Changing the Academic Integrity Climate on Campus Using a Technology-Based Intervention

Abstract

This article focuses on the use of a technology-based intervention to change academic integrity (AI) knowledge and attitudes. Using a sample of more than 5,000 freshman students drawn from two major midwestern universities in the United States over a 3-year period, an online intervention was used to determine whether AI knowledge and attitudes could be changed. Based the results of this study, AI knowledge and attitudes can be improved using an online intervention. These results contribute to a better understanding of the AI climate on campus and suggest that technology-based interventions can be used to enhance knowledge and change attitudes toward AI on campus.Students are faced with new levels of freedom upon entering college, pressures to perform, expectations of peers, confusion about policies, and hopefully a desire to learn. In this complex landscape of new experiences and competing priorities, what influences students' decisions to commit acts of academic dishonesty? According to Lawson (2004), students may believe that success in business is sometimes the result of unethical actions-that the practical implications of action are more important than the ethical implications of action. This attitude reflects a higher priority on "getting ahead" than on "doing the right thing" and is likely to strongly influence cheating behaviors in college. Consistent with this observation are data from a recent survey of 5,799 students by TLS Online Solutions (2015) indicating that 89% of students believe Correspondence should be addressed to Timothy cheating in college will lead to cheating later in life. Entangled with attitudes about ethical behaviors is the knowledge of "what is expected," and even "what constitutes a violation of AI." Jordan (2001) found that those who reported higher levels of cheating had a significantly lower level of understanding of academic integrity (AI) policy than those who did not cheat. Attitudes and knowledge about AI constitute two critical factors in determining AI violation intention and behavior.Reported incidents and scandals involving students' plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty and misconduct suggest that the AI climate on college and university campuses could indeed be improved (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004;Taylor, 2010). Recent cases, including a highly publicized one at the University of North Carolina (Stripling, 2014), continue to emphasize the urgent need for action. AI violations and ambivalent or dishonest attitudes regarding academic integrity persist and continue to be a challenge on university and college campuses. Lang (2013, pp. 12-15) indicated that as many as 65% to 82% of students have cheated, based on a review of surveys conducted on the extent of cheating. McCabe et al. (2012, pp. 35-71) presented a summary of students' engagement in nine types of cheating, indicating that the most prevalent types of cheating are collaborating on homework assignments when not allowed and getting exam questions or answers from another student who has already taken the exa...

Investigating Level of Academic Integrity on High School Students in the Industrial Revolution Era 4.0

“…Female students have a level of academic integrity (M = 1.49, SD = 0.70) higher than male students (M = 1.04, SD = 0.73, t (204) = -4.13 p> 0.05). The results of this study are in line with the results of previous studies, which showed that female students had higher academic integrity than male students [19][20][21][22]. The results of other studies also show that male students tend to commit more academic cheating than female students, or in other words, women have a higher level of academic integrity than men [23][24][25][26][27].…”

Can Online Academic Integrity Instruction Affect University Students’ Perceptions of and Engagement in Academic Dishonesty? Results From a Natural Experiment in New Zealand

“…Previous research has shown that such tutorials can be effective not only in increasing students’ knowledge of academic integrity (e.g., Curtis et al, 2013 ; Cronan et al, 2017 ) but also reducing their engagement in academic dishonesty (e.g., Belter and du Pré, 2009 ; Dee and Jacob, 2010 ; Owens and White, 2013 ; Zivcakova et al, 2014 ). However, there are important differences in how these academic integrity tutorials have been implemented and assessed in the existing research and the way in which they are being used (and often left unassessed) by an increasing number of universities.…”

Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy

“…Existing academic dishonesty prevention systems include using punishments and supervision [8], informing students about differences between honest and dishonest academic actions [9], adopting university honor codes [10], and educating students on how to write papers and conduct research correctly [11]. Although these methods lead to a reduction of academic dishonesty (see [12]), their problematic aspects include the possibility of achieving only a temporary change in behavior, limited impact on students' attitudes towards cheating, and a long implementation period [13,14]. Possible reasons for these difficulties include the fact that conventional prevention methods rarely address differences in students' personality and academic motivations, which may be associated with a tendency to cheat.…”