The ecological premise that behavior is a function of the interaction/transaction between person and environment [B=f(PxE)] provides a framework for understanding the components of academic integrity/dishonesty in the classroom. Academic integrity in the classroom is a behavior that can be designed in or out depending upon student and environment characteristics and the relationship among these variables. For example, academic dishonesty would increase as a behavior when students who do not have a firm grasp of their own ethics are placed under unwarranted pressures to succeed within a classroom testing environment that fails to provide a preventive structure (proctors, seating arrangement). When added to this situation the failure of an institution to define or value academic integrity or to provide clarity of sanctions, academic dishonesty will significantly increase. A design for academic integrity could also be developed using these same concepts of behavior, students and environments.
The following outline suggests possible variables to examine when assessing a current campus design or when attempting to re-design a campus for academic integrity.
Behavior
Student Characteristics
Environmental Characteristics
The above variables interact to produce different levels of academic dishonesty or integrity depending upon the pattern of the interaction. The "Resource Reference" page of this issue of The Campus Ecologist presents a listing of the recent studies that have addressed the issue within the classroom environment. Also note the article on behavior engineering in this issue.
The following diagram was adapted from Gilbert's ( 1978) work titled Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (See pages 82 through 107)
The Behavior Engineering Model
| Behavior | |||
| B=f(PE) | STIMULOUS | RESPONSE | STIMULOUS |
E | DATA 1 | INSTRUMENTS 3 | INCENTIVES 5 |
P | KNOWLEDGE 2 | CAPACITY 4 | MOTIVES 6 |
1. Is the institutional/environmental data available?
2. Are the students aware of this information (institutional/environmental data)?
3. Has the institution/environment provided the necessary tools (instruments)?
4. Do the students have the capacity to use the tools?
5. Does the institution/environment provide the incentives?
6. What are the students' motives?
The above model can be a useful assessment and redesign tool for the campus. To illustrate its usefulness the behavior of academic dishonesty can be examined by the model. For example, is the high incidence of academic dishonesty due to a student information vs. a campus data problem, and/or student capacity vs. campus testing arrangements, and/or student motivation vs. campus incentives for not being dishonest? Depending upon the analysis, corrective actions can be designed to help eliminate academic dishonesty and promote academic integrity. For example, plagerism may be reduced by giving students a clear statement of how the institution defines plagerism. The environmental data becomes student information.
In Gilbert's (1978) words: "The behavior engineering model serves one purpose only: it helps us to observe behavior in an orderly fashion, and to ask the 'obvious' questions (the ones we so often forget to ask) toward the single end of improving human competence." (page 95)
Reference:
Gilbert, Thomas F. (1978) Human Competence: Engineering Worth Performance.
New York: McGrawHill Book Company.
Sarbin(1970) in writing about the intervention objectives of community psychologists presents the notion that individuals attempt to locate themselves in a complicated and changing environment. The environment is defined by Sarbin's four ecologies.
1. The Self-maintenance Ecology
The self-maintenance ecology relates to persons as a biosocial organism interacting with the environment for survival.
2. The Social Ecology
The social ecology relates to persons as a social being interacting with environment for social identity. It is the "Who am I" relationship.
3. The Normative Ecology
The normative ecology relates to how well a person is relating to the normative structure of the environment. It is the "How well am I doing" question.
4. The Transcendental Ecology
The transcendental ecology focuses on the relationship between persons and the transcendental abstractions, ie. God, the human condition, etc.
A person's failure to fit into the four ecologies suggests that the person's behavior will be maladjusted. Sarbin suggests that each of the four ecologies fall under the preview of particular psychological orientations. Problems stemming from the self-maintenance ecology can be assigned to the behavior theorists. Psychodynamic theories are best in focusing on the problems developed within the normative ecology. The social ecology area is the focus of the community psychologists and the problems associated with the transcendental ecologies can best be responded to by the humanistic-existential theorist.
The intervention programs on a college campus can be described by Sarbin's typology. Programs can be identified which focus on student health, identity, social relationships, and spiritual development. The challenge to the campus designer is to insure adequate opportunity as well as challenge and support for the students' struggles with the ecologies.
Reference:
Sarbin, T.R. (1970) A role-theory perspective for community psychology: The structure of social identity. In D. Adelson and B.L. Kalis (Eds.) Community psychology and mental health. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
Antion, D.L. & Michael, W.B. (1983) Short-term predictive validity of demographic, affective, personal and cognitives variables in relation to criterion measures of cheating behaviors. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 43 467-482.
Baird, John S., Jr. (1980j Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-522.
Barnett, D.C. & Dalton, J.C. (1981) Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 22, No. 6, 545-551.
Canning, R. (1979) Does an honor system reduce classroom cheating? Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 754.
Carnegie Council on Policy Students in Higher Education. (1979) Fair practices in higher education: rights and responsibilities of students and their colleges in a period of intensified competition for enrollments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cole, Sally (1981) Comparison of honor code surveys shows little change, but maybe less cheating. Campus Report, 13, 10-14.
Eve, R.A. & Bromley, D.G. (1981) Scholastic dishonesty among college undergraduates: parallel tests to two sociological explanations. Youth and Society, 13, 3-22.
Forsyth, D.R. & Berger, R.E. (1982) The effects of ethical ideology on moral behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 53-56.
Hardy, R.J. & Burch, D. (1981) What political science professors should know in dealing with academic dishonesty. Teaching Political Science, 9, 5- 14.
Hawley, C.S. (1984) The thieves of academe: plagiarism in the university system. Improving College and University Teaching, 32 (Winter) 35-39.
Houston, J.P. (1976) The assessment and prevention of answer copying on undergraduate
multiple choice examinations. Research in Higher Education, 68, 729-735.
Houston, John P. (1983) Kohlberg-type moral instruction and cheating behavior. College Student Journal, 15, 196-204.
Houston, John P. (1983) College classroom cheating, threat, sex and prior performance. College Student Journal, 17, 229-235.
Houston, John P. (1983) Alternate test forms as a means of reducing multiple choice answer copying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 572-575.
Jenison, L.M. (1972) Attitudes of students and faculty toward selected disciplinary situations. NASPA Journal, 9, 291-294.
Johnson, Patrick B. (1981) Achievement motivation and success: does the end justify the means? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 374-375.
Leming, J. (1978) Cheating behavior, situational influence, and moral development. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 214-217.
Newhouse, R.C. (1982) Alienation and cheating behavior in the school environment. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 234-237.
Rutherford, D. & Olswang, S. (1981) Academic misconduct: The due process rights of students. NASPA Journal Vol. l9, No. 2, 12.
Singhal, Avinash C. (1982) Factors in students dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51, 775-780.
Stimmel, B. & Yens, D. (1982) Cheating by medical students on examinations. American Journal of Medicine, 73, 160-164.
Zastrow, C.H. (1970) Cheating among college graduate students. Journal of Educational
Research, 64 157-160.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.