7/27/2019 099-1-14p

1/10

Academic Ethics in Higher Education Institution from Business GraduateStudents Point of ViewM. H. Chen, NCUE, Changhua, Taiwan R.O.C.C. C. Lee, PU, Taichung, Taiwan R.O.C.C. L. Chien, NCUE, Changhua, Taiwan R.O.C.Abstract The purpose of this research is to examine student perceptions of academic

integrity among faculty and peers. The current study surveys 173 business graduate students

in two universities to examine potential determinants of academic dishonesty perceptions.

The study explores the factors that influence academic dishonesty among business graduate

students and compares the relative importance of faculty influences and peer influences on

students ethical behavior. The results showed that the degree of students academic

dishonesty in graduate school is influenced by the quality and relevance of instruction and the

academic dishonesty of instructors and peers. Implications for student learning and the

enhancement of academic integrity in the classroom are discussed.

Keyword: academic ethics, academic dishonesty.

1. IntroductionThe policy for higher education has emphasized popularization of university education in

Taiwan in recent years; therefore, the numbers of universities and colleges has increased

rapidly. The phenomenon of negative population growth cause the fact that institutions of

higher education students enrolled less and the problem has grown more and more serious.

Schools have faced the awkward situation that they have difficulty sending out salaries or

being amalgamated already. Higher educational institutions face severe market mechanism

test. (Ho, & Nyeu, 2008) Besides, Ministry of Education evaluates schools and teachers

through the assessment system to enhance schools performance and teaching quality. Andthe evaluation results are used as an exit mechanism for schools and teachers. Therefore,

schools and teachers are all trying to meet the evaluation criteria. As for college teachers

evaluations focus more on the quantity and quality of published papers. As a result, teachers

eager to publish more papers in order to not be out of the academic market.

In this high-pressure environment, thus, violation of academic ethics happens more than

before. Take a national university professor for example, he published a report return by

students without their permission and was charged with violating the Copyright Law and was

sentenced to prison. (The China Times, 2009) Another professor borrowed the thesis from

students and their names have not been mentioned in the paper. He is obviously plagiarism

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

2/10

students efforts, not only breaching academic ethics, but also a clear violation of teaching

profession. (Liberty Times, 2010) In summary, the ethical behavior of academic college

teachers may have deviated, however the literature does not to discuss academic ethical

behavior before. Therefore, the study will fill some of the gaps in this field.

Moral dilemma in higher education environment requires high moral reflection from

post-secondary teachers. (e.g., Svinicki, 1994, p. 277) However, in the past, empirical

researches mainly focus on such an ethic issue as sexual harassment. The ethical relationship

in daily interactions between teachers and students, particularly the ethical behavior of

academic teachers from students viewpoints, is very rarely discussed. As everybody knows,

university teachers not only play an important part in teaching and researching, but also are

regarded as a role model for students. For graduate students, teachers are the enlighteners and

mentors in their careers of research. Without a doubt, teachers have a great influence on

students academic ethical behavior. Genereux and McLeod (1995) verified that personal

characteristics of college teachers would affect students academic behavior ethically.

Teachers are, beyond dispute, important for the formation of ethical value of their students

behavior. Therefore, the purposes of this research are to examine the academic behavior of

college teachers from graduate students horizon, and to explore the relevance between

ethical behavior of college teachers and students academic ethic behavior.

In addition, the other issue is that will the academic ethics and values of graduate students be

affected by significant other. Mayhew, Hubbard, Finelli, Harding and Carpenter (2009)

explore the factors that affect student academic ethics with the theory of planned behavior,and get the results that subjective norms will have influence on the intention of students

academic unethical behavior and on their act. Therefore, the academic ethical behavior of

students is affected by the important relationship, especially by teachers and peers. McCabe,

Butterfield, and Trevino (2006) have collected data from 54 colleges and universities in the

United States and Canada, and they found that the unethical behavior between academic

peers strongly influenced by each other. The result is similar to social learning theory

(Bandura, 1986) that much of human behavior is learned through the influence of example

(p. 527). In this way, if someone finds his peers cheating successfully, then increasing the

tendency of what he found to behave similarly. (McCabe, & Trevino, 1993) Therefore, Peer

academic ethical environment may affect the values of ethics to graduate students. The

purpose of this research also includes to exam the academic behavior of college students from

peers view, and to explore the relevance of the ethical behavior of graduate students with

their peers.

