STUDENT ATTITUDES ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY THROUGH ELEMENTARY,

MIDDLE, SECONDARY, AND UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

A CASE STUDY

Joshua M. WardJohnny Johnson, Ph.D.

Introduction• This preliminary investigation attempts to

explore when academic integrity problems and misconceptions arise during students' basic levels of education: elementary, middle, secondary, and undergraduate. 

• Understanding when attitudes of students shift concerning academic ethics and behavior, can serve as an indicator as to when educational tools should be put into place. 

Introduction

• General observations between educational levels can lead to conclusions that help institutions know what type of educational program might be appropriate and when such a curriculum should occur in a student's academic career.

Session Objectives• Participants should gain:

– A greater understanding of the correlations between four institutions of learning, such as the attitudes of elementary, middle, secondary, and undergraduate students regarding academic integrity. 

– Information that qualitatively provides a better working understanding needed to design future educational programs concerning academic integrity from elementary to undergraduate levels.

Questions Identified

• Is it too late for a university or any other institution of higher learning to be implementing programs focused on molding students’ perspectives on academic cheating?

• Do elementary students believe that a certain act constitutes cheating when secondary students believe that the same act is acceptable?

• Observations between educational levels might lead to conclusions that would help institutions know what type of educational program might be appropriate and when such a curriculum should occur in a student’s academic career.

• This study attempts to harness the general attitudes of academic integrity in a way that provides a better working understanding needed to design future educational programs.

• Certainly knowing what personal or contextual factors influence higher levels of cheating is important, but it is also important to implement in a practical manner programs that teach students about academic integrity.

• This study focuses on when such programs should be implemented in a student’s educational career.

• It is important to ask whether or not students from differing educational levels believe that the same actions constitute breaches in academic integrity.

• It is not a question of whether or not elementary students cheat more often than secondary students or undergraduates.

• It is a question of whether elementary students believe an action constitutes a breach in academic integrity when secondary students or undergraduates do not.

• It is important to understand at what point, if one exists, in a students’ academic careers do beliefs concerning academic integrity change.

• Knowing this could be beneficial in designing educational programs concerning academic integrity.

Previous Investigations

• McCabe, Donald L. and Trevino, Linda Klebe. 1999. Academic Integrity in Honor Code and Non-Honor Code Environments. Journal of Higher Education. 70(2):211-234.

• McCabe, Donald L. and Trevino, Linda Klebe. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education. 64(5):522-538.

Methodology

• Instead of researching statistical, quantitative data associated with academic integrity (such as how many students cheated last year), this study proposes to understand where students do not have a clear understanding of the topic.

• Such areas may include what violates academic integrity and the students’ knowledge of the consequences associated with a violation in their own school.

• Surveys were chosen for their ability to gather generalized opinions from a wide variety of age groups (elementary, middle, and secondary).

• Three similar surveys were created, utilizing a

single survey instrument, modified specifically for the readability and appropriateness of students in differing grades, yet reliable enough to be used to create correlational statements about students’ attitudes over the four institutions of learning.

• Each survey consisted of three parts.

PART I• A section intended to assess the knowledge and

understanding of the academic integrity policies and procedures that the student has of his or her own institution.

• Also provides feedback of the student’s opinion of how affective the academic integrity policies and procedures are at his or her institution.

• The section also assessed where or from whom (or if at all) the student has become acquainted with academic integrity.

PART II

• A section intended to assess students’ opinions on the prevalence of different types of violations of academic integrity at their institution.

• Also explored how often the student reported instruction in academic integrity at their institution and how such education (if any) was received.

PART III• Asks students of the differing levels of

educational institutions whether or not a certain action constitutes in their mind a breach of academic integrity.

• Intended to find trends in what constitutes

ethical behavior in differing educational grade levels.

• For example, do middle school students think that an action is a minor violation of academic integrity where most secondary students would answer that the same violation is a minor one?

• Three schools from the Edmond Public Schools District, Edmond, Oklahoma, were asked to participate in the surveys.

• The schools were Northern Hills Elementary, Sequoyah Middle School, and North High School.

• Students were asked to complete a 15-minute survey consisting of about 36 questions in the general format described above.

