Academic Honor Code Research Articles

Cheating and plagiarism in higher education institutions (HEIs): Aliterature review.

Cheating and plagiarism have become serious problems in higher education institutions (HEIs). It affects educational quality as well as the reputation of higher education. The purpose of this study is to identify the most prevalent types of cheating and plagiarism, as well as the elements that contribute to cheating and plagiarism, and to present solutions to this recurring problem. This paper systematically reviews 45 articles published from 2018, to 2022, aligned with the PRISMA guidelines in the selection, filtering, and reporting of the papers. This review shows that factors such as increased pressure on students, poor academic integrity awareness, lack of up-to-date academic honor codes, and the unethical application of AI tools are prime contributing factors to cheating and plagiarism in HEIs. In a broader sense, all these factors are classified as individual, social, cultural, institutional, and technological factors that are responsible for this problem. This problem can be reduced by establishing ethical and moral development tutorials as well as formulating up-to-date honor codes considering AI tools. Furthermore, higher education institutions must develop anti-plagiarism detection software in order to detect plagiarism and aid students in improving academic writing and paraphrasing approaches. The findings of this systematic literature review provide useful insights for educators and policymakers to solve the complicated issue of cheating and plagiarism in higher education institutions.

Cheating and plagiarism in higher education institutions (HEIs): A literature review

Cheating and plagiarism have become serious problems in higher education institutions (HEIs). It affects educational quality as well as the reputation of higher education. The purpose of this study is to identify the most prevalent types of cheating and plagiarism, as well as the elements that contribute to cheating and plagiarism, and to present solutions to this recurring problem. This paper systematically reviews 45 articles published from 2018, to 2022, aligned with the PRISMA guidelines in the selection, filtering, and reporting of the papers. This review shows that factors such as increased pressure on students, poor academic integrity awareness, lack of up-to-date academic honor codes, and the unethical application of AI tools are prime contributing factors to cheating and plagiarism in HEIs. In a broader sense, all these factors are classified as individual, social, cultural, institutional, and technological factors that are responsible for this problem. This problem can be reduced by establishing ethical and moral development tutorials as well as formulating up-to-date honor codes considering AI tools. Furthermore, higher education institutions must develop anti-plagiarism detection software in order to detect plagiarism and aid students in improving academic writing and paraphrasing approaches. The findings of this systematic literature review provide useful insights for educators and policymakers to solve the complicated issue of cheating and plagiarism in higher education institutions.

Investigating Factors Leading to Develop Academic Dishonesty and Cheating Behaviors During Board Examinations in Balochistan, Pakistan

This study investigates the pervasive issue of academic dishonesty and cheating behaviors during board examinations in Balochistan, highlighting diverse contributing factors and underscoring the pivotal role of exams in shaping academic paths. The study adopted a quantitative approach, 200 student responses collected through nonprobability random sampling. Using the rational choice theory, this study fills a research gap and advances understanding of academic dishonesty by offering insightful information. Empirical data analysis was utilized to conclude. The research reveals a high incidence of cheating from students with various causes, including the fear of failure, societal expectations, and peer pressure associated with examinations. Notably, stress and anxiety emerge as key predictors of academic dishonesty. Students, facing intense academic pressures, often turn to unethical practices as a coping mechanism. The study underscores the inadvertent encouragement of cheating within the education system, driven by an excessive focus on exam results as the primary measure of success. The findings contribute valuable insights to the academic integrity discourse, advocating for comprehensive strategies to foster a healthier educational system in Balochistan. Recommendations include addressing root causes, promoting a supportive learning environment, fostering open dialogue, and promoting a broader definition of success. formative assessments, post-exam feedback, parental collaboration, and workshops on academic integrity are proposed to create a more supportive and ethical learning environment, enforcing academic honor codes, strict exam monitoring, and efforts to mitigate cheating should extend beyond punitive measures and implement initiatives to reshape perceptions of success, ultimately cultivating a culture of honesty and integrity in education.

