Faculty Observables and Self-Reported Responsiveness to Academic Dishonesty

Abstract

Prior to 2009, a mid-sized Keywords: academic honesty, faculty, administration, honor code he cheating epidemic in universities across the world is well documented, with recent research taking the problem as given and examining factors that contribute to cheating or whether the problem is getting worse. In the effort to develop policies to prevent student cheating, many studies have focused on factors correlated with academic dishonesty. These factors broadly include individual student characteristics (age, gender, grade-point average, and membership in a fraternity or sorority), perceptions about the cheating of peers, whether professors are clear in defining cheating, and perceptions about the likelihood of being caught for cheating and the severity of penalties if caught. The research presented in this article contributes to the literature by focusing on changes in faculty vigilance and attitudes, rather than focusing on students, following the imposition of an honor code.While there is a growing consensus that cheating is a problem on academic campuses, the more difficult as well as more interesting topics may be causes and prevention methods. In general, students and faculty have substantially similar views of what is considered cheating. Roig and Ballew (1994) find that T

Exam Review Versus Categorical Feedback: Which Improves Scores by Doctor of Physical Therapy Students?

“…Academic dishonesty in higher education is highly reported, with some studies reporting greater than 90% of students engaged in academic dishonesty. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Promoting academic integrity on computer-based assessments while balancing the need for student feedback for learning is challenging. Assessments can become compromised when students receive KCR because this may allow subsequent students to narrow their review of the material or memorize answers from examinations.…”