Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore faculty and students’ perceptions on the issue of technology-facilitated academic misconduct contemporaneously; to gain insight as to how current technologies contribute to academic misconduct, and how perceptions influence policy and practice.

An interpretive qualitative approach was used to explore participants’ perceptions. Data were collected through observations, interviews, and document analysis.

Results suggest that while faculty restrict technology in order to decrease opportunity for students to engage in academic misconduct, such technology restrictions may contribute to an increase in student rationalization. Faculty perceive that the restrictions reduce the instances of academic misconduct by reducing the opportunity technology affords. Student perceptions reflect an increase in rationalization that may result in an increase in academic misconduct that seems to be a student response to restrictive policies. Efforts to reduce academic misconduct may need to focus more on positive and proactive approaches to integrating technology rather than restricting or policing technology.

Few studies have explored both faculty and student perceptions about the role of technology and its impact on academic misconduct contemporaneously, and few attempts have been made to qualitatively assess these issues. Findings may help guide the development of innovative teaching practices that embrace technology and provide incentives for faculty to adapt their instructional methods.

The purpose of this paper is to show that academic misconduct appears to be on the rise; some research has linked academic misconduct to unethical workplace behaviors. Unlike previous empirically‐driven research, this theory‐based study seeks to examine the usefulness of a modification of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to predict academic misconduct.

A total of 271 students enrolled at a US university were surveyed. Structural equation modeling was used to test the model.

The modified theory of a planned behavior model in which intentions and justifications both serve as antecedents to behavior fits the data well. The model accounted for 22 per cent of the variance in intentions to cheat and 47 per cent of the variance in self‐reported cheating.

The primary limitations of this research are the cross‐sectional research design, the self‐selected sample, and the single source of survey data.

The study extends the TPB model in the prediction of misconduct behavior. Attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral control, intentions and justifications were related to cheating behaviors. Academic misconduct may be reduced by shaping attitudes toward cheating, changing perceptions of subjective norms regarding the prevalence of cheating, and lowering students' perceptions of their control of cheating by, for example, emphasis on the consequences of getting caught. Understanding and reducing academic misconduct are important for promoting ethical behavior and values in future worker and organization leaders.

Identification of factors that influence academic misconduct is an important aspect of professional development research, given its link to workplace misconduct. To date, academic misconduct research has been primarily empirically‐ rather than theory‐driven. The current study identifies factors that contribute to academic misconduct by extending an established theoretical model of behavior.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the fraud triangle, Machiavellianism, academic misconduct and corporate social responsibility (CSR) proclivity of students.

The present study surveyed 471 university students. The study was cross-sectional and employed structural equation modelling in statistical modelling.

The study provides evidence that perceived opportunity to cheat in examinations is the single most important factor accounting for significant variations in rationalization and academic misconduct. Similarly, low Machiavellians significantly get inclined to CSR ideals. The fraud triangle alone accounts for 36 per cent of the variations in academic misconduct, hence the error variance is 64 per cent of academic misconduct itself. This error variance increases to 78 per cent when a combination of perceived opportunity, rationalization, Machiavellianism is considered. Moreover, both Machiavellianism and academic misconduct account for 17 per cent of variations in students’ proclivity to CSR ideals.

Results imply that creating a setting that significantly increases a student's anticipated negative affect from academic misconduct, or effectively impedes rationalization ex ante, might prevent some students from academic misconduct in the first place and then they will become good African corporate citizens. Nevertheless, although the unit of analysis was students, these were from a single university – something akin to a case study. The quantitative results should therefore be interpreted with this shortcoming in mind.

This paper contributes to the search for predictors of academic misconduct in the African setting and as a corollary, for a theory explaining academic misconduct. Those students perceiving opportunity to cheat in examinations are also able to rationalize and hence engage in academic misconduct. This rationalization is enhanced or reduced through Machiavellianism.

This paper aims to examine academic dishonesty and research misconduct, two forms of academic fraud, and provides suggestions for future research informed by criminological theory.

After reviewing prior literature, this paper outlines four general criminological theories that can explain academic fraud.

While criminological theory has been applied to some studies of academic dishonesty, research misconduct has rarely been examined within a broader theoretical context.

This paper provides a blueprint for future theoretically informed analyses of academic fraud.

This paper represents a unique attempt to apply general criminological theories to diverse forms of fraud in higher education settings.

The purpose of this paper is to compare students' and faculty members' perceptions of academic integrity; their understanding of experiences pertaining to different aspects of academic misconduct (e.g. plagiarism); and to examine the underlying reasons behind academic integrity violations in a Hong Kong context.

A mixed methods approach comprising quantitative and qualitative methodologies was used. First, a quantitative survey was conducted with students and faculty. Results from the survey were used to generate interview questions for an interview‐based qualitative study, which consisted of individual interviews for faculty members and focus group interview for students.

Results from both the survey and interviews showed that faculty members and students do not share a consensus on the definition of the seriousness of plagiarism and collusion. Students, in general, commit misconduct due to academic work, pressure for grades, and teachers' unclear instructions of academic integrity. Faculty members rarely report cases of misconduct to the university and handle the cases according to their own standard.