The definition of academic plagiarism, which is discussed extensively on the campus, will be

the crucial factor to rub off on academic ethical culture. That is, it matters whether students

have clear concept about academic ethics or not. If their cognitions are vague, how can we

require them to comply with academic ethics? (Hendershott, Drina, & Cross, 2000: 587;

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

3/10

Kidwell, Wozniak, & Laurel, 2003; Nuss, 1984; Pincus, & Schmelkin, 2003; Stern, &

Havlicek, 1986) Nonis & Swift (2001) noted that students who behaved dishonestly,

especially cheating, were more likely to engage in dishonest acts in the workplace. McCabe,

Butterfield, & Trevino (2006) collected data from 54 colleges and universities in the United

States and Canada, and found that graduate business students cheated more seriously

than non-business students. Klein, Levengurg, McKendall, & Mothersell (2007) also noted

that compared to other college students, business students had more lax attitudes regarding

cheating. It is proved that students concept and cognition about academic ethics will affect

their judgments on academic ethical behavior. Therefore, this study will explore business

graduate students cognition and real situation about academic ethics.

To sum up, graduate academic ethics and values are affected by important relationships, such

as peers and professors. To develop campus culture of academic ethics, students, teachers,

and administrative units all have responsibility. In academic fields, college teachers should

assume students role model. They not only strongly affect the ethical behavior of students,

but also enhance the students awareness of academic ethics, in order tobuild a healthy

campus culture of academic ethics. Therefore, this article aims at multiple dimensions:

1. To investigate the actual status of college teachers in Taiwan violating academic ethics.

2. To discuss the relevance of academic ethical behavior between college teachers and

students.

3. To explore business graduate students academic cognition and the actual state of academic

ethics.4. To explore the relevance of academic ethical behavior between graduate students and their

peers.

2. Literature Review2.1 Academic Dishonesty at the Graduate Level

Understanding the cheating problems among graduate business students is important because

these students will be business leaders in the future. A study investigating 207 graduate

business students found that 80% had engaged in at least one of 15 unethical academic

practices when they were in school (Brown, 1995). However, these students perceived

themselves as more ethical than their undergraduate counterparts, although their rates of

academic dishonesty were similar. In addition, Nonis, & Swift (1998) found that there were

more cheating behavior in writing projects than taking exams in the classroom, and students

viewed the ethics of cheating inside and outside the classroom as different. Elias (2009) in his

research have noted that, contrary to previous research by Nonis and Swift (1998), business

students considered cheating outside the classroom slightly more unethical than cheating in

class. This difference can be due to the fact that students today use the internet and library

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

4/10

databases to complete their projects much more often than before. Consequently, they are

beginning to regard out-of-class questionable behavior as unethical.

When it comes to evaluating graduate students in Taiwan, written reports and oral

representations are more common than class tests. Therefore, cheating outside the classroom

will be the highlight of the study. Graduate students in Taiwan are divided into Full-time

tertiary students and in-service special classes. Full-time students have more opportunities to

interact with their teachers. For example, a student can be his/her teachers research assistant

of a National Science Council project and they co-publish the article together. Hence, the

study will aim at full-time graduate and focus on the violations of academic ethics outside the

classroom. These violations include referring to and using published questionnaires or

internet information without the authors permission; publishing papers and taking full credit

but not informing the other participants; or coping paragraphs from published sources without

footnoting.

McCabe and Trevino (1995) also noted that in the workplace, those who had been business

college students before reported higher levels of cheating than non-business students. In order

to confirm that graduate business students already have these characteristics, McCabe,

Butterfield and Trevino (2006) collected data from 54 colleges and universities in the United

States and Canada, and verified that graduate business students cheated more than their

non-business-student peers. Besides, scandals in corporations have occurred one after another

recently, in light of this, business schools have been searching for solutions to improving

students unethical behavior at school.

2.2 Academic Dishonesty of Faculty and Faculty Influences on Academic Integrity

Relatively little work has examined the influence of instructor behavior on academic integrity,

a topic that is particularly intriguing because instructors are in a unique position: They not

only control the classroom environment in which most cases of academic dishonesty occur,

but they are also largely the creators of that environment. One of the primary features of this

environment is the student instructor relationship. Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne (1997)

pointed out that the interaction between students and teachers is also a factor affecting

students cheating. Students who perceive instructors to be concerned for students and actively

involved in the learning process are less likely to engage in dishonesty. (Ashworth, Bannister,

& Thorne, 1997). Genereux, & McLeod (1995) conducted a study that included questions

regarding instructor friendliness and caring. Factor analysis found instructor friendliness to

load with other items on a factor labeled instructor personality. Instructors personality

(i.e., students perception of instructor behavior) appearedto influence academic integrity.

Mayhew, Hubbard, Finelli, Harding, & Carpenter (2009) discovered that modified TPB was a

viable framework for understanding the psychological mechanisms that students use when

deciding to cheat. The results showed that subjective norms (including Most people who are

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

5/10

important to me (e.g., my family, friends, colleagues, teachers, etc.) think I should not cheat

on an in-class test or exam). A positive impact on students cheating tendencies, thereby

affecting the behavior of cheating.

