ERIC ED465330: Kansas State University Faculty Perspective, Opinions, and Practices Concerning Undergraduate Student Academic Dishonesty and Moral Development.

307 Pages·2002·2.8 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 034 970
ED 465 330
Marcoux, Helene Elizabeth
AUTHOR
Kansas State University Faculty Perspective, Opinions, and
TITLE
Practices Concerning Undergraduate Student Academic
Dishonesty and Moral Development.
2002-00-00
PUB DATE
316p.; Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Kansas State
NOTE
University.
Dissertations/Theses
PUB TYPE
Doctoral Dissertations (041)
Tests/Questionnaires (160)
MF01/PC13 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Cheating; *Codes of Ethics; *College Faculty; College
DESCRIPTORS
Students; Focus Groups; Higher Education; Knowledge Level;
*Moral Values; Plagiarism; *Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Role;
Teacher Surveys
*Kansas State University
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
A study with both quantitative and qualitative components
was conducted with undergraduate teaching faculty at Kansas State University
for fall 1999 to spring 2001 to study faculty role in addressing cheating at
the collegiate level and faculty awareness of the University's honor system
and cheating policies. Data were gathered through a variety of methods and
techniques. Two focus groups involving 10 teaching faculty members helped
refine a survey developed by the researcher, and a campus-wide survey was
then conducted. From 339 to 365 responses per question were received from
undergraduate teaching faculty. Offered in the survey was the opportunity to
be interviewed about personal experiences with academically dishonest
students, and 13 faculty members responded and were interviewed. The
researcher also observed faculty members communicating information about
academic dishonesty to students. Findings show that faculty perceptions about
what constitutes cheating differ, suggesting the need for more dialogue among
faculty members to develop a better consensus about what is academic
dishonesty and what is acceptable behavior, especially in the area of
collaboration. Most faculty members reported familiarity with the
University's honor system, but only a minority indicated that they were
familiar or very familiar with the policy or procedures of the system.
National figures suggest that there is much cheating at the college level,
and Kansas State University appears to have its share of episodes. However,
faculty responses to this student behavior varied greatly, and they indicated
that they had not received training in how to handle academic dishonesty.
Some specific recommendations are made to provide further opportunities for
faculty to discuss academic dishonesty and receive training in the honor
system. Fifteen appendixes contain supplemental information and materials
used in the surveys and interviews. (Contains 33 tables and 144 references.)
(SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERSPECTIVE, OPINIONS.
AND, PRACTICES CONCERNING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND MORAL -DEVELOPMENT
by
HELENE ELIZABETH MARCOUX
B.S., North Texas State University, 197417.-
M.S., Emporia State University, 1986
AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the dearee
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling and Educational Psycholoay
College of Education
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Manhattan. Kansas
2002
PERMISSION TO
REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS
MATERIAL HAS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
BEEN GRANTED
BY
Office of Educational Research and improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
%M.
gyr5rdocument has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
ID Minor changes have been made to
TO THE EDUCATIONAL
improve reproduction quality.
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ABSTRACT
Much of the research on academic dishonesty heretofore has been conducted with
a student perspective. A review of literature revealed a need for research on faculty's role
in addressing cheating at the collegiate level, specifically the dissemination of
information and the handling of student academic misconduct. Additionally, a deeper
insight was needed into whether faculty use a student development perspective when
addressing academic dishonesty issues.
This study has both quantitative and qualitative components and was conducted
with participating undergraduate teaching faculty at Kansas State University (KSU)
during four semesters from fall 1999 to spring 2001. Since KSU implemented a modified
honor system in fall 1999, this study also partially describes faculty's awareness of its
policy and procedures.
Data-gathering was conducted with a variety of methods and techniques. Initially,
two focus groups of faculty helped to refine a survey designed by the researcher. The
focus group transcripts turned into a rich source of data about faculty roles in relation to
students' academic dishonesty. A campus-wide survey was then conducted on a
population of full time, undergraduate teaching faculty. Offered in the survey the
opportunity to be interviewed about personal experiences with academically dishonest
student behavior, several faculty responded and were interviewed. Throughout the two-
year study, the researcher also conducted first-day sessions to observe faculty practices in
communicating information on academic dishonesty. Artifacts such as the university
mission statement and instructor syllabi were also analyzed.
3
Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered.from KSU
undergraduate teaching faculty resulted in deeper insights into how participatinu. faculty
(1) made meaning of the term (2) responded to scenarios of student
academic dishonesty;
misconduct; (3) reported the dissemination of both verbal and written information about
cheating and the KSU Undergraduate Honor System; (4) reported handling personal
episodes of student cheating; (5) reported being trained or given orientation on academic
dishonesty issues; and (6) whether faculty had a student development perspective when
addressing academic misconduct.
