2. Tammie S. Lang, EdD(c)
to
College of Saint Mary
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
With an emphasis in
Educational Leadership
2
3. Chapter I
• Problem Statement
• Choice to enroll in college for opportunities
• Importance of achieving a college degree
• Pressure for classroom success
• Academic challenges lead to poor academic choices
• Academic dishonesty “costs institutions … loss of
integrity within the school …” (Boehm, 2008, p. 47)
• Student who graduates with dishonest achievement
• Integrity of the institution
3
4. Background
• Decades of studies on Academic Integrity
• Copying another’s work
• Unauthorized collaboration
• Sharing test answers
• Looking over the shoulder
• Not citing a source
• Harvard University challenged with “cheating scandal” in
2012 (Perez-Pena, 2012)
• Dishonesty has not really changed over the years
(McCabe and Bowers, 1994)
• Rapidly growing use of technology
• Growing Millennial population
4
5. Background (cont.)
Millennial Generation
• Born between 1980 and 1999 (Howe and Strauss, 2000)
• Generation will exceed 100 million individuals (Bajt,
2011)
• Raised with added pressure to succeed (Prensky, 2001)
• “Digital natives” (Prensky, 2001)
• Generation Y
• Non-linear and collaborative learners
• Find the information on the Internet (Black, 2010)
5
6. Research Question
The central research question addressed in this study:
What are the perceptions of community college faculty
of the impact of the expanding use of technology on
academic integrity in higher education?
6
7. Subsequent Questions
(1) To what extent do community college faculty perceive
a difference in impact of the expanding use of
technology on academic integrity among various age
groups of students who attend community college?
(2) Are community college faculty taking actions to
recognize and prevent acts of academic dishonesty in
the face-to-face classroom?
7
8. Assumptions
• Educators are actively looking for evidence
• Educators are familiar with growing use of technology
• Educators provided honest answers
• Academic dishonesty is easily recognizable
8
9. Limitations
• Bias of the researcher
• Validity and reliability procedures (member checking,
triangulation)
• Generalization of the findings
• Limited to two community colleges
• Survey sample size (N=100)
• Interview sample size (N=10)
• Not the greater population
9
10. Delimitations
• Data collected from two Midwestern community colleges
• Other higher learning institutions not included
• Does not accurately reflect the greater population
• Did not take race, gender, age into consideration
• Did not consider educator’s discipline or highest degree
attained
10
11. Definitions
• Academic dishonesty: … a student will claim or take credit
for work that is not his or her original work (Becker,
Connolly, Lentz, & Morrison 2006).
• Academic integrity: Cornerstones in education are honesty
and responsibility (A Student’s Guide to Academic Integrity
at the University of Oklahoma).
• Cheating: … to gain an unfair advantage that misrepresents
the student’s true ability and knowledge (King, Gueytte &
Piotrowski, 2009).
• Digital cheating: Using digital means to copy homework,
wrongfully collaborate … (Stephens, Young, & Calabrese,
2007).
• Digital natives: … born in the last decade of the twentieth
century … native users of technology, including computers,
video games, and the Internet (Prensky, 2001).
11
13. Honor Codes
• Dating back to 1896 at Haverford College (Haverford
honor code, n.d.)
• Can be useful in reducing dishonest actions
• Honor codes can put the focus on student-faculty
relationship
• Must have support from all within the institution
• Changing attitudes of students
13
14. Academic Integrity
• Students don’t believe it is their responsibility
• Self-reported cheating?
