Students’ Perception And Behavior Of 
Academic Integrity: A Case Study Of A Writing Forum Activity

Year 2014, Volume: 15 Issue: 4, 150 - 161, 01.12.2014

Visara Ekahıtanond

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.55218

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The use of online tools such as forum has helped instructors develop courses that are engaging and challenging. However, instructors want to ensure that all students maintain academic integrity when they were assigned to work in an online community. This paper investigated students’ perception and behavior of academic integrity in an online discussion forum. Data were collected from 160 students enrolled in a fundamental English course who were assigned to post and respond to the topics in a forum. A survey was administered to measure how students perceived ‘academic integrity’ as well as to investigate students’ experience of violating academic integrity. A semi-structured interview was further conducted with the involved participants to find out the reasons behind their performance. The findings revealed that students perceived some misconduct actions as not cheating, leading to behaviors of academic dishonesty. As such, students should be informed more about what they can or cannot do in order not to commit academic dishonesty.

Keywords

Academic Integrity, Online Discussion, Learning Management System

References

• This finding can be supported by what Bloodgood, Turnley and Mudrack (2010) stated in that students had academic dishonesty because they did not know they were copying. CONCLUSION
• Bai, H. (2009). Facilitating students’ critical thinking in online discussion: An instructor’s experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 156-164.
• Bloodgood, J. M., Turnley, W.H., & Mudrack, P. E. (2010). Ethics instruction and the perceived acceptability of cheating. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 23-37.
• Brent, E., & Atkisson, C. (2011). Accounting for cheating: An evolving theory and emergent themes.Research in Higher Education, 52(6), 640-658.
• Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations forteaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chapman, K., & Lupton, R. (2004). Academic dishonesty in a global educational market: A comparison of Hong Kong and American university business students. The International
• Journal of Education Management, 18 (7), 425-35. Gallant, T. (2008). Moral panic: the contemporary context of academic integrity. ASHE
• Higher Education Report, 33 (5), 1-12. Gilbert, P., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussion for meaningful discourse:A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 5–18.
• Hard, S., Conway, J., & Moran, A. (2006). Faculty and college students’ beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1058-1080.
• Iyer, R., & Eastman, J. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students? Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101-110.
• Kennedy, K., Nowak, S., Raghuraman, R., Thomas, J., & Davis, S. (2000). Academic dishonesty and distance learning: Student and faculty views. College Student Journal, 34(2), 309-314.
• Kwong, T., Ng, H., Mark, K., & Wong, E. (2010). Students' and faculty's perception of academic integrity in Hong Kong. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27 (5), 341 – 355.
• Lee, C., & Wen, L. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education - a nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54, 85-97.
• Lipponen, L. (2000). Towards knowledge building discourse: From facts to explanations in primary students’ computer mediated discourse. Learning Environments Research, 3, 179-1
• Mangan, K. (2006). Survey finds widespread cheating in MBA programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(6), A.44. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from ProQuest Education
• Journals database. (Document ID: 1154194381).
• Nussbaum, M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G., Reynolds, R., & Bendixen, L. (2002). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
• Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49-60.
• Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159–174.
• Spaulding, M. (2009). Perceptions of academic honesty in online vs. face-to-face classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 183-198.
• Stein, D., Wanstreet, C., Glazer, H., Engle, C., Harris, R., & Johnson, S. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103–115.
• Sutton, A., & Taylor, D. (2011): Confusion about collusion: working together and academic Integrity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36:7, 831-841
• Swan, K., Schenker, J., Arnold, S., & Kuo, C. (2007). Shaping online discussion:
• Assessment matters. E-mentor,1(18). Retrieved March on 6, 2009, from http://ementor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/18/390.pdf
• Taylor, D., Glaister, K., & Sutton, A. 2007. Student perceptions of ‘what is plagiarism?’
• Paper presented at Leeds Learning and Teaching Conference, January 5, in Leeds. Xie, K., Durrington, V., & Yen, L. (2011). Relationship between students’ motivation and their participation in asynchronous online discussions. MERLOT Journal of Online
• Learning and Teaching, 7 (1) March, 17-29. Yeo, S. 2007. First-year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 199–216.