Predictors of Student Failure or Poor Performance on Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences

Objective. To determine factors predictive of student failure or poor performance on advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs) at a single pharmacy program. Methods. This retrospective cohort evaluated students entering the Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) program from 2012-2014 at St. Louis College of Pharmacy. Students who received a grade of F for one or more APPEs (failure group) were compared to all other students (non-failure group). A secondary evaluation compared students with a C or F on one or more APPEs (poor performers) to all other students (non-poor performers). Data were collected on didactic and experiential performance, identifiable professionalism issues from introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPEs), and academic honor code violations. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine factors associated with APPE failure and poor performance. Results. A total of 669 students were analyzed. Twenty-eight students (4.2%) failed one or more APPEs and 81 students (12.1%) were identified as poor performers (grade of C or F). For the primary outcome, professional grade point average (GPA) of less than 2.7, practicum failure, IPPE professionalism issue(s), and pharmacotherapy course failure were identified for inclusion in the multivariable analysis. The IPPE professionalism issue(s) (HR 4.8 [95% CI 1.9-12.4]) and pharmacotherapy course failure (HR 4.2 [95% CI, 1.6-11.1]) were associated with APPE failure on multivariable regression. On the secondary analysis, the same variables were identified for multivariable regression, with professional GPA of less than 2.7 (HR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-5]), IPPE professionalism issue(s) (HR 3.9 [95% CI 2.2-6.9]), and pharmacotherapy course failure (HR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1-3.7]) associated with poor performance. Conclusion. Poor academic performance and/or identified unprofessional behavior while completing IPPEs are associated with APPE failure and poor performance. Interventions should be aimed at identifying at-risk students and addressing risk factors prior to APPEs.

Study Drugs and Academic Integrity: The Role of Beliefs About an Academic Honor Code in the Prediction of Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use for Academic Enhancement

The role of beliefs about academic integrity in college students’ decisions to use nonmedical prescription drugs (NMPDs) in academic settings was examined. In Spring 2012 the authors obtained survey data from 645 participants at a small, undergraduate, private liberal arts institution in the Northeastern United States. A broadcast e-mail message was sent to 1,982 students, and data were collected via an anonymous online survey. Of the participants, 19% reported using medication prescribed for ADHD for academic enhancement: Adderall® was the primary medication used. Academic use of NMPDs was higher among participants who had lower levels of belief that such use violated standards of an academic honor code. Furthermore, NMPD use was higher among students for whom the perception of peer use was higher. There is potential to reduce NMPD use on college campuses through implementation of honor codes and campus-wide campaigns related to academic integrity.

Contradictory Fin-de Siècle Reform: German Masculinity, the Academic Honor Code, and the Movement against the Pistol Duel in Universities, 1890–1914

The pistol remains the weapon of cripples, the senile, and those infected with a communicable disease. The murder instrument of the highwayman, the dastardly, insidious pistol, is the preferred weapon of the officer.—Hugo Böttger, Editor of theBurschenschaftliche BlätterEven though fraternity men glorified their duels with swords, a series of frivolous pistol duels with deadly ends led students to organize a movement against pistol duels that swept German universities in 1902 and 1903. Students argued that pistol duels violated the rules of reason, morality, and religion—and were thus also purportedly un-German. Male students organized assemblies, made passionate speeches, and passed resolutions in opposition to the pistol duel. They then sent these resolutions to the War Ministers in Prussia, Bavaria, and Saxony. Burschenschaft fraternity men built on their long tradition of liberal political activism and convened assemblies in Berlin, Bonn, Breslau, Freiburg, Giessen, Greifswald, Halle, Kiel, Königsberg, Leipzig, Marburg, Munich, Rostock, and Tübingen and passed resolutions inspired by the movement. Some of these assemblies drew large numbers of students, for example, 600 students in attendance in Leipzig, 1,500 in Munich, and 1,500 in Freiburg. In Berlin, leaders of 67 organizations representing 2,400 members signed petitions against the pistol duel. Other universities not included were majority Catholic institutions, such as Münster or Würzburg, where the opposition to all forms of the duel was even stronger as a result of the Catholic Church's prohibition against dueling. Reaching universities throughout Germany, this movement united students from across the political spectrum.