• Faculty prefer to avoid / ignore the confrontation
• Administrative support
14
15. Technology and
Academic Integrity
Students Report:
• 58.9% students stated they have NOT cheated in
online classes (Lanier, 2006)
• 73.6% of Australian students believe cheating occurs
online (King, et al, 2009)
• Students with higher GPAs, married or older less likely
to cheat online (Lanier, 2006)
• Plagiarism (only 50% were able to identify) (Jones,
2011)
15
16. Millennials
• 30% of the US population (Pew Research Report, 2010)
• 40% now entering or are currently enrolled in higher
ed (Pew Research Report, 2010)
• Access to information, friends, family, classmates via
technology
• Cannot separate academic dishonesty and technology
• Will pay for a research paper
• Adept at: iPods, Playlists, Texting, Blogging, digital
writing
16
17. Plagiarism
• 40% admit to plagiarism (Rimer, 2003)
• Same 40% believe plagiarism is trivial
• Turnitin.com services
• Only detects plagiarism
• Educators better equipped to inform students of what is
plagiarism
17
18. Chapter II: Summary
• Ever increasing use of technology by students
• Ever increasing body of Millennial (Digital Natives)
• Challenge to higher education to maintain high level of
academic honor
• Challenge to higher education to produce high quality
graduates
The central research question:
What are the perceptions of community college faculty
of the impact of the expanding use of technology on
academic integrity in higher education? 18
19. Chapter III: Methodology
• Research Design: Mixed Methods Study
• Explanatory sequential mixed-methods design
(Creswell, 2009)
• Surveyed faculty via online questionnaire
• 29 Questions were asked
• Questionnaire provided sample for interviews
• Interview faculty who volunteered via the online
questionnaire
• 15 Questions were asked 19
20. Participant Recruitment
• Non-randomized design to measure how prevalent the
use of technology to commit academic dishonesty
• From faculty perspective
• Survey adapted from validated research survey
• Interview participants voluntarily recruited from survey
participants
• Quantitative survey goal: 100 survey participants (67
respondents)
• Qualitative interview goal: 10 interview participants (6
participants)
20
21. • INCLUSION CRITERIA:
• Faculty who are currently teaching Millenials at
Midwestern community college
• ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
• Institutional Review Board Approval
• Participation was voluntarily
• No coercion or reward
• May withdraw at any time
• Data safely secured
• Data destroyed seven years after research completed
21
22. Data Collection
• Quantitative Data
• Questionnaire
• Faculty perception
• Descriptive statistics
• Analyze data - triangulation
• Qualitative Data
• Semi-structured research interviews
• Interviews were recorded
• Utilized member check
22
24. Summary
The central research question addressed in this study:
What are the perceptions of community college faculty
of the impact of the expanding use of technology on
academic integrity in higher education?
24
25. Chapter IV: Report
of the Findings
• Mixed methods study
• Combination of qualitative and quantitative research
methods
• Quantitative online questionnaire
• Qualitative interviews
25
26. Quantitative Findings
• Sixty-seven faculty members completed questionnaire
• Majority responses came from a large Midwestern
community college
26
Experienced Acts of Academic Dishonesty
27. Demographics of Participants
Average Length of Employment: 11.83 years
Minimum Length of Employment: 1 year
Maximum Length of Employment: 43 years
Average Birth year of participants: 1965
Range of Birth year: 1948 to 1987
Technology Knowledge:
27
35. Academic Integrity in the
Classroom
Highly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Highly
Agree
Total
Responses
I use class time at the
beginning of the term
to review and discuss
academic dishonesty
policies with
students.
2 4 12 6 43 67
In my classroom, I
have a specific policy
regarding electronic
devices.
2 5 18 8 34 67
I have a specific policy
in my syllabus
regarding academic
dishonesty.
0 1 10 5 51 67
35
36. Academic Integrity in the
Classroom
36
Highly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Highly
Agree
Total
Responses
I believe students
understand what
constitutes
plagiarism.
10 23 15 14 5 67
I believe students
understand what
constitutes
intellectual property
as it relates to
material gathered via
the World Wide
Web.
11 35 11 6 4 67
37. Qualitative Findings
Open Ended Response to Questionnaire (One-third
responded):
Academic dishonesty and lack of understanding
37
Instructors do not know if a student has a history of
plagiarizing. ... Most students come into my class without
any knowledge of how and when to cite sources.
38. Qualitative Findings
Academic dishonesty and lack of understanding
38
I think that students have a limited understanding of
what constitutes dishonesty in the area of written ... At
the community college level, it is difficult to discern
because there are many students with little experience
writing and/or poor writing histories.
39. Qualitative Findings
Academic dishonesty and lack of understanding
39
I think many students who begin college have already
learned how to "cheat" and if they are prone to
cheating; plagiarizing; copying; etc. - they will
continue. I know that in my experience; the students
don't think there is anything wrong with cheating to
earn their degree and then "claim" to be experts in
their chosen field … They even cheat in class while I
am watching.
