• No results found

Academic Dishonesty: Why Business Students Participate in these Practices?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Academic Dishonesty: Why Business Students Participate in these Practices?"

Copied!
5
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 ( 2013 ) 152 – 156

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.076

ScienceDirect

6

th

International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012)

Academic dishonesty: Why business students participate in these

practices?

Hadijah Iberahim

a

*, Norashikin Hussein

b

, Nusrah Samat

c

, Fauziah Noordin

d

,

Normala Daud

e

abcdeeFaculty of Business Management, University Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia

Abstract

Academic dishonesty is a serious problem in schools, colleges, and universities worldwide. Past studies show a high correlation between the frequency of cheating at university/college and the frequency of cheating at work, suggesting that dishonest behaviour is not situation specific. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the reasons students engage in academic dishonesty among business students at one of the public universities in Malaysia. A total of 610 sets of questionnaire survey were collected across 11 programs offered by the faculty. The findings revealed that most students participated in academic dishonesty because the lecturer did not mind the behaviour. This is followed by the assignment / material is irrelevant to the subject and peer-pressure environment. Implications and future research directions are discussed. © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia. Keywords: academic dishonesty;; misconduct; cheating.

1. Introduction

Presently, there is still limited evidence of academic dishonesty in Asian countries (Teixeira & Rocha, 2010). A few studies highlight that there is a high prevalence rate of cheating among Asian students. A study by Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara and Yusukawa (1999) reported that 55.4 percent of Japanese students cheated on a test while according to Shen’s (1995) study, 85 percent of the subjects cheated on examinations, in junior colleges in southern Taiwan. Lin and Wen (2007) highlighted that it is important to start investigating this issue in Asian countries for two reasons: Firstly, Asian countries have been becoming one of the major players in

* Hadijah Iberahim. Tel.: +603-5544-4742; fax+603-5544-4693.

E-mail address:hadijah6553@salam.uitm.edu.my

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

(2)

world economy. Their university students will soon play effective roles in the workforce. Their ethical perceptions and behaviors during university education could be carried to their future careers. Therefore, it is essential to start studying the perceptions and behaviors of these university students on the issue of academic dishonesty. Secondly, Asian students have been major foreign students in many western countries, such as the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Therefore, Lin and Wen (2007) concluded that it is eminent for these countries’ educators to be aware of the academic dishonesty behaviors of their foreign prospective students. Furthermore, many researchers (e.g., Kidwell, Wozniak & Laurel, 2003; Rawwas, Al- Khatib, & Vitell, 2004; Williams & Hosek, 2003) highlighted the negative consequences if this issue is not being addressed accordingly.

To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there is a limited published studies conducted in institutions of higher learning especially in Malaysia that deal with academic dishonesty. Furthermore there is an increased importance to find out the severity of the academic dishonesty problem in institution of higher learning, since university students are the future major workforces and leaders in the society. Their unethical behaviors now would be problems for work place or even the whole society in the future such as in the case of Enron and WorldCom; the case of unethical behaviour of the trusted staff that have brought about willful corporate fraud and corruption which resulted in one of the largest bankruptcy ever in the 2000s.

Therefore, the main objective of this study is to (1) to examine the demographic profile of students responded in this study; (2) to investigate the reasons students engage in academic dishonesty. It is hoped that the findings of this study will enlighten the educators and the management of the institutions of higher learning on the factors that cause and maintain cheating behaviour, in order to be in a better position to promote and engender ethical attitudes and behaviour among students.

2. Literature Review

Previous research on this topic have investigated several reasons students engage in academic dishonesty such as poor academic standards, class sizes, increased competition for jobs, distance learning technologies and access to unlimited resources on the internet (Burton, Talpade, & Haynes, 2011). Jones (2011) conducted on 48 business communication students in the United States, reveals the top three reasons students engage in academic dishonesty which were grades (92%), procrastination (83%), and too busy which lead to not enough time to complete assignment or study for test (75%). Pullen, Ortloff, Casey and Payne (2000) also found interesting results suggesting that causal factors of various academic dishonesty ranging from large classes, impersonal relationships with professors, competition for jobs, gaining higher grade point average (GPAs) in order to enter graduate school, to cheating culture that is accepted by the community. Other researchers offer the following additional reasons for why students cheat: (a) genuine lack of understanding of what is plagiarism (Park, 2003), (b) efficiency gain (Park; Payne & Nantz, 1994), (c) time management problems (Lambert et al., 2003; Park, Payne, & Nantz,1994), (d) personal values (Park; Payne & Nantz, 1994), (e) defiance or lack of respect for authority (Park, 2003), (f) negative attitudes toward teachers or classes (Park; Payne & Nantz, 1994), (g) temptation or opportunity (Park, 2003), (h) a lack of deterrence (Park; Payne & Nantz,1994), (i) a personal crisis (Lambert et al.,1994), (j) peer pressure (Payne & Nantz,1994), and (k) a view of cheating as having a minimal effect on others (Payne & Nantz,1994). To conclude, it is commonly understood that the overriding reason was performance. Similarly, a review of literature by Synder and Cannoy (2010) found that students cited very similar reasons for engaging in academic misconduct.

