Universal Journal of Educational Research Vol. 3(4), pp. 258 - 268
DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030402
Reprint (PDF) (511Kb)


Comparison of Academic Misconduct across Disciplines – Faculty and Student Perspectives


Adeel Khalid *
Department of Systems and Mechanical Engineering, Southern Polytechnic State University, USA

ABSTRACT

Academic misconduct by students in higher education is a fact and is a challenge to the integrity of higher education and its reputation. Furthermore such misconduct is counterproductive to the ethics component of higher education. The purpose of this research is to explore, investigate and compile the anecdotal accounts of academic misconduct conducted by students in classes in higher education across disciplines. This research is a result of the combined efforts of faculty members representing the disciplines of humanities, arts, social sciences, business, languages, music, and various engineering fields. The goal is to bring to light the various methods and strategies that students use to cheat during exams, quizzes, term papers, etc. As a collaborative effort, the authors also investigate techniques faculty can use to prevent academic misconduct in both face-to-face and virtual classrooms. Student viewpoints are also presented as part of this study and are collected through an anonymous survey. Students get a chance to reveal what motivates them to cheat in exams, quizzes and other assessments. They also indicate some of the techniques their peers use in supervised (e.g. tests, quizzes, exams etc.) and un-supervised (e.g. homework, projects, lab reports, online environment etc.) assessments. The survey also reveals whether students are more likely to cheat in the major required courses or non-major elective courses etc. Some of the techniques that deter students from cheating are also discussed.

KEYWORDS
Academic Misconduct, Engineering Education, Cheating, Multi-Disciplinary

Cite this paper
Adeel Khalid . "Comparison of Academic Misconduct across Disciplines – Faculty and Student Perspectives." Universal Journal of Educational Research 3.4 (2015) 258 - 268. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030402.