• Responses from the surveys sent to the elementary, middle, and secondary institutions are correlated to that of the information provided by the Oklahoma State University 2004 Survey of Academic Integrity.

• All survey instruments were approved by the Oklahoma State University Institutional Review Board under Expedited-Special-Population standards.

Measures and Findings• Of the students surveyed from the three

institutions of learning:– 52 respondents were fifth grade elementary students.– These students had an average age of ten and

included 21 males (40%) and 31 females (60%).

– At the middle school level, 112 students responded. These students had an average age of 13 years. They included 52 males (46%) and 60 females (54%).

– At the secondary school level (grades 9-12), there were 130 total respondents with an average age of 16. 64 respondents were males (49%) and 66 females (51%).

• The following italicized statements represent generalizations of students’ attitudes concerning different aspects of academic integrity observed at their specific type of academic institution.

• The statements also represent findings when each of the three institutions (elementary, middle, and secondary) are correlated longitudinally.

• The generalizations are presented categorically based on the three survey sections described in Methodology. Two of which are discussed in this presentation.

Category (I): Understanding & Satisfaction

• When considering elementary, middle, and secondary students, understanding of an institution’s academic integrity policies decreases with age.

Institution Strong Yes Yes Don’t Know No Strong No

Elementary 0 81 13 2 4

Middle 0 84 3 13 1

Secondary 27 26 1 32 14

• The majority of elementary students (81%) responded “strong yes” or “yes” to whether or not they understood their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures.

• Only 6% of elementary students responded “no” or “strong no” to the question.

• The majority of middle school students (84%)

responded “strong yes” or “yes” to whether or not they understood their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures.

• 14% of middle school students responded “no” or “strong no” to the question.

• The majority of secondary students (53%) responded “strong yes” or “yes” to whether or not they understood their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures.

• 46% of secondary students, however, responded “no” or “strong no” to the question.

Figure I: Student Understanding of Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures

0

20

40

60

80

100

ElementarySchool

Middle School SecondarySchool

Institution

Per

cent

Strong Yes

Yes

Don't Know

No

Strong No

• In Figure I, one can visually identify a trend in student understanding of academic integrity policies and procedures.

• As a student progresses academically from elementary to middle to secondary institutions (herein referred to as the academic timeline), understanding of academic integrity policies and procedures declines.

• As the academic timeline progresses, “don’t know,” “no,” and “strong no” responses increase while “yes” responses slightly increase, then decrease dramatically.

• Students encounter more confusion and misunderstanding of academic integrity policies and procedures as the academic timeline progresses.

• The majority of students in each institution (elementary, middle, and secondary) feel that they have received the most academic integrity instruction from their primary teacher.

• The majority of students in each institution do not think school websites, counselors, or advisors have been effective at academic integrity instruction.

Institution Teachers Counselors/Advisors

School Website

Orientation Class

Elementary 89 6 0 0

Middle 89 6 1 2

Secondary 99 2 1 72

• Primary teachers are the most effective source of academic integrity education, followed by counselors, advising/introductory classes, and advisors during elementary, middle, and secondary years.

• The majority of elementary students (89%) responded that they received academic integrity education through their primary teacher.

• Only 6% of elementary students responded receiving academic integrity education from counselors and advisors, while none indicated receiving instruction from school websites or orientation classes.

• The majority of secondary students (99%) responded that they received academic integrity education through their primary teacher.

• Only 2% of middle school students responded receiving academic integrity education from counselors and advisors, while 0% indicated receiving instruction from school websites, and 2% for orientation classes.

• Secondary school students indicated a strong positive correlation between knowledge of academic integrity policies and procedures and attendance of that institution’s Freshman Advisory Class where academic integrity is discussed.

• Of undergraduate students, 89% reported learning about academic integrity through their course instructors (The Center for Academic Integrity, 2004).

• About 66% of the undergraduates reported that they had learned about their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures through first year orientation programs (The Center for Academic Integrity, 2004).

• About 47% of the respondents cited the Student Rights and Responsibilities document as a source they used to learn about their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures (The Center for Academic Integrity, 2004).

Figure II: Student Reported Sources of Academic Integrity Education

0

50

100

150

Elementary School Middle School Secondary School

Institution

Per

cent

Teachers Counselors & Advisors

School Website Orientation Class

• In Figure II, trends in student reported sources of academic integrity education are displayed.

