Has Anything Changed? Comparing Student Perceptions of Academic Integrity: 2006-2016

Academic integrity issues continue to challenge colleges and universities around the world. After a review of the relevant literature, the authors conclude that additional research is needed to understand and monitor academic integrity within institutions of higher education. This study explores student perceptions concerning academic integrity concepts and behaviors in two time frames ten years apart. In this comparative study, student attitudes toward academic situations, faculty behavior, and business decisions are assessed in 2006 and again in 2016. In general the two groups reported a similar overall pattern of responses. However, the students now perceive academic dishonesty as a non-acceptable norm. They also report that dishonesty causes long-term damage. The results contribute to understanding academic integrity in higher education over time. Implications for the academic environment are reviewed and the paper concludes with a discussion of the results and the implications for future research

Academic Integrity in Public and Private Universities: Exploring Faculty Perceptions, 2008-2014

Academic integrity issues among various constituencies challenge colleges and universities around the world. After a review of the relevant literature, the authors concluded that additional research was needed to understand and monitor academic integrity within institutions of higher education. This study explored faculty perceptions toward student academic integrity. The participants were faculty from public and private universities in selected business programs in the United States in 2008 and then again in 2014. Both similarities and differences in the two frames were examined. Essentially the study found a continuing faculty concern with student academic integrity. There appeared to be an increased awareness of the harm caused by academic dishonesty. Faculty in private schools expressed a higher level of concern than their peers in public institutions. The faculty in this study also noted an increase in the perceived level of punishment for dishonest student behaviors. In addition, faculty see themselves as positive role models for their students. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and the implications for future research

Student’s Attitudes toward Academic Dishonesty: An Exploration

Academic dishonesty in college/university classrooms is widely recognized as a serious problem (Offstein and Chory 2017). Studies indicate that academic dishonesty is pervasive. Klein, Levenburg, McKendall, and Mothersell (2007), report 40-80 percent of college students are involved in academic dishonesty, whereas McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviňo (2012), report 65-87 percent involvement. Studies also report that cheating activity is increasing (Forsha 2017; Pérez-Peňa 2012), facilitated by increasing levels of tolerance (where instances of academic dishonesty are overlooked by classroom instructors (Coren 2011)), and advances in technology (Best and Shirley 2018). Consequently, academic dishonesty has become an increasingly important area of concern and, likewise, an important area of study (Robinson and Glanzer 2017). Academic dishonesty is not a victimless activity. With the growth of cheating activity, the integrity of higher education is increasingly being questioned (Drye, Lomo-David, and Snyder 2018). Pervasive academic dishonesty prevents academic institutions from being able to certify that graduates have gained a specific level of knowledge and ability from their education (Yu, Glanzer, Johnson, Sriram, and Moore 2018). Academic dishonesty has also been connected with a number of other undesirable activities (Biswas 2014), including unethical work behaviors (Harding, Carpenter, Finelli, and Passow 2004). Several studies suggest that academic dishonesty primes students for continuing dishonesty in their subsequent employment (e.g., Harding, Carpenter, Finelli, and Passow 2004; Hsiao and Yang 2011; Nonis and Swift 2001; Yang, Huang, and Chen 2013). Consequently, recent highly publicized business scandals have focused renewed attention on cheating activities in the classroom (Rakovski and Levy 2007). Past ethics research has explored many important issues involving academic dishonesty, including the effectiveness of various tactics to reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty. Examples of these tactics include the implementation/enforcement of honor codes (McCabe, Treviño, and Butterfield 2001; Tatum and Schwartz 2017), required ethics courses (Medeiros et al. 2017), ethics instruction integrated into discipline-specific coursework (Desplaces, Melchar, Beauvais, and Bosco 2007), campus climate (Molar 2015), and the activities of faculty to fight dishonesty (Coalter, Lim, and Wanorie 2007). The attitudes of students toward academic dishonesty have also received a significant amount of research attention (e.g., Johns and Strand 2007). An area that has not received the same level of research attention involves the effects that students’ perceptions of the ethicality of their academic environment have on their attitudes toward academic dishonesty. Specifically, do students’ perceptions of the ethicality of their college/university, their faculty, and their student body affect their attitudes toward academic dishonesty? This is an important area of study since if students’ attitudes toward academic dishonesty are affected by their perceptions of the ethicality of their institution and their colleagues, it may be possible to affect students’ participation in academic dishonesty by affecting their perceptions of their school environment. To explore this issue, first, student academic dishonesty in higher education is examined. Second, hypotheses are developed and tested. Finally, conclusions are drawn

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: The Role of a Consumer Mentality in Higher Education and Exploring How it Can be Overcome

Serving and satisfying customers is often viewed as the primary function of businesses. Consequently, a customer orientation, or a focus on determining customers’ wants and needs and designing and offering products to satisfy them, is a key concept within marketing. Is the importance of a customer orientation also true in higher education? Several believe that it is. The answer to the question of who is the customer in higher education, however, is less clear. Historically, society was viewed to be the primary customer of higher education – the purpose of higher education was viewed to produce educated individuals who possess the knowledge and skills to serve society by serving as leaders in society and its primary institutions, including government and business. Arguably, this view of the purpose of higher educations has changed. Today, students are most often viewed as the customers of higher education. Indeed, when viewing the activities of colleges and universities, the extent to which a consumer mentality has been accepted and employed quickly becomes obvious. The promise of consumer (student) satisfaction is viewed to be key to attracting students and is an essential component of most university marketing programs. Not all agree with this assessment of the role of a consumer mentality in higher education, however. Several believe that a consumer mentality is antithetical to higher education, which logically raises an important question: Why would a customer mentality be appropriate for most organizations, but not higher education? The focus of this special session is to explore this issue

Childrearing and Helping Behaviors in Young Children

The purpose of this study was to investigate the parental socialization practices which may be associated with helping behaviors in young children. Symbolic interaction theory and the identification/internalization approach postulate that parental support, discipline style, and focus on responsibility are influential in the socialization process. The research was designed to explore both the simple association between each parental variable and the children's helping behaviors and the effective patterning of these parental influences. The sample for the study consisted of 53 children (22 boys; 31 girls) and their parents. The volunteer families were middle class, mostly two-parent, and affiliated with a college sponsored preschool. The parents completed a Parent Interview Questionnaire which consisted of a measure of parental support (Parental Acceptance – Rejection Questionnaire), discipline style (Hoffman discipline measure), and focus on responsibility (constructed for the study). The naturally occurring behaviors of the children were observed in their preschool and instances of aiding, comforting, sociability, and other behaviors were coded. The findings indicate that there is an association between parental focus on responsibility in the home and young children's helping behaviors. The findings concerning the relationship of parental support and discipline style to children's helping behaviors were more tentative. There was no evidence of a predictive or interactive influence of the parenting variables on young children's helping behaviors. The results were discussed in relation to theoretical predictions and previous research