., Williams, L., Francis, B., & Haines, V. J. (1996). College cheating: ten years later. Research in Higher Education, 37, 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, K. V., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. C. (1991). Sociomoral developmental delay and cognitive distortion: implications for the treatment of antisocial youth. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gerwitz (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development (Application, Vol. 3, pp. 95–110). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. C. (2003). Moral development and reality. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., Grime, R. L., & Snarey, J. R. (2007). Moral judgment development across cultures: revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Developmental Review, 27, 443–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grijalva, T., Kerkvliet, J., & Nowell, C. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College Student Journal, 40, 180–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., & Clark, R. C. (1986). College cheating: immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25, 342–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: the role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamir, O. (2007). Legal-cultural thinking model. Case study – lack of academic honesty and ‘honor system examination’. Din Udvarim, 4, 167–206. Hebrew.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanier, M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 244–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Kearseley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41, 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, T. B., Hale, N., & Weber, M. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 96–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Östlund, B. (2008). Prerequisites for interactive learning in distance education: perspectives from swedish students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulvers, K., & Diekhoff, G. M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Education, 40, 487–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheers, N. J., & Dayton, C. M. (1987). Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique. Research in Higher Education, 26, 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 31, 46–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., Davy, J., & Easterling, D. (2004). An examination of cheating and its antecedents among marketing and management majors. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, J., Young, M., & Calbrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 17, 233–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/stuber123.html.

  • Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: an exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topalli, V. (2005). When being good is bad: an expansion of neutralization theory. Criminology, 43, 797–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, J., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance behaviors in mathematics: a multi-method study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 355–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dinther, M., Filip, D., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandehey, M., Diekhoff, G. M., & LaBeff, E. (2007). College cheating: a twenty-year follow-up and the addition of an honor code. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 468–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E. J. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: a review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, T. H., Krauskopf, P. B., Gaylord, N. M., Ward, A., Huffstutler-Hawkins, S., & Goodwin, L. (2010). Cooperative M-learning with nurse practitioner students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 109–113.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorit Alt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alt, D. Assessing the Connection between Self-Efficacy for Learning and Justifying Academic Cheating in Higher Education Learning Environments. J Acad Ethics 13, 77–90 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9227-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9227-5

Keywords

  • Academic dishonesty
  • Academic self-efficacy
  • New learning environments