• As the academic timeline progresses, students increasingly report teachers (their primary instructors) as a source of academic integrity education.

• The jump from middle school to secondary school concerning orientation classes as a source for academic integrity education is evident.

• As the academic timeline progresses, school websites, counselors, and advisors remain a significantly limited source of academic integrity education for students.

• The majority of students in each institution (elementary, middle, and secondary) do not understand or support their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures.

Institution Strong Yes Yes Don’t Know No Strong No

Elementary 0 8 71 12 9

Middle 5 7 32 46 10

Secondary 16 11 1 70 2

• Elementary student attitudes indicate that they do not understand or support their school’s academic integrity policies and procedures.

• Middle school students’ attitudes indicate that they support their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures even less than elementary students.

• Secondary students’ attitudes indicate that the majority of these students do not support their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures, but more so than those of middle school students and less than those of elementary students.

• Of undergraduate students, less than 30% responded that they understood their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures (The Center for Academic Integrity, 2004).

Figure III: Student Support of Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures

01020304050607080

ElementarySchool

Middle School SecondarySchool

Institution

Per

cent

Strong Yes

Yes

Don't Know

No

Strong No

• In Figure III, trends concerning student support of academic integrity policies and procedures are shown.

• Students’ opinions of their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures become stronger and clearer as the academic timeline progresses.

• This is indicated by the dramatic decrease in “don’t know” responses. As the academic timeline progresses, students indicating “strong yes” and “yes” increase only slightly. Responses of “strong no” decrease slightly, however, responses of “no” increase dramatically.

• It can generally be said that student support for their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures decrease as the academic timeline progresses.

Category (III): Considering Violations in Academic Integrity

• When considering an identical action, a majority of secondary students do not feel the action was as major a violation of academic integrity as do middle school students or elementary students.

• Elementary students would generally believe that the identical action constitutes a more severe violation of academic integrity than middle, followed by secondary students.

Identical Action Examples

• ____17. A student whispers an answer to another student during a quiz or exam.

• ____18. A student realizes another student is looking at his test paper. He does not report the student.

• ____19. A student realizes another student is looking at his test paper. He does not report the student, but conceals his answers.

• ____23. A student’s friend asks for an old copy of an exam that he or she is taking to study with. The student gives him or her the exam.

• ____24. A student writes equations down on his desk prior to the start of an examination.

• ____25. A student copies a few sentences from an internet or written source without citing them in his paper.

• ____26. A student makes up a bibliography at the end of his paper.

• Elementary students believe that most actions they were queried about constitute a major violation of academic integrity.

• The majority of elementary students (62%) responded that the identical actions surveyed constituted “major violations,” whereas 15% responded with “minor violations,” and 33% responded with “no violations.”

Institution Major Violations

Minor Violations

No Violations

Elementary 62 15 33

Middle 48 34 18

Secondary 19 54 27

• From the majority of questions responded to, middle school students believe that a selected action constitutes a less than major violation.

• A greater number of middle school students (48%) responded that the identical actions surveyed constituted “major violations,” whereas 34% responded with “minor violations,” and 18% responded with “no violations.”

• When compared to the responses of elementary and middle school students, secondary school students believe that more selected actions constitute minor violations of academic integrity as opposed to major violations.

• A minority of secondary school students (19%) responded that the identical actions surveyed constituted “major violations,” whereas 54% responded with “minor violations,” and 27% responded with “no violations.”

• It is important to note that secondary school students viewed the same actions as middle and elementary school students as constituting more minor violations of academic integrity.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Elementary School Middle School Secondary School

Per

cen

t

Institution

Figure IV: Identical Action, Different Attitudes

Major Violations Minor Violations No Violations

• In Figure IV, the results from presenting identical actions to elementary, middle, and secondary students are presented as the academic timeline progresses.

• As a student progresses from elementary to middle to secondary school, it can be generalized that he or she will think certain actions concerning academic integrity will no longer constitute as harsh a violation as believed earlier in the student’s academic career.

• Figure IV illustrates this by showing a steady, dramatic increase during the academic timeline of believed “minor violations.”

• Responses of “major violations” decrease significantly during the progression of the academic timeline, while responses of “no violations” decrease from elementary to middle school, but increase from middle to secondary school.

