Jason Stephens

ABSTRACT Most secondary and postsecondary institutions take a behavioral approach in dealing with student cheating—punishing those caught with grade reductions and/or suspensions. While some form of punishment may be necessary, it is not sufficient. As an instantiation of negative morality, academic misconduct offers an opportunity for moral education. The present investigation builds on the literature related to developmental approaches in responding to academic misconduct. It does so by describing theoretical underpinnings and instructional design of a developmental approach (Intervention), as well as results from a quasi-experimental study of its effects on moral sensitivity. Participants (N = 798) included university students who had been found responsible for academic misconduct and completed the Intervention. As hypothesized, participants not only reported greater attentiveness to moral issues after completing the Intervention, they also demonstrated greater awareness of the moral values related to academic misconduct. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

The study of academic misconduct in higher education spans generations. Reducing the problem among college students remains a top priority among university stakeholders. There are several theoretical explanations for why students cheat, including the institutional climate around academic integrity, motivational achievement goal structures, peer norms, and moral attitudes. These models have rarely been examined in concert to ascertain a more complete picture of the nuances of academic dishonesty. Understanding the interplay between these theoretical explanation(s) would be an important step in developing programming aimed at reducing cheating in higher education. The purpose of this study was toexamine the role of these theoretical explanations in predicting academic cheating as well as a combined model with all constructs. Using a sample of 2,329 undergraduates, we found that all five models were significantly associated with self-reported cheating, but in unique ways depending on the model. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.