Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to identify if gender differences exist with respect to conviction of university students for academic dishonesty. To investigate this phenomenon, data from the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (SNAHE) and from disciplinary boards of several Swedish universities were evaluated from a gender perspective. To identify whether the penalty severity for academic dishonesty is gender biased, the ratio of suspensions/warnings for male and female students was calculated. It was identified that female students are less prevalent in disciplinary matters and that there was no systematic gender bias in penalty severities (warnings or suspensions). In addition, female students deny academic dishonest behaviors more than male students, indicating a possibly higher false conviction rate.
Highlights
Academic dishonesty in higher education, such as cheating and plagiarism, is a growing problem and the number of reported cases continues to increase (Edgren & Walters 2006; Magnus et al 2002; Trost 2009)
The question addressed in this study is: Do gender differences exist with respect to conviction of students for academic dishonesty? To answer this question we conducted an analysis of data from the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (SNAHE) and from several Swedish universities from 2010
Based on statistics from 2010 and self-reports on academic dishonesty behavior, female students are less prevalent in disciplinary matters, which is in agreement with many of the previous investigations on disciplinary matters
Summary
Academic dishonesty in higher education, such as cheating and plagiarism, is a growing problem and the number of reported cases continues to increase (Edgren & Walters 2006; Magnus et al 2002; Trost 2009). Cheating and other acts of academic dishonesty are a growing concern because they threaten the integrity of the learning process and could potentially undermine the credibility of educational programs. Sweden was ranked number 3 (19.22/36) out of 27 countries according to the academic maturity model that measures areas such as research, training, prevention and policies for academic misconduct (Glendinning 2013:35). Sweden’s strength is partially attributed to having both a national system for Witmer and Johansson International Journal for Educational Integrity (2015) 11:6 collecting data annually from universities about academic misconduct and nationally prescribed policies for handling these issues (Glendinning 2013:35)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