• Undergraduate students were less likely to consider specific actions to be minor or major cheating than faculty or teaching assistants (The Center for Academic Integrity, 2004).

Conclusions• This study began as a means to extend the

knowledge base of Dr. McCabe’s research into academic integrity with secondary and undergraduates to when academic integrity problems and misconceptions arise during the academic process that included elementary and middle school levels.

• Specific papers include:– McCabe, Donald and Trevino, Linda Klebe. 1997.

Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation. Research in Higher Education. 38(3):379-396.

– McCabe, Donald L. 1999. Academic Dishonesty Among High School Students. Adolescence. 34(136):681-687.

– McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Trevino and Kenneth D. Butterfield. 1999. Academic Integrity in Honor Code and Non-Honor Code Environments: A Qualitative Investigation. The Journal of Higher Education. 70(2):211-234.

• It is also meant to help contribute to the understanding of when intervention and education relating to academic integrity would be most beneficial.

• It is often clear that the microcosm of an elementary school student’s primary classroom has the advantage of simple, clear academic integrity standards.

• These standards are predominantly set by the student’s primary teacher and reinforcement is often in front of the class as a whole.

• This educational design is regulated often by a single individual, the primary teacher, making it easier for policies and procedures to be set and expectations explained in more detail.

• It was found that students’ understanding of and agreement with their institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures decrease with age.

• This could be due to the fact that as a student’s academic institution increases in size (the transition from elementary to middle, middle to secondary, and secondary to undergraduate) and as a student’s number of classes and different teachers increases (the loss of the primary instructor), the student encounters an increasingly complex set of academic integrity standards.

• The simple and easily conveyed academic integrity policies and procedures (or perhaps only seen by the student as a set of moral guidelines) by the student’s primary instructor towards the beginning of his or her academic career no longer exists when he or she progresses in the educational system.

• It is then that academic integrity problems and misconceptions arise in a student’s academic career.

• The particular grade level or institutional level cannot be specified, although one could generalize the institutional level to be middle school (grades 6-8) as representing an important developmental period concerning academic integrity standards.

• It is during this time that the student most commonly looses the system by which academic instruction is given by a single primary instructor. Institution-wide academic integrity policies and procedures exist. These documents are not always accessible and widely published.

• Even so, a student’s main source of academic integrity instruction was found to come from his or her specific teachers.

• Although the teachers must conform to the institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures to some degree, it is not always true that teachers will conform to the institution’s policies and procedures fully.

• This creates a complex system of what is and is not acceptable to the student.

• It is for this reason and due to its success in secondary and undergraduate programs that specific programs or courses should be implemented in grades 6-8.

• An academic integrity learning program implemented at this time in a student’s academic career should focus on two specific goals.

• The first is to clearly define the particular institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures, including what actions specifically breach academic integrity and the consequences of those actions.

• The second focus of the learning program is to educate students about how to avoid breaches in academic integrity by showing how to properly format papers including citations, referencing, and so on.

• More students would avoid academic integrity problems if misconceptions of what is appropriate formatting, citing, and referencing were discussed as a part of an introductory English or ethics class that is standardized for each institution, regardless of the particular instructor.

• It is also important not to forget that institutions give students themselves some sense of responsibility and ownership when considering the academic integrity policies and procedures of their own academic environment.

• It has been shown that academic institutions that seem to have the lowest levels of cheating show a strong student role in establishing and administrating academic integrity policies and procedures (Bowers, 1964; McCabe & Trevino, 1993).

• It is the responsibility of academic institutions to secure an academic atmosphere that promotes learning in a fair and ethically standardized environment.

• This responsibility rests on all institutional levels of a student’s academic career; however, this study finds middle school students would benefit most from increased academic integrity educational programs that offer clarity and standardization of policies and procedures.

Thank You For You Kind Attention

Questions and Answers

Contact Information• Joshua Ward

Undergraduate Academic Integrity Panel ChairOklahoma State University444 Stout HallStillwater, OK 74077(405)640-3994joshua.ward@okstate.edu

• Johnny Johnson, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorOklahoma State University101 LibraryStillwater, OK 74078(405)744-9728johnny.johnson@okstate.edu