An investigation on Turkish EFL Majoring Students’ Unethical Behaviors

Yıl 2018, , 1785 - 1792, 15.09.2018

Muzaffer Barın , Turgay Han , Nilüfer Aybirdi

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3185

Cited By: 1

Öz

Much research has investigated plagiarism in different educational contexts; however, very little research has investigated English-as-a-foreign language students’ ethic from gender and impression management perspectives in Turkish EFL context. Academic dishonesty scale, impression management scale, and personal attributes questionnaire were used to collect data. This survey investigates Turkish EFL-majoring students’ attitudes towards academic behaviors, impression management, and psychological gender. Data were collected from 285 EFL majoring students from 3 state universities in Turkey. The results of this present study showed that first, all students have a moderate level of cheating behavior, they have varying level of beliefs about cheating behavior, there are no significant cheating behavior differences by gender. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

ethical behaviors, EFL learners, plagiary, university students, academic dishonesty

İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenen Türk Öğrencilerin Etik Olmayan Davranışları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Birçok bilimsel çalışma aşırmacılık konusunu farklı eğitim bağlamlarında araştırmıştır. Ancak, çok az sayıda araştırma  yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin etik anlayışını cinsiyet ve izlenim yönetimi perspektiflerinden araştırmıştır. Verilerin toplanması için akademik aldatma ölçeği, izlenim yönetimi ölçeği ve kişisel nitelikler anketi kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırma, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen Türk öğrencilerinin akademik davranışlara, izlenim yönetimine ve psikolojik cinsiyete yönelik tutumlarını araştırmaktadır. Veriler, Türkiye’deki üç devlet üniversitesinden yabancı dil olarak İngilizce bölümlerine devam eden 285 öğrenciden toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğrencelerin  orta düzeyde aldatma davranışı sergilediği, farklı düzeylerde aldatmaya yönelik inançlarının olduğunu ve cinsiyete göre anlamlı bir farklılığı olmadığını göstermiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

etik davranışlar, YDİ öğrenenler, intihal, üniversite öğrencileri, akademik sahtekârlık

Kaynakça

• Alzahrani, S. M., Salim, N., & Abraham, A. (2012). Understanding plagiarism linguistic patterns, textual features, and detection methods. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Re-views), 42(2), 133-149.
• Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• Beasley, J. D. (2004). The impact of technology on plagiarism prevention and detection: Research process automa-tion, a new approach for prevention. In Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policies 2004: Joint Infor-mation Systems Committee Plagiarism Advisory Service Conference (pp. 28-30).
• Becker, D. A. & Ulstad, I. (2007). Gender differences in student ethics: Are females really more ethical? Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 77-91.
• Bolin, A. U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138(2), 101-114.
• Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research.
• Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic detection and academic judgement. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1), 47-60.
• Carroll, J., & Appleton, J. (2001). A good practice guide. JISC report.
• Coughlin, P. E. (2015). Plagiarism in five universities in Mozambique: Magnitude, detection techniques, and control measures. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 11(1), 1-19.
• Eriksson, L., & McGee, T. R. (2015). Academic dishonesty amongst Australian criminal justice and policing universi-ty students: Individual and contextual factors. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 11(1), 1-15.
• Fezatte, A. (2009). The NEO personality inventory, attitudes, and academic dishonesty. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/undergraduateresearch/52966/items/1.0086030 on 17.11.2017
• Hodges, A., Bickham, T., Schmidt, E., & Seawright, L. (2017). Challenging the profiles of a plagiarist: a study of ab-stracts submitted to an international interdisciplinary conference. International Journal for Educational In-tegrity, 13(1), 1-15.
• Hollinger, R. C., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1996). Academic dishonesty and the perceived effectiveness of countermeas-ures: An empirical survey of cheating at a major public university. NASPA journal, 33(4), 292-306.
• Jolly, P. (1998). The ethics of plagiarism. (ERIC Document Reproduct Service No. ED421725).
• Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 233-247.
• Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2004). Academic dishonesty among criminal justice majors: A research note. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(1), 1-20.
• Leming, JS (1980) Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high and
• Low-risk conditions. Journal of Education Research, 74(2):83–87.
• Macaulay, A. D. & Lemm, K. M. (2014). Socioeconomic status and academically dishonest behavior. Presented in aposter session at the Western Psychological Association conference, Portland, OR.
• McCabe, D. L. & Trevino, L. K., (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 521-538.
• McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of re-search. Ethics &Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
• Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adoles-cents: Academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1):96-115.
• Nonis, S. & Swift, C.O. (2001). An Examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dis-honesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69-77
• O'Neill, H. M. (2012). The impact of honour codes and perceptions of cheating on academic cheating behaviours, es-pecially for MBA bound undergraduates. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21(3), 231-245.
• Oxford English Dictionary (2009). Accessed from http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/plagiarize?view=uk on 17.11.2017
• Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.
• Pavela, G. (1978). Judicial review of academic decision making after Horowitz. NOLPE School Law Journal, 8(1), 55-75.
• Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
• Sayed, N., & Lento, C. (2015). The impact of technology on academic dishonesty: Perspectives from accounting fac-ulty. The Accounting Educators’ Journal, (Special Edition), 65-87.
• Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender and impression management: Playing the promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 77-89.
• Stern, E. B., & Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student sur-veys. Journal of Allied Health, 15(2), 129-142.
• Thomas, M. W. (2000). Eschewing credit: Heywood, Shakespeare, and plagiarism before copyright. New Literary His-tory, 31(2), 277-293.
• Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Educa-tion, 39(3), 235-274.
• Wilhoit, S. (1994). Helping students avoid plagiarism. College Teaching, 42(4), 161-164.
• Witmer, H., & Johansson, J. (2015). Disciplinary action for academic dishonesty: does the student’s gender mat-ter? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 11(1), 1-10.
• Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., Betz, E. (2002). A Domain specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290.