40. Qualitative Findings
Academic dishonesty and lack of understanding
40
I truly feel that the only thing that would dissuade
students from plagiarism and copyright infringement
is to make the official college policy one of zero
tolerance. It needs to be clear in the college handbook
and consistent with all program … Since there is no
strict college policy, we were forced to come up with
our own …. very little education within the public
school ….with what constitutes plagiarism, copyright
infringement, or the gray area of fair use, more
education would need to be in place before.
41. Qualitative Findings
Administrative Support
41
• It is not the instructors but the institution that needs to
better address academic dishonesty. Technology is not the
cause of dishonesty. Students have been dishonest long
before electronics.
• The instructors at the college are usually good about
pursuing academic dishonesty. Sometimes it is hard to get
the support of administrators.
• I believe the policies outlines are vague and difficult for even
instructors to understand how to process acts of academic
dishonesty. I do not believe all cases are handled the same.
A policy should give faculty guidelines for how to proceed
once a violation has occurred.
42. Qualitative Findings
Student Awareness
42
Students think if something is posted or available on the
Internet, it is in the public domain and available for
them to use as they wish. There is very little
understanding on their part of copyrights, digital rights,
and fair use. I believe if students were required to learn
the basics of what these areas of protection are meant
to provide, they may be less likely to submit “stuff I
found on the Internet” as their own work.
43. Themes Related to
Academic Integrity
43
Academic
Integrity
Varied
perception of
policies
Varied methods
to commit acts
Varied methods of
technology used
to detect and
commit acts
Varied
generational
differences exist
Varied faculty
recommendations
44. Faculty Interviews
Length of Employment
Amy 20 years
Julie 9 years
Rick 8 years
Patty 5 years
Christy 2 years
Lisa 1 year
44
46. Easily Recalled Incidents
Rick: Interview of someone who was a slave, who would be 170 years old.
When Rick asked the student if this interview did in fact take place, the
student replied with, “Yeah, it was an old guy who lived down the street and I
interviewed him. And my grandfather knows them really well.”
Patty: I asked him where he got this information, and he told me the website.
I said to him, ’Is this word for word?’ And he said, ’No, I paraphrased it. ’ So, he
lied to me right there. I was able to pull that article right up and say, ’No, you
did use word for word. In fact I think you copied and pasted it.’
Julie: Every single writing assignment was plagiarized.
Julie: “As I stand before you today.”
46
47. Theme Two: Methods of
academic dishonesty utilized
by students
• Copy and paste most frequent
• Submitting someone else’s work
• Sharing of files
• Collaboration when collaboration not allowed
• Punishment:
• Allow resubmission (three respondents)
• Received a zero on assignment (one respondent)
• Failed the course (two respondents) 47
48. Theme Three: Active pursuit
of discovery of academic
dishonesty
• All 6 respondents do actively pursue incidents
• English instructors utilize turnitin.com
• Getting to know the students’ writing style
• Informing the students what constitutes dishonesty
• Utilize SmartThinking
• Provide examples of “sloppy paraphrasing”
• Zero tolerance: submit all assignments electronically
• Monitor classroom activities
• Utilize Google search engine for suspected plagiarism 48
49. Theme Four: Faculty
perception that generational
differences exist in regard to
technology and academic
dishonesty
• Younger, high school aged students in dual credit courses
• Millennial students
• Students over the age of 35
• Blurred distinction between scholarly sharing and social
media sharing
49
50. Generational Differences
• Rick: “Well, within just a few minutes I noticed that
basically half of my class was reading stuff posted on the
Internet written by other students about the essay that
they were supposed to develop original responses to.
And it was just natural to them to just go find out what
other people have said about this essay, because then
maybe, I don’t know, I’ll take their stuff and use it as my
own I suppose. It was just natural.”
• Julie: “I mean all we do is, ‘you know cute elephant
video where the heck did I see it originate’?”
50
51. Generational Differences
Participant Response
Rick “Grabbing this and that” and assembling as your own. Not aware
that actions could be a problem of integrity.
Patty
Both generations will use Google. Younger student more apt to try to
pass off someone else’s work as their own.
