This article presents the results of a research that aimed to examine the phenomenon of student cheating on exams in faculties of education in Quebec universities. A total of 573 preservice teachers completed an online survey in 2018. The questionnaire consisted of 28 questions with a Likert scale related to individual and contextual factors associated with the propensity to cheat on exams as well as two yes/no items on the arguments for cheating. Descriptive and hierarchical linear regression analyses highlighted the (...) existence of cheating but also how three factors influenced the students’ propensity to cheat: influence of peers, methods of cheating, and institutional context. (shrink)

A total of 1390 university students from five public Moldovan universities completed a survey reporting their experiences and beliefs with respect to 22 types of academic misconduct. An interpretable five-factor solution to the frequencies of these behaviors accounted for more than half of the total variance. The two most reliable predictors were 1) how often students witnessed other students engage in these behaviors, and 2) perceived acceptability of the behaviors. Demographic predictors of these behaviors (gender, academic specialty, year in school, (...) institution, grade average, and scholarship status) predicted minimal variance. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. (shrink)

The problem of academic dishonesty is as old as it is widespread – dating back millennia and perpetrated by the majority of students. Attempts to promote academic integrity, by comparison, are relatively new and rare – stretching back only a few hundred years and implemented by a small fraction of schools and universities. However, the past decade has seen an increase in efforts among universities to promote academic integrity among students, particularly through the use of online courses or tutorials. Previous (...) research has found this type of instruction to be effective in increasing students’ knowledge of academic integrity and reducing their engagement in academic dishonesty. The present study contributes to this literature with a natural experiment on the effects of the Academic Integrity Course (AIC) at The University of Auckland, which became mandatory for all students in 2015. In 2012, a convenience sample of students (n= 780) had been asked to complete a survey on their perceptions of the University’s academic integrity polices and their engagement in several forms of academic dishonesty over the past year. In 2017, the same procedures and survey were used to collect data from second sample of students (n= 608). After establishing measurement invariance across the two samples on all latent factors, analysis of variance revealed mixed support for the studies hypotheses. Unexpectedly, students who completed the AIC (i.e., the 2017 sample) reported: (1) significantly lower (not higher) levels of understanding, support, and effectiveness with respect to the University’s academic integrity policies; (2) statistically equivalent (not higher) levels of peer disapproval of academic misconduct, and; (3) significantly higher (not lower) levels of peer engagement in academic misconduct. However, results related to participants’ personal engagement in academic misconduct offered partial support for hypotheses – those who completed the AIC reported significantly lower rates of engagement on three of the eight behaviors included in the study. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed as well as possible future directions for research. (shrink)

Academic misconduct by students is a serious issue that threatens the public trust in higher education institutions. In the current study, we examine whether SACCIA (Sufficient, Accurate, Clear, Contextualised and Interpersonally Adaptive) communication predicts lower academic misconduct via attitudes towards cheating and understanding what ‘counts’ as academic misconduct. Participants (N = 319) completed an online questionnaire in Qualtrics measuring SACCIA-adherent communication, academic misconduct, positive attitudes towards cheating and understanding what constitutes misconduct, along with control variables (Big 5 personality traits and (...) Honesty-Humility). The results indicated that the effect of SACCIA communication on academic misconduct was exerted via attitudes, but not via understanding of what constitutes ‘academic misconduct’. The more SACCIA-conforming the communication was, the lower the positive attitudes towards cheating, and the lower the positive attitudes the less self-reported misconduct. The findings suggest that universities could facilitate negative attitudes towards cheating and subsequently lower misconduct if they communicate about academic integrity in a SACCIA-adherent manner. (shrink)