I Did Cheating, Because… : A Phenomenological Study

Abstract

The aim of present study is to understand the reasons of pre-service teachers for academic cheating. The study used phenomenological design and descriptive phenomenological approach was adapted. The participants were selected by using homogenous sampling strategy and data were collected through in depth interviews from six volunteer pre-service teachers which are a woman and five men. In analysis of the research data, thematic analysis approach was utilized. As a result of the analysis, two themes were constructed to explain the reasons for cheating that are personal factors and environmental factors. The personal factors are comprised of personal characteristics, academic gains and insufficient self-perception. The environmental factors affecting cheating behaviors are instructor’s attitudes and behaviors, exam-based evaluation system, the role of courses, peer effect, institutional features and family expectations.

Keywords: Cheating, preservice teachers, qualitative research, phenomenology

 

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının kopya çekme davranışlarının nedenlerini incelemektir. Araştırma olgubilim deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiş ve araştırmada betimsel olgubilim yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Araştırma katılımcılarını Türkiye’nin batısında yer alan bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesi öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma verileri 1’i kadın 6 öğretmen adayından derinlemesine görüşme tekniği kullanılarak elde edilmiş ve tematik analiz tekniği ile çözümlenmiştir. Verilerin tematik analizi sonucunda katılımcıların kopya çekme nedenlerine ilişkin bireysel etmenler ve çevresel etmenler temaları oluşturulmuştur. Katılımcıları kopya çekmeye yönlendiren bireysel etmenler kişisel özellikler, akademik kazanç sağlama ve zayıf öz yeterlik algısıdır. Çevresel etmenler ise öğretim elemanlarının eylemleri ve özellikleri, sınavlara dayalı sistem ve sınavların içeriği, derslerin içerik yapısı, akranların etkisi, kurumsal özellikler ve aile beklentisi nedenlerinden oluşmaktadır.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Kopya çekme, öğretmen adayı, nitel araştırma, olgubilim

Keywords

• Cheating, preservice teachers, qualitative research, phenomenology

Kopya Çektim, Çünkü… : Bir Olgubilim Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının kopya çekme davranışlarının nedenlerini incelemektir. Araştırma olgubilim deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiş ve araştırmada betimsel olgubilim yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Araştırma katılımcılarını Türkiye’nin batısında yer alan bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesi öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma verileri 1’i kadın 6 öğretmen adayından derinlemesine görüşme tekniği kullanılarak elde edilmiş ve tematik analiz tekniği ile çözümlenmiştir. Verilerin tematik analizi sonucunda katılımcıların kopya çekme nedenlerine ilişkin bireysel etmenler ve çevresel etmenler temaları oluşturulmuştur. Katılımcıları kopya çekmeye yönlendiren bireysel etmenler kişisel özellikler, akademik kazanç sağlama ve zayıf öz yeterlik algısıdır. Çevresel etmenler ise öğretim elemanlarının eylemleri ve özellikleri, sınavlara dayalı sistem ve sınavların içeriği, derslerin içerik yapısı, akranların etkisi, kurumsal özellikler ve aile beklentisi nedenlerinden oluşmaktadır.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Kopya çekme, öğretmen adayı, nitel araştırma, olgubilim

Abstract

The aim of present study is to understand the reasons of pre-service teachers for academic cheating. The study used phenomenological design and descriptive phenomenological approach was adapted. The participants were selected by using homogenous sampling strategy and data were collected through in depth interviews from six volunteer pre-service teachers which are a woman and five men. In analysis of the research data, thematic analysis approach was utilized. As a result of the analysis, two themes were constructed to explain the reasons for cheating that are personal factors and environmental factors. The personal factors are comprised of personal characteristics, academic gains and insufficient self-perception. The environmental factors affecting cheating behaviors are instructor’s attitudes and behaviors, exam-based evaluation system, the role of courses, peer effect, institutional features and family expectations.

Keywords: Cheating, preservice teachers, qualitative research, phenomenology

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kopya çekme, öğretmen adayı, nitel araştırma, olgubilim

Kaynakça

1. Ahmadi, A. (2012). Cheating on exams in the Iranian EFL context. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 151-170. doi: 10.1007/s10805-012-9156-5
2. Akbulut, Y., Şendağ, S., Birinci, G., Kılıçer, K., Şahin, M. C. ve Odabaşı H. F. (2008a). Exploring the types and reasons of internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of internet-triggered academic dishonesty scale. Computers & Education, 51(1), 463-473.
3. Akbulut, Y., Uysal, Ö., Odabasi, H. ve Kuzu, A. (2008b). Influence of gender, program of study and pc experience on unethical computer using behaviors of Turkish undergraduate students. Computers & Education, 51(1), 485–492.
4. Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the connection between self-efficacy for learning and justifying academic cheating in higher education learning environments. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(1), 77-90. doi: 10.1007/s10805-015-9227-5
5. Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P. ve Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187-203, doi: 10.1080/03075079712331381034
6. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1(3), 385–405.
7. Ayres, L. (2008). Thematic coding and analysis. L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods içinde (ss. 867–868). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

9. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior içinde (ss. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
10. Bernardi, R. A., Baca, A. V., Landers, K. S. ve Witek, M. B. (2008). Methods of cheating and deterrents to classroom cheating: An international study. Ethics & Behavior, 18(4), 373-391. doi: 10.1080/10508420701713030
11. Bloor, M. ve Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
12. Braun V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
13. Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Coren, A. (2011). Turning a blind eye: Faculty who ignore student cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 291-305. doi: 10.1007/s10805-011-9147-y
15. Çilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 487-510.
16. Eret, E. ve Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: Tendencies, triggering factors and reasons among teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 1002-1016, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.880776.
17. Ersoy, A. ve Özden, M. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının ödevlerinde internetten intihal yapmalarında öğretim elemanının rolüne ilişkin görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 10(2), 608-619.
18. Ersoy, A. (2014). İnternet kaynaklarından intihal yaptığımın farkında değildim: Bir olgubilim araştırması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 47-60.
19. Finn, K. V. ve Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 115-121. doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121
20. Gibson, W. J. ve Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. Los Angelos: Sage.
21. Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: Sage.
22. Harding, T. S., Carpenter, D. D., Finelli, C. J. ve Passow, H. J. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 311-324.
23. Iyer, R. ve Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students? Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101-110.
24. Jones, D. L. R. (2011). Academic dishonesty: Are more students cheating? Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 141-150. doi: 10.1177/1080569911404059
25. Keçeci, A., Bulduk, S., Oruç, D. ve Çelik, S. (2011). Academic dishonesty among nursing students: A descriptive study. Nursing Ethics, 18(5), 725-733. doi: 10.1177/0969733011408042
26. Lin, C-H. S. ve Wen, L.-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education: A nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54(1), 85-97.
27. Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K. J. ve Weiss, J. E. (2000). International perspective: A cross-national exploration of business students’ attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Journal of Education for Business, 75(4), 231-235.
28. Malgwi, C. A. ve Rakovski, C. C. (2009). Combating academic fraud: Are students reticent about uncovering the covert?. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(3), 207-221.
29. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., ve Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 211–234.
30. McCabe, D. L. ve Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–538.
31. McCabe, D. L. ve Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.
32. Minarcik, J. ve Bridges, A. J. (2015). Psychology graduate students weigh in: Qualitative analysis of academic dishonesty and suggestion prevention strategies. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13, 197-216. doi: 10.1007/s10805-015-9230-x
33. Molnar, K. K. ve Kletke, M. G. (2012). Does the type of cheating influence undergraduate students’ perceptions of cheating?. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 201-212.
34. Murdock, T. B., Miller, A. D. ve Goetzinger. A. (2007). Effects of classroom context on university students’ judgments about cheating: Mediating and moderating processes. Social Psychology of Education 10, 141-169. doi: 10.1007/s11218-007-9015-1
35. Olafson, L., Schraw, G., Nadelson L., Nadelson, S. ve Kehrwald, N. (2013). Exploring the judgment–action gap: College students and academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 23(2), 148-162.
36. Özden, M. ve Özdemir Özden, D. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerine dayalı olarak akademik usulsüzlük davranışlarının belirlenmesi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi. 5(1), 88-98. doi: 10.5961/jhes.2014.00x
37. Park, E.-J., Park, S. ve Jang, I.-S. (2013). Academic cheating among nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 33, 346-352.
38. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3. Baskı). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
39. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. ve Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. J. Ritchie ve J. Lewis (Eds), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers içinde (ss.77-108). London: Sage.
40. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angelos: Sage.
41. Schmelkin, L. P., Gilbert, K., Spencer, K. J., Pincus, H. S. ve Silva, R. (2008). A multidimensional scaling of college students' perceptions of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 587-607.
42. Szabo, A. ve Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats: Is information and communication technology fuelling academic dishonesty? Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 180-199. doi: 10.1177/1469787404043815
43. Teodorescu, D. ve Andrei, T. (2009). Faculty and peer influences on academic integrity: College cheating in Romania. Higher Education, 57(3), 267-282. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9143-3
44. Vaismoradi, M.,Turunen, H. ve Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
45. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York: SUNY Press.
46. Wei, T., Chesnut, S. R., Barnard-Brak, L. ve Schmidt, M. (2014). University students’ perceptions of academic cheating: Triangulating quantitative and qualitative findings. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12, 287-298. doi: 10.1007/s10805-014-9219-x
47. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 39.
48. Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B. ve Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 41(9-10), 657-680.
49. Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2. Baskı). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
50. Willig, C. (2013). Interpretation and analysis. U. Flick. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis içinde (ss. 136-149). Los Angeles: Sage.
51. Yang, S. C., Huang, C.-L. ve Chen, A.-S. (2013). An investigation of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty, reasons for dishonesty, achievement goals, and willingness to report dishonest behavior. Ethics & Behavior, 23(6), 501-522, doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.802651
52. Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.