A framework for addressing student academic dishonesty in higher education from a student development perspective

Abstract

Research on academic dishonesty supports the contention that academic dishonesty is a student development dilemma. Yet the literature also supports the contention that higher education institutions appear to address academic dishonesty as a behavioral problem, employing a student services perspective rather than a student development perspective. This study resulted in the development of a framework that enabled an assessment of how institutions currently address academic dishonesty. The purpose of this study was to: describe current practice regarding how institutions address academic dishonesty in terms of ethos, policies and programs; assess the extent to which those practices were student developmental in nature; and determine whether judicial officers believed those practices should be student developmental in nature. Survey research methodology was used for gathering and reporting the data. The research population was the 300 four-year public and private colleges and universities that were members of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs at the time of this study. The framework and questionnaire identified seven intervention components: honor codes; communication; training; faculty assistance; disciplinary policies; disciplinary process/programs; and promotion of academic integrity. A usable response rate of 66.1% (84.1% for public institutions; 47.6% for private institutions) was achieved. Disciplinary policies that addressed academic dishonesty from a legal/due process viewpoint rather than a student development perspective were very prevalent. Programs to promote academic integrity were not prevalent. The most common disciplinary sanctions utilized to address academic dishonesty were punitive rather than developmental. Judicial officers do believe that academic dishonesty, including responding to student offenders, should be addressed from a student development perspective. In general, based on the framework from this study, there is little emphasis on the student development perspective in addressing academic dishonesty.