14: Theoretical Frameworks for Academic Dishonesty

Abstract

Academic dishonesty has so far been understood using theoretical frameworks derived from criminology literature. These frameworks contribute pieces of the puzzle and even enjoy some empirical support, but conceptualizing students as delinquents is problematic and ultimately ineffective. This chapter reviews the current frameworks, including their theoretical underpinnings, empirical support, and strategies they suggest, and goes on to analyze their limitations and suggest alternative frameworks.Since the landmark study of Bowers (1964), where 75 percent of five thousand students at ninety-nine colleges and universities admitted to cheating at least once, the figures have not changed much. More recent estimates range from 70 percent to 80 percent, with a peak of 95 percent of students admitting to cheating (Brown & Emmett, 2001;McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Stem & Havlicek, 1986;Whitley, 1998). Faculty, educational developers, student affairs professionals, and higher education researchers have all devoted effort, resources, and programs to reduce cheating, but given these figures, the return on investment of such initiatives is disheartening.This chapter explores possible reasons for this disconnect. To understand the limitations of current approaches, it is helpful for faculty developers to understand the theoretical frameworks that have been used to explain academic dishonesty and their origination. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section reviews the theoretical frameworks scholars currently use to conceptualize academic integrity and the research supporting them, as well as their fundamental limitations. The second section proposes alternative ways to think about cheating, and the last section addresses the implications for educational development.

12: Academic Dishonesty Among International Students in Higher Education

“…Furthermore, 10 percent cheated on the tests and admitted taking advantage of the instructor's permissive leniency . The results of this study support the findings of previous research that international students do not know what plagiarism truly means (Cammish, 1997;DiPietro, 2010;Hall, 2004;Universityof Alberta, 2010).…”

Why and how science students in the United States think their peers cheat more frequently online: perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…In the context of game theory , the student and the professor serve as the players that strategize against one another in an effort to maximize payoff (DiPietro 2010 ). The professor will take steps to reduce cheating, which then causes the student to change their cheating tactics, which may in turn cause the professor to further adjust assessment strategies to reduce cheating.…”

Linking Teacher Injustice, Conscientiousness, and Academic Dishonesty via Classroom Connectedness: A Moderated-Mediation Model

“…However, empirical research on this issue is somewhat inadequate and fragmented. Past research has studied the academic dishonesty phenomenon through different theoretical lenses like planned behavior theory, deterrence theory, neutralization theory, situational ethics theory, and the Big Five personality model (DiPietro, 2010). Given that the cheating crisis is on the rise (Bos, 2020), more research from unique theoretical perspectives needs to be undertaken to examine its potential antecedents.…”