Brown (1996) found few differences by major for academic dishonesty whereas others (e.g., Meade, 1992; Park, 2003) found that business students ranked highest for self-reported levels of cheating, followed by engineering and humanities students. Brown (1995) later found the ethics of graduate business students similar to those of undergraduates, despite graduate students perceiving themselves as more ethical than undergraduates. Teixeira and Rocha (2010) in a cross country study on academic dishonesty reported that the average magnitude

(3)

of copying among economics and business undergraduate is quite high which is at 62 percent. Brown, Weible and Olmosk (2010) also reported that the percentage in cheating in undergraduate management classes in 2008 was close to 100 percent compared to 49 percent in 1988. Therefore it is fair to conclude that business school students are more likely to engage in academic misconduct compared to students in other programs.

3. Methodology

This study is designed using a student self-report survey questionnaire. Student self-report is the most common method for assessing cheating and has been shown to provide reasonably accurate estimates (Finn & Frone, 2004). Contacts were made with lecturers of business faculty in one of the public universities in Malaysia to request for their assistance in the distributions of questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered in classes during students’ regularly scheduled class times. Given the sensitive nature of the questions, respondents were repeatedly told, orally and in writing, that their responses would be anonymous and confidential. The survey questionnaire included two sections. The first part consisted of demographic information questions. The second part comprised of the students’ views on the reasons they engage in academic dishonesty. The instrument was adapted from various literatures (e.g.: Park, 2003; Payne & Nantz, 1994; and Lambert et al., 2003).

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, results of demographic profiles and reasons of the misbehavior among the respondents are presented and discussed to further understand the concern of this study.

4.1 Demographic Profiles

A total of 617 sets of structured questionnaires were distributed among business students across 11 programs offered at the business faculty in one of the public universities in Malaysia, and only 98.87 percent of it, which is 610, was returned. Majority (73.1 percent) of the respondents were female, with only 26.9 percent were male. A total of 18.3 percent of the respondents were holding a position in any of the student’s society in the Faculty. Furthermore, 17.3 percent of them were working on a part-time basis (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic profiles of respondents

Profiles Description Percentage (%)

Gender Male

Female

26.9 73.1 Position hold in any students’ society Yes

No

18.3 81.7

Part-time working Yes

No

17.3 82.7

4.2 Reasons that Influence Students Engagement in Academic Dishonesty

Table 2 below explained the reasons on why do students engage in academic dishonesty. The reasons were ranked according to the mostly answered to the least answered. The first three top reasons are: (a) lecturer does not mind the behavior (μ = 7.34, SD = 3.026), (b) feels the material or assignment is irrelevant (μ = 6.61, SD = 2.931), and (c) pressure from friends (μ = 6.31, SD = 3.125). Meanwhile the three lowest ranks are: (a) hard time

(4)

but did not prepare adequately (μ = 4.30, SD = 2.719), (b) difficulty of task given (μ = 3.94, SD = 2.588), and (c) to get high grades (μ = 2.86, SD = 2.887).

Table 2. Why do students engage in academic dishonesty

Reasons Mean (μ) Standard Deviation

(SD) Lecturer does not mind the behavior 7.34 3.026 Feels the material or assignment is

irrelevant

6.61 2.931

Pressure from friends 6.31 3.125

Feels no one is hurt by the behavior 6.27 3.039 Feels risk of getting caught is low 6.26 3.129

It is a challenge 6.11 3.548

Everyone does it 5.62 3.224

Does not have adequate time 4.68 2.815

Hard time but did not prepare adequately 4.30 2.719

Difficulty of task given 3.94 2.588

To get high grades 2.86 2.887

In general, the findings of this study were consistent with those published in previous research. This study revealed that contextual factor as the most significant factor influencing the students to involve in academic dishonesty. Many students perceived that it is acceptable to cheat as their lecturers do not mind the behavior. In other words, our results showed that those students with less supervision and / or sanctions if they are caught cheating have higher propensity to involve in academic dishonesty. Simkin and McLeod (2010) highlighted that this is due to ‘opportunity’ factor as a result of the reluctance of many lecturers unwilling to prosecute student cheaters. Similarly to a finding by Jones (2011), he therefore suggested that it is the duty of the lecturers to alter such belief by inculcating the culture of academic integrity and infuse ethics in everything they do. Secondly ranked as perceived by the students is that they feel the assignment is irrelevant to the subject, hence they took ‘shortcut’ and ‘work smart’ by cheating to complete the assignments given. Third highest factor as perceived in the study is pressure from friends. Similarly to Teixeira and Rocha (2010), the likelihood of participating in such misconduct is maybe due to the pressure as the result of observing other students routinely doing so. The least factors ranked by the students are difficulty of the task given and to get high grades which are very much related to performance. Many researchers believed that the growing competition among students tends to lead to a trend towards a rise in academic dishonesty in higher educational institution.