Amy
Non-traditional students unknowingly commit dishonesty. All
students need better training. Younger students like to test the
limits.
Julie
Everything on the Internet is recycled, hard to know its original
source. Students do not then see the importance of citing an original
source.
Lisa
Younger students do not see these incidents as such a big deal, and
do not see it as an extension of their professional life.
Christy
Older generations tends to know better, and understand what
plagiarism is.
51
52. Theme Five: Faculty have
recommendations for
improvement
• Lack of knowledge is the biggest threat
• Technology has to be allowed
• Students do not care about academic integrity
• Explain academic integrity
• Explain plagiarism
• Differentiate what is scholarly writing to social media
• Utilize Turnitin
• Utilize a database repository for reported incidents
52
53. Biggest Threat
53
Participant Response
Rick
Technology is an enabler and a threat. Cut and paste someone
else’s work.
Patty
The Internet. Students lack values; it may be a moral issue.
Amy
Students don’t care; academic integrity is trivialized. “It’s there,
and free to everyone.”
Julie
Pressure to pass. Students do not understand citing sources.
Lisa
Faculty are trying to fight, monitor, and prevent dishonesty, while
the student is trying to find new ways to commit the acts.
Christy
Ignoring the incidents. Students continuing the behavior because
of no repercussions. Students graduating without having done any
of their own work.
54. Recommendations
54
Participant Response
Rick
Work needs to begin in the classroom. Teaching students how
to give credit where credit is due. This is hard and takes practice.
Patty
Every instructor should be using www.turnitin.com. Students
will then learn where to give credit where credit is due.
Julie
Policy should apply to everything, not just technology.
Lisa
Centralized location to document incidents.
Christy
Policy that shows which steps should be taken. Create a
clearinghouse to look for trends.
55. Chapter V: Conclusions and
Recommendations
• Five themes were identified
• Faculty are aware of institution’s academic integrity
policy
• Diverse approach to enforcing the policy
• Faculty pursue the incidents
• Faculty who chose to ignore do because of lack of
institutional support Cohen (2011)
• Faculty can easily recall the incidents
55
57. Limitations
• Generalization of the greater population
• Limited to six face-to-face interviews
• Two Midwestern community colleges
• Researcher bias
• Research based solely on face-to-face classroom
• Additional interviews and survey respondents would add
depth
57
58. Methods of Dishonesty
• Not that varied among students
• Most popular is copy and paste
• Consistent with Achey-Kidell (2003)
• Consistent with McCabe (2005)
• Students will submit someone else’s work
• Students will purchase a term paper
• Collaboration is occurring
• Plagiarism consistently reported
• Rimer (2003) reported that students see plagiarism as
trivial
• Technology makes dishonesty easier 58
59. Active Pursuit of
Academic Dishonesty
• Turnitin
• Academic Integrity Team at College
• Database for reportable incidents
• Continued focus on discovering and recording incidents
• Administration needs to continue to support faculty
59
60. Generational Differences
• Majority of college student fit the Millennial generation
• Do not understand intellectual property
• High school students will also commit acts of academic
dishonesty
• Older students not immune, just not as many in the
classroom
• Older student may commit the act out of desperation
• Encourage to educate incoming students
• Plagiarism, improper copying and pasting, when to
cite, the difference between social media sharing and
scholarly sharing 60
61. Implications
• Educators work to dissuade the behavior
• Institutional integrity and credibility
• Produce the highest quality graduate
• Recruit students of integrity
• Faculty’s role in discouraging the acts
• Technology makes it easier to commit and detect
• Broad academic integrity policy can lead to frustration
• Purposeful open policy: no two incidents are the same
• Better communication from administration to faculty
61
63. Faculty Have
Recommendations
• Educate the students on what academic dishonesty is
• Simply lack of knowledge
• When not to collaborate
• When given a second chance to resubmit, students learn
from their mistakes
63
64. Recommendations
for Educators
• Not an easy task
• Diligence to reduce future incidents
• Maintain integrity
• Produce quality graduates
• Use the technology to instruct students how to properly
cite
• Technology cannot be avoided
• Students will use technology in their future career
• Faculty continue to change assignments and final exams
• Incoming students are just as well-equipped as
Millennials
64
65. Recommendations
for Educators
• Classroom management is faculty responsibility
• Policy is not a shield
• Administration needs to reinforce that support is
available
• Academic integrity policies are a guide
• Faculty need to create the culture
• Institutions create a training program
• Faculty and students
• Web tutorials 65
66. Future Research
• Impact of incidents on faculty
• One recommendation: student transcript notation –
FERPA violations? Other institution’s approach?