However, relatively little work has examined the influence of instructor behavior on

academic integrity and discussed the relevance of Ethical behavior of college teachers and

students academic ethics behavior. Therefore, this study suggests that college teachers should

be a graduate of enlightenment. Teachers are supposed to teach graduate students to observe

academic ethics. Teachers themselves should also be a model for student learning. This study

suggests that teachers in their academic and post-graduate academic ethical behavior with

relevance. The following hypothesis is tested in the null form:

Hypothesis 1: Academic dishonesty will be positively related to a students perception of

professors academic dishonesty.

2.3 Peer Influences on Academic Integrity

The behaviors and attitudes of peers influence student decisions regarding academic

misconduct. Genereux, & Mcleod (1995) reported that estimates of the prevalence of

cheating among peers significantly predicted cheating behavior. McCabe, Butterfield, &

Trevino (2006) pointed out that Correlation results found cheating to be associated with

perceived peer behavior, as well as the perceived certainty of being reported by a peer. Social

learning theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests that most of what individuals learn, they learnthrough vicarious processes. They observe others behavior and the outcomes of that

behavior. As such, observing peers cheat successfully should increase the tendency of the

observer to behave similarly. Peer behavior also provides normative support for

cheatingwhen peers are seen cheating, cheating may come to be viewed as an acceptable

way of behaving and of getting ahead (McCabe, & Trevino, 1993). If students see others

getting ahead by cheating, they may feel free to or compelled to do the same thus; we propose

that the stronger students perception of ethical peer behavior, the fewer students will engage

in academic dishonesty. The following hypothesis is tested in the null form:

Hypothesis 2: Academic dishonesty will be positively related to a students perception of

peers academic dishonesty (the perceived level of academic dishonesty

among their peers).

Hypothesis 3: Academic dishonesty will be positively related to graduate students

awareness of academic ethics.

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

6/10

3. Research Methods3.1 Sample

Similar to McCabe and Trevino (1997), we observed students between multiple universities.

We focus on two local universities in the southern and middle region of Taiwan. We

considered the violations of academic ethical conduct survey of teachers are too sensitive. For

the sake, we used convenience samples of different classes for different majors. Overall, a

total of 180 students participated in the survey. These voluntary surveys were administered

during the middle of the semester and students were assured of confidentiality. After

eliminating surveys with missing answers, there are 173 the effective samples that we got

from students.

3.2 Survey Instrument

This survey consists of a demographic section and several scales. Every scale has 18

questions, which are answered by respondents, covering four aspects: (a) the level of

cognition of graduate students concerning academic ethical behavior; (b) Peers cases of

violating academic ethics; (c) The situation about teachers violation against academic ethics;

(d) Graduate students cases of violating academic ethics.

According to Likerts five-point-scale, from1 to 5, every question has 5 items to represent the

frequency of unethical behavior. Item (5) means always, decreasing to item (1) means

never. After primary questionnaires being designed, five experts in the business ethicsareas were invited to assess the content, including wording clarity, questions and sequences

adequacy. Several minor modifications were done based on the comments collected from

these experts.

After the pre-test questionnaires are prepared, we selected a private university and a private

college for the pre-testing. 60 masters students joined the test. Then, statistical analyses,

such as item-analysis, factor-analysis and reliability- analysis, are carried out.

Among several scales, there is one called academic ethics scale, and originally there are

18 questions in this scale. After item-analysis, none of the questions is deleted. However,

after further factor-analysis, we removed three questions because the scale was under 50 by

factor loading items. After pre-testing, item-analysis, factor-analysis and reliability- analysis,

scale internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach ) was up to 0.904. In the end, we went

through these analyses of pre-test questionnaires, and 15 academic ethicsquestions were

established.

3.3 Statistical Analysis

In order to test H1, H2 and H3 and examine the relationship between students academic

dishonesty, students perception of professors academic, students perception of peers

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

7/10

academic dishonesty, correlation analysis will be used.

4. Results and DiscussionsTable I shows the sample characteristics. The sample was about evenly divided between

males and females. In addition, there is more finance compared to other majors, followed by

business and marketing, management and information, hospitality and tourism, accounting,

international business and undeclared majors.

While we focus on teachers, peers and students self-assessment of a violation of academic

ethics case, the results show the worse situation on peers at the violation of graduate

academic ethics, (Mean 2.71; SD .73) followed is teachers (Mean 2.37; SD .79), the last is

graduate students (Mean 2.37; SD .68).

View demographic variables of teachers, peers, and students themselves violations of

academic ethics case; found that female students and male students compared to all the

teachers, peers, and students with their academic ethics violation more serious. From the year,

in the first year of second-year graduate students and graduate students in comparison, are the

teachers, peers, and students with their academic ethics violation more serious.