5. Conclusion

To conclude, although academic dishonesty phenomenon is on the rise, there is still hope. One of the most cited strategies in minimizing the act of academic dishonesty is by implementing the ‘honor code’ or known as the written academic integrity policy as part of the course syllabus (Jones, 2011). The ‘honor code’ should link to the student handbook by highlighting the detailed steps on how the university will address academic dishonesty. Indeed Burton et al. (2011) reported that the implementation of the ‘honor codes’ have a positive impact on minimizing academic dishonesty among business students. Simkin and McLeod (2009) suggested a solid procedure on how to handle cases of academic dishonesty that must also be made known to the lecturers and administrators. For example, lecturers must document student misconduct and if challenged by the accused student(s), they must prove their claim in open hearings. A collaborative network among the lecturers throughout

(5)

the learning institution is also deemed as important in order to create awareness, ensure the enforcement against academic dishonesty and enhance the quality of attitude and behavior of the students.

The results of our study suggest additional directions for future research. Firstly, this study was conducted on a single faculty of one university, so it is possible that the results may not be generalized to the rest of the universities in Malaysia. Therefore, future research should include respondents across faculties on a single campus and later a study across universities in Malaysia is needed to make comparative study possible and more meaningful. Secondly, future studies should include specific types of academic dishonesty and the extent to which these students engage in the misconduct.

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by Research Management Institute (RMI) of Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

References

Brown, B. S., & Choong, P. (2005). An investigation of academic dishonesty among business students at public and private United States universities. International Journal of Management. 22(2), 201–214.

Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(3), 273–290.

Teixeir, A. C., & Rocha, M. F. (2010). Cheating by economics and business undergraduate students: An exploratory international assessment. High Educ, 59, 663-701.

Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999). College cheating in Japan and the United States. Research in Higher Education. 40(3), 343–353.

Shen, L. (1995). Assessing students’ academic dishonesty in junior colleges in south Taiwan. Chia-Nan Annual Bulletin. 21, 97–112. Lin, C-H.S and Wen, L-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education - nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54, 85-97. Kidwell, L. A., Wozniak, K., & Laurel, J. P. (2003). Student reports and faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. Teaching Business

Ethics. 7, 205-214.

Rawass, M.Y. A., Al-Khatib, J.A., and Vitell, S.J. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and Chinese Marketing Students. Journal of Marketing Education. 26, 89-100.

Williams, M. S., & Hosek, W. R. (2003). Strategies for reducing academic dishonesty. Journal of Legal Studies Education. 21, 87-95. Burton, J. H., Talpade, S., Haynes, J. (2011). Religiosity and test-taking ethics among Business School Students. Journal of Academic and

Business Ethics. 4, 1-8.

Jones, D. R. L. (2011). Academic Dishonesty: Are more students cheating? Business Communication Quarterly. 74, 141-150.

Pullen, R., Ortloff, V., casey, S., & Payne, J. B. (2000). Analysis of academic misconduct using unobtrusive research: A study of discarded cheat sheets. College Student Journal, 34, 616.

Park, C. (2003). Plagiarism by university students-literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 28, 471-488. Payne, S. L., & Nantz, K. S. (1994). Social accounts and metaphors about cheating. CoIlege Teaching, 42, 90.

Lambert, K., Ellen, N., & Taylor, L. (2003). Cheating-what is it and why do it: A study in New Zealand tertiary institutions of the perceptions and justifications for academic dishonesty. The Journal of American Academy of Business. 3, 98–103.

Synder, L. G., & Cannoy, S. D (2010). Business communication: Instructional strategies to prevent plagiarism. Business Education Forum. 65, 23-25.

Brown, B. S. (1996). A comparison of the academic ethics of graduate business, education, and engineering students. College Student Journal. 30, 294-301.

Meade, J. (1992). Cheating is academic dishonesty par for the course. Prism. 1, 30-32.

Brown, B. S. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: A Survey. Journal of Education for Business. 70, 151-157. Brown, B. S., Weible, R. J. & Olmosk, K. E. (2010). Business school deans on student academic dishonesty: A survey. College Student

Journal. 44, 299-309.

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(3), 115–162.

References

Related documents

ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS NONE PC TO SUPPORT IR AMIM AS PART OF THE JERUSALEM MATCHING 630 THIRD AVENUE, 15TH FLOOR GRANTS INITIATIVE WITH JEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK. NEW YORK, NY

– Core of cells and air spaces • Cortex – Constitutes bulk of the hair, several layers of keratinized cells • Cuticle – multiple layers of very thin, scaly cells that

In summary, the official/policy interest rate for the emerging countries responds strongly to innovations in global inflation, the official/policy interest rates

Card lock network fuel systems utilize a transaction processor (clearinghouse) that summarizes transactions made by each card lock operator. Card lock customers receive

Dengan mempelajari hubungan antara faktor-faktor seperti sikap, minat, pengajaran guru dan pengaruh rakan sebaya beserta cadangan-cadangan yang dikemukakan, kajian

In order to understand how college students in general and those who struggle with stress, depression, and anxiety view MBSR and using technology to support it,

A method of moments estimator is proposed where a certain integral of a nonparametric, rank-based estimator of the stable tail dependence function is matched with the

FIGURE 4 | The modeled relationship between bycatch of Burmeister’s porpoises Phocoena spinipinnis and dolphins (unspecified delphinids) and the acoustic activity recorded by