• Engaged Learning to reduce incidents
• Interview students for their perception on improper
sharing of information
• Use of academic integrity training programs
66
67. Summary
• Research focused on faculty perceptions
• Faculty care and want to reduce the incidents
• Faculty desire better academic support
• Better communication between administration and
faculty
• Technology is a double-edged sword
• Dedicated faculty
• Quality, ethical graduates
67
68. • Patty: “We have created a generation that thinks it’s all
free. We have freedom of speech and we can take
whatever we want.”
• Amy: “Hey, it’s in here so it’s free to everyone. And I
should not have to quote anything because who do I
quote? The 80th person that has posted this or what?”
• Rick: Work begins “down in the trenches,” in the
classroom level, is where “stuff needs to happen.”
68
70. References
A student’s guide to academic integrity at the University of Oklahoma. Retrieved from http://integrity.ou.edu.students_guide.html
Achey-Kidwell, L., Wozniak, K., and Phoenix-Laurel, J. (2003). Student reports and faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. Teaching Business Ethics. 7(3), p. 205-214.
Adams, C. and McCormick, D. (2015, June 15). Was race-faker Rachel Dolezal also passing herself off as a great romanticist painter? She faces claims that her ‘award winning’ art is
plagiarized from 19th-century master. The Daily Mail. Retrieved http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3125889/Now-race-faker-Rachel-Dolezal-faces-claims-ART-WORK-
plagiarized.html
Ahrin, A. (2009). A pilot study of nursing student’s perceptions of academic dishonesty: A generation Y perspective. The ABNF Journal, Winter 2009, 17-21.
Bajt, S. (2011). Web 2.0 technologies: Applications for Community Colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges. 154. Summer 2011, 53-62. doi:10.1002/cc.446
Becker, D., Connolly, J., Lentz, P., Morrison, J. (2006). Using the business fraud triangle to predict academic dishonesty among business students. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal. (10)1, 37-52.
Black, A. (2010). Gen Y: Who they are and how they learn. Educational Horizons, Winter, 2010, 92-101.
Bolliger, D. and Halupa, C. (2012). Student perceptions and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81-98. doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667961
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Quality, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage: Los Angeles.
Department of Education (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. (No. PL110-315). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Haverford honor code (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2013 from http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/the-code/what-is-the-code/
Howe, N., and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising the next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Jones, P. R. (2006). Using groups in criminal justice courses: Some new twists on traditional pedagogical tool. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(1), 87– 101.
King, C., Gueytte, R., and Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators Online. (6)1, 1-10.
70
71. References (cont.)
Lanier, M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 17(2), 244-261.
McCabe, D. (2005). It takes a village: Academic integrity. Liberal Education, 91(3), 26-31.
McCabe, D., and Bowers, W. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in college: A thirty-year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 5(1), 5-
10.
Perez-Pena, R. (2012, August 31). Harvard students in cheating scandal say collaboration was accepted. New York Times. Retrieved from http://nytimes.com.
Pew. "Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next." Pew Research Center. Feb. 2010. (May 23, 2011) http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-
connected-open-to-change.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, (9)5, 1-6.
Race, P. (2001). Assessment: A Guide for Students. (York: LTSN Generic Centre)
Rimer, S. (2003, September 3). A campus fad that is being copied: Internet plagiarism. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/nyregion/a-campus-fad-that-s-being-copied-internet-plagiarism-seems-on-the-rise.html
Sheet, V. (2015, June 4). Chinese city using drones to nab cheaters on all-important exam. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/04/chinese-city-using-drones-to-nab-cheaters-on-all-important-exam.
Sloan Consortium (2012). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_course_2012
Stephens, J.M., Young, M.F., Calabrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs
and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 233-254.
71
