Academic Integrity and Ethical Behavior of Atisan Integrated School Students: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program
Justine May A. Velasco | Elmer Escala
Discipline: Education
Abstract:
The main purpose of this study is to examine the respondent’s
perception towards cheating and the contextual factors influencing this
behavior. The research focused on: (1) the respondents’ profile; (2)
respondents’ belief of their ethical behavior; (3) respondent’s perceived
level of seriousness on act against academic integrity; (4) self-reported
frequency of committing actions against academic integrity of the
respondents; and (5) perception towards academic integrity, self-reported
frequency and ethical behavior vary across the demographic
characteristics. The participants of the study were 113 students from
Atisan Integrated High School. The descriptive method was utilized in the
implementation of the study. Results revealed that most of the students
perceive academic integrity as a crucial factor in their study habits. In
terms of the students’ perception towards their ethical behaviour, the study
revealed that they value ethics and integrity and commit academic
dishonesty at the same time. Copying answers of their classmates through
various modes such as electronic, social media, and directly copying texts
are the most committed academic dishonesty of the students. It was also
revealed that the students’ perceptions across their demographic
characteristics vary. Based on the results of the study, intervention
programs intended to divert students from committing academic dishonesty
References:
- Arnold, R., Martin, B. N., Jinks, M., & Bigby, L. (2017). Is there a relationship between honor codes and academic dishonesty? Journal of College & Character, 8(2), 1–18. doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1164
- Bachore, M. (2016). The nature, causes and practices of academic dishonesty/cheating in higher education: The case of Hawassa University.
- Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of the classroom will improve student learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-23666-000
- Diego, L. (2017). Friends with benefits: Causes and effects of learners’ cheating practices during examination.
- Fong, C. (2021). Motivation is a key factor in whether students cheat. Texas State University. Retrieved from https://news.txst.edu/the-conversation/2021/motivation-key-factor-in-cheating.html
- Friedman, A., Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2016). Cheating and feeling honest: Committing and punishing analog versus digital academic dishonesty behaviors in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 12. doi:10.28945/3629
- Garrett, N., Lazzaro, S. C., Ariely, D., & Sharot, T. (2016). The brain adapts to dishonesty. Nature Neuroscience, 19. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27775721/
- Ipl.org. (2021, February 18). The importance of honesty in schools. Retrieved from https://www.ipl.org/essay/Honesty-In-Honesty-P34VAC77ESJFR
- Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2017). The impact of organizational culture on ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(4), 697–712.
- Kaufman, H. E. (2018). Moral and ethical issues related to academic dishonesty on college campuses. Journal of College and Character, 9(5). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1187
- Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2018). Peer influence and ethical decision-making: A social cognitive perspective. Ethics & Behavior, 28(4), 312–330.
- Lewellyn, P., & Rodriguez, L. (2015). Does academic dishonesty relate to fraud theory? A comparative analysis.
- Mahaffey, P. (2014). Academic integrity: The experience of learning through cheating.
- McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2014). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2
- O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger, D. A. (2022). Imitation is the sincerest form of cheating: The influence of direct knowledge and attitudes on academic dishonesty. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3