An academic honor code developed and implemented by students

ObjectiveTo outline a student-led academic honor code initiative and the impact student leadership and involvement had in the overall development, implementation, and acceptance of the St. Louis College of Pharmacy Academic Honor Code and Integrity Policy (AHCIP). MethodsThe AHCIP was developed between January 2010 and April 2011. A survey was conducted in the spring of 2010 to assess student and faculty views on academic dishonesty. Key stakeholders were then provided additional opportunities for feedback through focus groups and regularly scheduled meetings. Multiple versions of the AHCIP were drafted, and the policy was approved by students, faculty, and the administration in April 2011. Implementation followed in August 2011. ResultsAs a result of a highly transparent and collaborative process, a successful and sustained implementation of a student-developed AHCIP occurred at St. Louis College of Pharmacy. Data on AHCIP reports are recorded each semester for continued evaluation. At the end of the first semester (Fall 2011), 23 potential violations were reported and evaluated by a judicial panel; 14 were found to be violations, while nine were considered not to be violations. At the end of the following semester (Spring 2012), four reports were received and reviewed by the judicial panel, and three were considered to be violations of the AHCIP. ConclusionA student-led initiative with emphasis on transparency and engagement from key stakeholders can lead to successful implementation and college-wide acceptance of an academic honor code at a professional school.

Combating Academic Fraud: Are Students Reticent about Uncovering the Covert?

This study links Cressey’s established fraud triangle theory to a recently developed academic fraud risk triangle as a platform for identifying the determinants of academic fraud risk factors. The study then evaluates the magnitude and extent to which students are willing to confront the realities of academic fraud and move towards a culture of academic integrity. Most of the studies pertaining to combating academic fraud have primarily been the opinions of the researchers, namely, the faculty. Although students may not be expected to police the fight against academic fraud, their opinions as to what would work and what would not, have not been sufficiently examined, and this study contributes to filling that void. We explore the agreement among students and groups of students concerning specific deterrent strategies. We find two types of strategies, student action and faculty/administration action. Results from 740 students surveyed found that the most widely supported strategies are stronger penalties, parental notification, an anonymous tip line, and administering a uniform policy. The least supported strategies were academic honor code, no strategy at all, requiring an ethics course, and leaving individual instructors to determine penalties. Further, full time, domestic, undergraduate, and male students favor student action strategies, which are more reactionary and less punitive.

An Action Learning Perspective on Effective Implementation of Academic Honor Codes

Facing mounting evidence of academic dishonesty on America’s college campuses, many schools in the 1990s implemented academic honor codes to stem the tide. Previous research concerning academic honor codes and other ethics codes highlight the importance of enacting a more ethical organizational culture as well as involving many organizational members in the process. Through the illustrative case of a major public university that struggled to meet this normative goal as it implemented an academic honor code, this article introduces an action learning perspective on how the design and implementation of ethics codes can help effect change in the ethical culture by instilling and reinforcing the values of honesty and integrity. It is argued that codes must be designed with full acknowledgement of the traditions and culture present in the student body, with the involvement of virtuallyall organization members, to elicit a full understanding of the ethical culture system.

Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences on Academic Integrity: A Replication and Extension to Modified Honor Code Settings.

Research has shown that traditional academic honor codes are generally associated with lower levels of student academic dishonesty. Utilizing data obtained from students at 21 colleges and universities, this study investigated the influence of modified honor codes, an alternative to traditional honor codes, that is gaining popularity on larger campuses. It also tested the model of student academic dishonesty previously suggested by McCabe and Trevino in a more diverse sample of campuses. Results suggest that modified honor codes are associated with lower levels of student dishonesty and that the McCabe and Trevino model appears to be reasonably robust.

Honor Among Students: Academic Integrity and Honor Codes at State-Assisted Universities

This qualitative study examined the relationship between institutional honor codes and student attitudes and behavior related to academic dishonesty. The primary data sources were students, faculty, and student affairs staff at three state-assisted universities. The results point to three conclusions: An academic honor code is only a mild deterrent to academic dishonesty; Faculty, student affairs staff and students differ in their views as to why students cheat; Students are more likely to cheat if they perceive that the campus culture tolerates cheating.

Honor Among Students: Academic Integrity and Honor Codes at State-Assisted Universities

This qualitative study examined the relationship between institutional honor codes and student attitudes and behavior related to academic dishonesty. The primary data sources were students, faculty, and student affairs staff at three state-assisted universities. The results point to three conclusions: An academic honor code is only a mild deterrent to academic dishonesty; Faculty, student affairs staff and students differ in their views as to why students cheat; Students are more likely to cheat if they perceive that the campus culture tolerates cheating.