CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do preservice teachers cheat in college, too? A quantitative study of academic integrity among preservice teachers

Open access
DiPaulo, Donald·2022·International Journal for Educational Integrity
DOI 10.1007/s40979-021-00097-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research has found that academic dishonesty (AD) is common among college and university undergraduate students worldwide (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2021). Two variables found to have a significant effect on student cheating were students’ attitudes toward AD and perceptions of peer engagement in AD (McCabe et al., 2012). This quantitative research study examined preservice teachers’ attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty. Utilizing three parts of the Academic Integrity Survey, this study analyzed data from 62 preservice teachers enrolled at a university in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States that were preparing to teach students in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grades in both public and private schools. Data analyses examined the frequency rates at which preservice teachers self-reported engaging in academic dishonesty, as well as the relationships that existed between preservice teachers’ attitudes toward academic dishonesty, perceptions of peer engagement in AD, and self-reported engagement in AD. Results showed that rates for self-reported engagement in academic dishonesty among preservice teachers were similar to those found for undergraduates in other majors, with attitude toward behavior found to be significantly associated with and predictive of self-reported engagement in academic cheating among this group of preservice teachers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40979-021-00097-3

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Ajzen I (2012) The theory of planned behavior. In: Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol 1. Sage, pp 438–459. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n22 · DOI
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
  3. Anderman EM, Cupp PK, Lane D (2010) Impulsivity and academic cheating. J Exp Educ 78(1):135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224636 · DOI
  4. Bens SL (2010) Senior education students’ understandings of academic honesty and dishonesty. In: Doctor of philosophy. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10388/etd-09192010-154127. Accessed 26 Dec 2021.
  5. Bowers WJ (1964) Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Columbia University Press.
  6. Chapman KJ, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L (2004) Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. J Mark Educ 26(3):236–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304268779 · DOI
  7. Costley J (2019) Student perceptions of academic dishonesty at a cyber-university in South Korea. J Acad Ethics 17(2):205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9318-1 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Eret E, Ok A (2014) Internet plagiarism in higher education: tendencies, triggering factors and reasons among teacher candidates. Assess Eval High Educ 39(8):1002–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.880776 · DOI
  9. Eriksson L, McGee TR (2015) Academic dishonesty amongst Australian criminal justice and policing university students: individual and contextual factors. Int J Educ Integr 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-015-0005-3 · DOI
  10. Fontaine S, Frenette E, Hébert M (2020) Exam cheating among Quebec’s preservice teachers: the influencing factors. Int J Educ Integr 16(14):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00062-6 · DOI
  11. Guerrero-Dib JG, Portales L, Heredia-Escorza Y (2020) Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behavior. Int J Educ Integr 16(2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hendy NT, Montargot N (2018) Understanding academic dishonesty among business school students in France using the theory of planned behavior. Int J Manag Educ 17(1):85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.12.003 · DOI
  13. Ives B, Alama M, Mosora LC, Mosora M, Grosu-Radulescu L, Clinciu AI, Cazan AM, Badescu G, Tufis C, Diaconu M, Dutu A (2016) Patterns and predictors of academic dishonesty in Romanian university students. High Educ 74(5):815–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0079-8 · DOI
  14. Kam CCS, Hue MT, Cheung HY (2018) Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students: application of theory of planned behavior. Educ Psychol 38(7):945–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1454588 · DOI
  15. Malone DM (2020) Ethics education in teacher preparation: a case for stakeholder responsibility. Ethics Educ 15(1):77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2019.1700447 · DOI
  16. Maloshonok N, Shmeleva E (2019) Factors influencing academic dishonesty among undergraduate students at Russian universities. J Acad Ethics 17(3):313–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-9324-y · DOI
  17. Maxwell B, Tremblay-Laprise A-A, Filion M (2016) A survey of ethics curriculum in Canadian initial teacher education. McGill J Educ Revue Des Sciences De l’éducation De McGill 20(1) Retrieved from https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/9205 · DOI
  18. McCabe D, Treviño LK (1996) What we know about cheating in college. Change 28(1):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1996.10544253 · DOI
  19. McCabe D, Treviño LK (1997) Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. Res High Educ 38(3):379–396. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024954224675 · DOI · Paper page
  20. McCabe DL, Treviño LK (1993) Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual influences. J High Educ 64(5):523–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/2959991 · DOI
  21. McCabe DL, Treviño LK, Butterfield KD (2001) Dishonesty in academic institutions: the influence of peer reporting requirements. J High Educ 72(1):29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11778863 · DOI
  22. Peled Y, Eshet Y, Barczyk C, Grinautski K (2018) Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Comput Educ 131:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.012 · DOI
  23. Quraishi U, Aziz F (2017) Academic dishonesty at the higher education level in Punjab, Pakistan. J Res Reflect Educ 11(1):68–85
  24. Sims RL (1993) The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. J Educ Bus 68(4):207–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117614 · DOI
  25. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2013) Using multivariate statistics, 6th edn. Pearson, Boston
  26. Tasgin A (2018) The relationship between preservice teachers’ attitudes towards research and academic dishonesty tendencies of preservice teachers. Int J Progress Educ 14(4):85–96. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.154.7 · DOI
  27. Trushell J, Byrne K (2013) Education undergraduates and ICT-enhanced academic dishonesty: a moral panic? Br J Educ Technol 44(1):6–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01381.x · DOI
  28. Yang SC (2012) Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty: a survey of Taiwanese graduate students. Ethics Behav 22(3):218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.672904 · DOI
  29. Yu H, Glanzer PL, Johnson B (2018) Why students cheat: a conceptual framework of personal, contextual, and situational factors. Rev High Educ 41(4):549–576. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0025 · DOI
  30. Zhang Y, Yin H, Zheng L (2018) Investigating academic dishonesty among Chinese undergraduate students: does gender matter? Assess Eval High Educ 43(5):812–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1411467 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
DiPaulo, D.
Affiliations
Cabrini University (US)
Corresponding author
DiPaulo, Donald
ORCID
DiPaulo, Donald
Venue
International Journal for Educational Integrity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-01-18
Volume
18
Issue
1
ISSN
1833-2595 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40979-021-00097-3
OpenAlex
W4206803496
Cited by
30
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal for Educational Integrity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Keywords
academic integrity, academic dishonesty, cheating, pre-service teachers, teacher professional development, peer perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review