TABLE

The impact of demographics on perceptions of academic ethics behavior (N=173)

N Major NGender Business and Marketing 39

Males 87 Management and Information 18

Females 86 Hospitality and Tourism 37

Finance 40

Accounting 23

International Business 13

Others 3

Variable Mean SDPeers behavior 2.71 .73

Teachers behavior 2.37 .79

Students self-behavior 2.37 .68

Academic behavior 2.67 .89

The results of H2 and H3 testing using correlation analyses are presented in Table II. There

was a strong positive relationship between the situation in violation of academic ethics of

teachers and students to self-assessment of their academic ethics violations.

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

8/10

These data indicate that ethical behavior of teachers and students of the dumping of academic

interaction. There also is a strong positive relationship between peer case breach of academic

ethics and student self-assessment of their academic ethics violations, and a significant

inverse relationship between graduate student awareness of academic ethics and student

self-assessment of their academic ethics violations. Students who get high score on graduate

student awareness of academic ethics are dislike to acts of violation of academic ethics.

Therefore, H2 and H3 are supported.

TABLE II

The relationship between faculty and peers

Peers

behavior

Teachers

behavior

Students

self-behavior

Academic

behavior

Peers behavior

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1

173

Teachers behavior

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.762**

.000

173

1

173

Students self-behavior

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.761**

.000

173

.776**

.000

173

1

173Academic behavior

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.216**

.004

173

.279**

.000

173

-.362**

.000

173

1

173

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5. ConclusionsApart from examining graduate students cognition of ethical violations, our study also wants

to know, from graduate students point of view, the violating degrees of their teachers and

peers. The relationship between graduate students cognition and the violating degrees of

their teachers and peers is discussed as well. According to our research, it is certain that the

academic ethical behavior of teachers and peers has a great influence on graduate students

academic ethical behavior. Moreover, graduate students cognition of ethical violations also

affects their academic ethical behavior, and their cognition, to a certain extent, is derived

from their teachers. Undoubtedly, teachers are responsible for correcting students unethical

behavior. In addition to infusing students with moral sense, teachers should watch their ownbehavior to set good examples.

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

9/10

Our research also shows that from graduate students point of view, the violating behavior of

their teachers and peers is similar and lower than average score. That means this situation

cannot be ignored any more.

ReferenceAshworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students

perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in

Higher Education, 22(2), 187203. (EJ 549 250).

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, B. S. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: A survey.Journal of

Education for Business, 70(3), 151156.

Elias, R. Z. (2009). The impact of anti-intellectualism attitudes and academic self-efficacy on

business students perceptions of cheating.Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 199209.

Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A

questionnaire study of college students.Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687704.

(EJ 518 273).

Hendershott, A., Drina, P. & Cross, M. (2000). Towards enhancing a culture of academic

integrity.NASPA Journal, 37, 587597.

Ho, C. C., & Nyeu F. Y. (2008). Globalization and higher education strategic alliance.Journal of Education Research, 81, 5976.

Kidwell, L. A., Wozniak, K., & Laurel, J. P. (2003). Student reports and faculty perceptions

of academic dishonesty. Teaching Business Ethics, 7, 205214.

Klein, H. A., Levengurg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007). Cheating during

the college years: How do business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics,

72, 197206.

Liberty Times. (2010). Retrieved April 7, 2010

http://times.hinet.net/times/article.do?newsid=2838601&option=latest.

Mayhew, M. J., Hubbard, S. M., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2009).

Using structural equation modeling to validate the theory of planned behavior as a

model for predicting student cheating. The Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 441468.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences of academic

dishonesty.Research in Higher Education, 38, 379353.

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate

business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 5(3), 294305.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and othercontextual influences.Journal of Higher Education, 64,520538.

7/27/2019 099-1-14p

10/10

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Cheating among business students: A challenge for

business leaders and educators. The Journal of Management Education,19(2), 205218.

Nonis, S. A., & Swift, C. O. (1998). Deterring cheating behavior in the marketing classroom:

An analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes, and in-class deterrent strategies.Journal of Marketing Education, 20,188199.

Nonis, S. A., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic

dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of

Education for Business, 6977.

Nuss, E. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving

College and University Teaching, 32, 140144.

Pincus, H. S., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2003). Faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty: A

multidimensional scaling analysis.Journal of Higher Education, 74, 196209.

Stern, E. & Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate

students surveys.Journal of Allied Health, 5, 129142.

Svinicki, M. D. (1994). Ethics in college teaching. In W.J. McKeachie, Teaching Tips.

269277 (Lexington, M.A.: D.C. Heath)

The China Times. (2009). Retrieved Dec 23, 2009, http://news.chinatimes.com/.