An Exploratory Investigation of the Ethical Behavior of Engineering Undergraduates

Abstract

BACKGROUNDRecent national reports have indicated the need for an increased emphasis on the ethical development of engineering undergraduates. Despite this call for increased focus on ethical development, little is known about how engineering students make ethical decisions or how these decisions are related to personal differences and environmental influences. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)This is an exploratory investigation to determine which demographic, academic, moral reasoning, and decision-making variables are predictive of the extent of test cheating among engineering undergraduates. Rather than beginning with a particular hypothesis, the study investigates predictive relationships between the variables described above and self-reported rates of test cheating among engineering undergraduates. DESIGN/METHODThree hundred and eighty eight engineering undergraduates from three Midwestern U.S. institutions completed a survey based on a modified version of the theory of planned behavior as a conceptual framework. The three institutions are of different Carnegie classifications, sizes, missions, and institutional cultures. RESULTSResults indicate that our proposed model of ethical decision-making was successful in predicting the behavioral outcome with regard to college test cheating and there were observed significant differences in the level of cheating between institutions. However, institution as a variable was not a predictive of behavior. CONCLUSIONSThe effect of institution on cheating was mitigated through other measured variables including past high school cheating, involvement in Pan-Hellenic groups, moral obligation, and perceived behavioral control. It is these underlying predictive variables that need to be addressed when engineering educators and student affairs staff consider the issue of unethical undergraduate behavior.

A Literature Review on the Culture of Cheating in Undergraduate Engineering Programs

“…The results from PACES-2 found that freshman (first-year) engineering students cheated more than senior students [12]. However, this is counter to results from PACES-1 where first-year students reported cheating on exams less than upper-year students [22].…”

“…After instructing these students on what constituted academic dishonesty, they did not perform differently than domestic students [25]. Although international students may be initially unclear on what constitutes cheating, PACES-2 found no correlation between an engineering student's international status and their inclination to cheat [12]. It seems that initial instruction on what is expected of international students could eliminate any additional predilection toward academic dishonesty.…”

“…It was a general investigation into undergraduate cheating and what students and faculty consider to be academic dishonesty. The second survey tool, PACES-2, was completed by 388 engineering undergraduates at three institutions in the Midwestern US [12]. PACES-2 was an exploration of the variables that predict test cheating among engineering undergraduate students.…”

Investigating Engineering Students' Understandings of Social and Ethical Responsibility: Coding Framework and Initial Findings

“…A large portion of the literature in engineering education related to ethics has focused on content and pedagogy and general ethical (or unethical) behaviors such as cheating or participation in pro-social activities 2,3,4,5,6 . However, an increasing number of studies are investigating foundational considerations such as student levels of moral development or student perceptions of, and attitudes toward, social and ethical responsibility.…”

Assessing a Scaffolded, Interactive, and Reflective Analysis Framework for Developing Ethical Reasoning in Engineering Students

“…To measure this, we included questions drawn from the SEED survey 22,24,26,35 . From this instrument, we extracted three measures of satisfaction with ethics education: (a) a 6-item scale (α = .85) measuring satisfaction with particular kinds of educational activities, such as class discussions, credit courses, extracurricular workshops; (b) a 6-item scale (α = .91) measuring satisfaction with particular concepts covered during ethics education, such as being taught about ethical codes, recognizing ethical issues, learning decision-making, and the ability to justify ethical decisions with theory; and (c) a single item measuring general satisfaction with the quality of ethics education received 25 .…”