The topic of academic integrity has received increased attention in the past decade from college and university teachers and administrators around the world. Plagiarism is amongst the most widely studied acts of dishonesty in the area of academic behavior in universities world‐wide. Not many studies have investigated other acts of academic dishonesty and teachers' perception of academic integrity, especially in the Chinese context. The findings from this study provide useful insights for educators to implement academic honesty education programs, especially within the Chinese context, and especially in Hong Kong. The results also provide the foundations in developing an online academic integrity tutorial for the sampled institution.

While there is no dearth of studies on ethical issues, the specific subject of examination misconduct has attracted fewer studies, especially in Africa. This study is an ongoing exploratory attempt to develop a measure of examination misconduct. Self‐administered questionnaires were used to collect data from 450 undergraduate business students of the Universities of Botswana and Swaziland. A nine‐item measure of examination misconduct was correlated with a measure of perception of business ethics, ethical value assessment and Hofstede's four dimensions of culture. The results indicated significant inter‐correlations among the variables (especially the three measures of ethics) and limited construct validity for the examination misconduct scale. The results of factor analysis suggest three factors for the emerging scale: cheating behaviour, intervention and desperation. The ethical inferences of the findings, managerial implications for university administrators and practitioners, study limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the shift of assessments online and the potential impact on academic integrity and misconduct. The rapid pivot to online teaching as a result of COVID19 and our experiences in the accounting academy is the embodiment of the phrase “may you live in interesting times”. As teaching and learning activities shifted online, so did assessment of student learning. A topic of great discussion amongst faculty is whether accounting exams should be invigilated online and whether exams should be used at all to assess student learning.

This paper uses personal reflections and experiences to analyse the tensions between the risk of academic misconduct, maintaining assessment security and accreditation requirements of professional accounting bodies during the shift of assessment tasks online in 2020. These tensions are analysed using the fraud triangle framework (Cressey, 1973).

Students face incentives and pressures to engage in misconduct, opportunities that arise from online learning and assessment, and hold complex perceptions around their attitudes towards academic integrity and rationalisations of misconduct behaviour.

Suggestions are made as to how the accounting academy can move forward, taking advantages of online assessment, while still ensuring that our graduates are meeting the competencies required to join the accounting profession.

This paper aims to survey students and faculty from the College of Engineering at an American university in the United Arab Emirates about their perception on different issues related to academic dishonesty. Opinions were sought on plagiarism, inappropriate collaboration, cheating on exams, copyright violations and complicity in academic dishonesty. Reasons for students to commit dishonest acts and ways to reduce academic misconduct were also included.

A survey involving 11 questions with multiple choice answers was developed and distributed to engineering students and faculty at the institution to get their perception of the considered issues.

Results of the study showed that while faculty and students were generally in agreement in their perception of the frequency of academic dishonesty among students, they greatly differed on the courses of action needed to reduce them. Most faculty members favored applying tougher penalties and using more proctors in exams. On the other hand, students preferred softer approaches such as educating them on academic integrity issues, applying lenient deadlines for assignments and reducing the difficulty of exams.

The conclusions and recommendations of the study are applicable to colleges of higher education having similar characteristics and culture to the surveyed institution.

The findings can be used to understand students’ behavior and faculty’s attitude toward academic dishonesty, and to assess the effectiveness of current strategies addressing the issue at similar universities in the region.

The conducted literature review indicated that this work is believed to be a pioneering case study in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

This study aims to address a systematic literature review (SLR) using bibliometrics on the relationship between academic integrity and artificial intelligence (AI), to bridge the scattering of literature on this topic, given the challenge and opportunity for the educational and academic community.

This review highlights the enormous social influence of COVID-19 by mapping the extensive yet distinct and fragmented literature in AI and academic integrity fields. Based on 163 publications from the Web of Science, this paper offers a framework summarising the balance between AI and academic integrity.

With the rapid advancement of technology, AI tools have exponentially developed that threaten to destroy students' academic integrity in higher education. Despite this significant interest, there is a dearth of academic literature on how AI can help in academic integrity. Therefore, this paper distinguishes two significant thematical patterns: academic integrity and negative predictors of academic integrity.

This study also presents several contributions by showing that tools associated with AI can act as detectors of students who plagiarise. That is, they can be useful in identifying students with fraudulent behaviour. Therefore, it will require a combined effort of public, private academic and educational institutions and the society with affordable policies.

This study proposes a new, innovative framework summarising the balance between AI and academic integrity.

Popular views of plagiarism are based on the concept of original authorship and the moral and economic implications of it. Plagiarism itself is usually linked with academic misconduct by students and by teachers/lecturers/writers. Reaction by institutions and professional groups tends to be one of discipline and punishment, at times in law, most often by gatekeeping bodies. The growth of the Internet has made gatekeeping difficult. Academic life tries to balance gatekeeping with facilitation, and this dialectic presents real challenges today, above all where collaborative writing is concerned. Post‐modern views of authors and texts add to the complexity. It is suggested that popular views of plagiarism may not be flexible enough.