Annotated Bibliography on Academic Honesty



Annotated Bibliography on Academic Honesty



Annotated Bibliography on Academic Honesty

Bisping, T. O., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling academic dishonesty: The role of student perceptions and misconduct type. Journal of Economic Education, Winter 2008, 4-21

The study applies an econometric model of analyzing to determine why students are cheating. It has been discovered by authors that the definition of cheating students have is dramatically different from that of the administration and teachers.

Results have shown that those who cheat believe that it is not cheating; also, likelihood of being, caught is important deterrent. It must be communicated to these students what are acceptable behavior and the guidelines of cheating.

Burnett, D. D., Rudolph, L., & Clifford, K. O. (Eds.) (1998). Academic integrity matters. Washington: NASPA

This is a monograph that has data on campus culture includes perceptions of students to the environments of classrooms and addresses policies and responses of institutions. It is, suggested that a campus with academic integrity should include educating, role modeling and defining standards. The editor of this Journal has implored administrators of student affairs to take active role in the promotion of ethics and values on campus.

Chisolm, D. (1992). An Epidemic of Cheating? PS: Political Science and Politics, 25, 264- 272.

This is an unofficial guide written for faculty members by a faculty member. It includes data providing demographics of students who cheat. It also provides strategies for teachers. This book is not useful for student affairs but is good for the faculty as it prepares for faculty response and faculty perspectives.

Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., Wood, P. B., & Sellers, C. S. (1999). Shame, embarrassment, and formal sanction threats: Extending the deterrence/rational choice model to academic dishonesty. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 91-105.

This is a study on upper division students at a public university which compares the impact of sanctions that are formally anticipated such as socially embarrassing and causing internal shame on a student who takes the decision to cheat or not. The authors found that social impact and sanctions deter the students from cheating and students need to internalize the code.

Cole, S., & McCabe, D. L. (1996). Issues in academic integrity. New Directions for Student Services, 73, 67-77.

The review of this repeats that actual cheating occurrences have not changed in the past 30 years however, the type of cheating have changed. The most effective response to cheating includes programming of the culture and climate of campus. This write-up is suitable for staff, students and faculty. Regardless of there being variance in the response in regards to emotions, only 1 percent of students responded to cheating to a professor which can be compared to other studies. The reasons that have been mentioned are variance in values as some did not think it to be wrong and the faculty did not engage themselves in the policy. The faculty members should also be impacted and included in the process of ...