Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
In summary, the academic integrity literature suggests a possibility that SEPIB may have broader reaching effects than the traditionally examined learning out-comes and may actually influence academic integrity decisions. Based on the SEPIB and academic integrity literature, I hypothesized that students who commit academic dishonesty will have lower evaluative perceptions of their instructors than students who have not committed academic dishonesty. METHOD Participants The respondent pool, taken from 1,390 students, were students enrolled in a variety of courses at a large (approximately 18,000 undergraduate students) regional col-lege in the West. Of the original pool, 1,369 had participated in a test or other type of graded assignment when the survey was conducted, thereby having had an opportu-nity to have committed acts of academic dishonesty. Of these 1,369 students, 281 (20.5%) reported committing an act of academic dishonesty in the course in which the survey was conducted. Ages of the students ranged from 16 to 65, with the majority (70.2%) being 18 to 22 years of age. The sample included 564 men (43.3%) and 737 (56.6%) women. All college class levels were represented: 26.0% were lst-year students, 20.4% were sophomores, 28.3% were juniors, 23.7% were seniors, and 0.8% were graduate students. In an open-ended response question, students reported 38 dif-ferent majors. Measures Academic integrity. Items regarding types of academic dishonesty were compiled from previous surveys (with particular reliance on Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Bowers, 1964; Jendrek, 1992; Oaks, 1975; Singhal, 1982; Stevens, 1984; Wright & Kelly, 1974). Nineteen types of dishonest acts were selected and divided into two categories: tests or quizzes (see Table 1) and other activities (see Table 2). A determination of whether a student committed academic dishonesty in the course in which the survey was administered was based on whether the student responded yes to any of the 19 items listed in Tables 1 and 2. If students responded yes to a spe-cific behavior, they were also asked to indicate how frequently they had engaged in this behavior in the course. All students who answered no to all of the items were placed in the "not admitting to academic dishonesty in the course" category. SEPIB. Because SEPIB was assessed using four 5-point scales ranging from 1 (good, fair, worthless, negative) to 4 (bad, unfair, valuable, positive; see
DOI link for In summary, the academic integrity literature suggests a possibility that SEPIB may have broader reaching effects than the traditionally examined learning out-comes and may actually influence academic integrity decisions. Based on the SEPIB and academic integrity literature, I hypothesized that students who commit academic dishonesty will have lower evaluative perceptions of their instructors than students who have not committed academic dishonesty. METHOD Participants The respondent pool, taken from 1,390 students, were students enrolled in a variety of courses at a large (approximately 18,000 undergraduate students) regional col-lege in the West. Of the original pool, 1,369 had participated in a test or other type of graded assignment when the survey was conducted, thereby having had an opportu-nity to have committed acts of academic dishonesty. Of these 1,369 students, 281 (20.5%) reported committing an act of academic dishonesty in the course in which the survey was conducted. Ages of the students ranged from 16 to 65, with the majority (70.2%) being 18 to 22 years of age. The sample included 564 men (43.3%) and 737 (56.6%) women. All college class levels were represented: 26.0% were lst-year students, 20.4% were sophomores, 28.3% were juniors, 23.7% were seniors, and 0.8% were graduate students. In an open-ended response question, students reported 38 dif-ferent majors. Measures Academic integrity. Items regarding types of academic dishonesty were compiled from previous surveys (with particular reliance on Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Bowers, 1964; Jendrek, 1992; Oaks, 1975; Singhal, 1982; Stevens, 1984; Wright & Kelly, 1974). Nineteen types of dishonest acts were selected and divided into two categories: tests or quizzes (see Table 1) and other activities (see Table 2). A determination of whether a student committed academic dishonesty in the course in which the survey was administered was based on whether the student responded yes to any of the 19 items listed in Tables 1 and 2. If students responded yes to a spe-cific behavior, they were also asked to indicate how frequently they had engaged in this behavior in the course. All students who answered no to all of the items were placed in the "not admitting to academic dishonesty in the course" category. SEPIB. Because SEPIB was assessed using four 5-point scales ranging from 1 (good, fair, worthless, negative) to 4 (bad, unfair, valuable, positive; see
In summary, the academic integrity literature suggests a possibility that SEPIB may have broader reaching effects than the traditionally examined learning out-comes and may actually influence academic integrity decisions. Based on the SEPIB and academic integrity literature, I hypothesized that students who commit academic dishonesty will have lower evaluative perceptions of their instructors than students who have not committed academic dishonesty. METHOD Participants The respondent pool, taken from 1,390 students, were students enrolled in a variety of courses at a large (approximately 18,000 undergraduate students) regional col-lege in the West. Of the original pool, 1,369 had participated in a test or other type of graded assignment when the survey was conducted, thereby having had an opportu-nity to have committed acts of academic dishonesty. Of these 1,369 students, 281 (20.5%) reported committing an act of academic dishonesty in the course in which the survey was conducted. Ages of the students ranged from 16 to 65, with the majority (70.2%) being 18 to 22 years of age. The sample included 564 men (43.3%) and 737 (56.6%) women. All college class levels were represented: 26.0% were lst-year students, 20.4% were sophomores, 28.3% were juniors, 23.7% were seniors, and 0.8% were graduate students. In an open-ended response question, students reported 38 dif-ferent majors. Measures Academic integrity. Items regarding types of academic dishonesty were compiled from previous surveys (with particular reliance on Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Bowers, 1964; Jendrek, 1992; Oaks, 1975; Singhal, 1982; Stevens, 1984; Wright & Kelly, 1974). Nineteen types of dishonest acts were selected and divided into two categories: tests or quizzes (see Table 1) and other activities (see Table 2). A determination of whether a student committed academic dishonesty in the course in which the survey was administered was based on whether the student responded yes to any of the 19 items listed in Tables 1 and 2. If students responded yes to a spe-cific behavior, they were also asked to indicate how frequently they had engaged in this behavior in the course. All students who answered no to all of the items were placed in the "not admitting to academic dishonesty in the course" category. SEPIB. Because SEPIB was assessed using four 5-point scales ranging from 1 (good, fair, worthless, negative) to 4 (bad, unfair, valuable, positive; see
ABSTRACT
Students also were asked to respond to two other indicators of evaluative perceptions: liking and respect for their instructor. Based on earlier focus group research (Stearns, 1994), students were asked the following: "Which of the following best describes your attitude toward this instructor as compared to other college instructors?" The five possible responses ranged in degree from "liking to disliking this instructor more than most instructors" to "respecting to disrespecting this instructor more than most other instructors."
