Integrity at a Distance: A Study of Academic Misconduct among University Students on and off Campus

Abstract

Academic integrity and misconduct have been the subject of increased interest in universities and for the public at large. Many studies have examined cheating behaviours to determine which forms of misconduct are most prevalent, which students perceive to be most serious, which academic disciplines have higher cheating rates, and what factors influence a student's propensity to cheat. Such research has taken place in traditional colleges and universities where students study on campus and have regular contact with other students and educators. However, the increasing popularity of distance education has raised new concerns over academic integrity among students not on campus. This paper reports on a study that explored academic misconduct amongst the student cohort at an Australian university with an extensive distance education program. Using a survey instrument previously developed in the USA, students were asked about a number of types of academic misconduct, their prevalence, and their seriousness. The study found that distance students are far less likely to engage in academic misconduct. Reasons for this finding are explored within the paper.

Keywords:

• Distance education
• academic integrity
• cheating
• Australian education

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by a grant from the Scholarship in Teaching Fund of Charles Sturt University, Australia, and presented at the 10th IAAER World Congress of Accounting Educators, Istanbul, Turkey in November 2006.

Notes

A copy of the instrument used in the study on which this paper reports can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

In Australia, colleges are private schools at the primary or secondary level. In the USA, colleges, like universities, are 2- or 4-year post-secondary institutions. The American usage is employed in this paper.

In early versions of the questionnaire, social desirability bias was tested, but results indicated that under conditions of anonymity, students were not reluctant to answer truthfully about their behaviour (McCabe, personal communication with first author, September 1999).

Our best approximation of the response rates are 25% for distance students and 41% for internal students. However, this is based on how the students categorized themselves, which does not correspond exactly with how the university categorized them. More precise response rates are not known due to a change from confidentiality to anonymity procedures demanded by the human subject ethics committee mid-stream.

Paper mills are web sites where students can purchase term papers on a wide variety of topics. Virtually any topic is available through one or another of these sites.

Levene's test for equality of variances showed unequal variances. The t statistic for independent samples with unequal variances was 11.4000, with a P-value < 0.0001.

Initial tests were performed using the three ordinal responses. In cases where cell frequencies were low enough to violate chi-square data requirements, the variables were converted to dichotomous variables (never cheated or cheated at least once).

Pearson's χ2 = 37.331, P < 0.0001.

Pearson's χ2 = 62.923, P < 0.0001.

These findings were also verified through regression analysis controlling for age and gender.

Incidentally, this same student did not think honour codes were necessary because, ‘I don't need an honour code personally. I have my own set of checks and balances.’

The description was as follows: ‘Briefly, an honour code is student-driven code of ethics for students, in which they agree not to cheat or commit other acts of academic misconduct. Honour codes usually involve a student-run judiciary for violations. Rather than lecturers handling individual cases alone, all cases are turned over to the student honour board for investigation and, if appropriate, penalties. Such cases are always handled with confidentiality. An honour code may require all students to sign a pledge to be honest, and it may or may not require students to report cases of academic misconduct they have observed. Examinations may or may not be invigilated [proctored].’