4
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERSPECTIVE. OPINIONS, AND
PRACTICES CONCERNING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC
DISHONESTY AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT
by
HELENE ELIZABETH MARCOUX
B.S.. North Texas State University, 1974
M.S., Emporia State University. 1986
A DISSERTATION
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology
College of Education
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Manhattan, Kansas
2002
Approved by:
Dr. Gerald Hanna
Major Professor
5
COPYRIGHT
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERSPECTIVE, OPINIONS, AND
PRACTICES CONCERNING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC
DISHONESTY AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT
HELENE ELIZABETH MARCOUX
2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Tables
vii
Acknowledgments
xii
Dedication
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1
Purpose of the Study
5
Guiding Questions of the Study
6
Definition of Terms
7
Academic Dishonesty
7
Student Moral Judgment Development
9
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty
10
Participating Faculty
10
Faculty Perspective, Opinions, and Practices
10
Significance of the Study
11
Setting
13
Kansas State University
13
Historical Context
14
Limitations of the Study
16
Chapter II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
17
Introduction
17
Ethical Theory
17
Principle Ethics
17
Casuistic Ethics
18
Virtue Ethics
19
Relational Ethics
')0
,1
Moral Judgment Development
Lawrence Kohlberg
21
Carol Gilligan
25
James Rest
30
College Environment
33
William Perry
33
Earnest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini
36
Arthur Chickering and Lori Reisser
37
Academic Dishonesty
38
Introduction
38
Description and Definition
39
40
Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty
Characteristics of Violators
42
Circumstances Related to Academic Dishonesty
44
Strategies for Controlling Academic Dishonesty
46
49
Summary
7
Chapter III. METHODS AND PROCEDTURES
50
Introduction and Overview
50
Research Design
50
Researcher's Biases or Presuppositions
Components of the Study
54
The Undergraduate Teaching Faculty Survey
54
Description
54
Rationale
55
Participants
55
Procedures
57
Pilot Testing with Focus Groups
58
Description
58
Rationale
59
Participants
59
Procedures
60
Pre-survey Evaluation
61
Description
61
Rationale
61
Participants
61
Procedures
61
Survey Faculty Interviews
62
Description
61
Rationale
63
Participants
63
Procedures
63
Non-participant Observation
64
Description
64
Rationale
65
Selection of Classrooms to Observe
65
Artifacts
66
Description
66
Rationale
66
Selection of Artifacts
67
Instrumentation
67
Questionnaire
67
Construction
67
Page 1
68
Page 2
68
Page 3
69
Page 4
69
Page 5
70
Page 6
71
Analyses
71
Analysis of Survey Data
71
Analysis of Qualitative Components
Summary
76
ii
8
Chapter 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
78
Introduction
78
Kansas State University Undergraduate Honor System
79
Definition of a Modified Honor System
79
Early History of the KSU Honor System
81
1994 Principles of Biology 101 Cheating Episode
81
Structure and Implementation of the KSU Honor System
84
Beginnings
84
Mission Statement
84
The Honor Pledge
85
The Honor Council
85
Faculty Reporting Procedure
85
Case Procedure
86
H.I.P.E.-Believe It!
87
Case Adjudication
88
The XF Sanction
88
The Academic Integrity Course
88
The Honor System Web Site
89
Summary
91
Demographics of Study Participants
92
Focus Group Participants
Survey Participants
93
Non-participant Observation Faculty
96
Self-Selected Survey Faculty Interview Participants
96
Summary
97
Response Rates for the Campus-Wide Survey
97
Returned Questionnaires
97
Qualifying Faculty
97
Summary
98
Addressing the Guiding Questions of the Study
98
Introduction
98
Question I: How Do KSU Participating Undergraduate
Faculty Make Meaning of the Term Academic Dishonesty?
....
100
Three-Box Exercise
100
Words most frequently used
100
Words depicting student behavior
101
Words depicting character or personality traits
102
Words depicting consequences of cheating
103
Unique words and phrases
104
Scenarios of Student Behavior
105
Scenario I
105
Scenario II
109
Scenario III
I I I
Scenario IV
I 13
Summary
115
9
Question 2: What Practices Do KSU Participating
Undergraduate Faculty Engage in When Disseminating
Information About Cheating?
115
Faculty Familiarity with KSU Honor System
116
Taking Time to Discuss What Constitutes Cheating
118
Giving Written Instructions About What Constitutes
Cheating
125
How and When Information Is Disseminated
129
Using the Honor Pledge As Information
133
Using the Honor System Web Site As Information
137
Summary
138
Question 3: How Do KSU Participating Undergraduate
Faculty Handle Episodes of Cheating?
139
Awareness of a Cheating Incident
139
Types of Cheating Episodes and Class Size Noted
141
Types of Sanctions Used
143
Individual Faculty Interviews
146
Detecting Episodes of Student Cheating
156
Preventing Student Cheating
159
Summary
162
Question 4: What Training or Orientation Have KSU
Participating Undergraduate Faculty Had In Addressing
Academic Dishonesty?
163
Self-reported Training and Orientation
163
Reported Types of Training and Orientation
164
Summary
167
Question 5: What Perspective Do KSU Participating
Undergraduate Faculty Have Concerning Student Moral
Development Issues Relating to Episodes of Academic
Dishonesty?
168
Introduction
168
Student Moral Development Opinions: Campus-
wide Survey
169
Student Moral Development Opinions:
Observations. Interviews, and Focus Groups
177
Messages to Students
185
Summary
188
Chapter 5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
CONCLUSION
189
Introduction
189
Summary of Findings
189
Introduction
189
Setting
190
Demographics
191
Question 1:_Meaning of the Term Academic Dishonesty
191
iv
1 0