CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5

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

How Online Business School Instructors Address Academic Integrity Violations

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Nelson, Darrin·2021·The Journal of Educators Online
DOI 10.9743/jeo.2021.18.3.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While online learning has dramatically increased over the past few years, so have opportunities for students to cheat, plagiarize, or commit other academic integrity violations in the online learning environment. Some online instructors effectively address these issues, while others do not. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how online business school instructors address academic integrity violations. To examine in what manner academic integrity issues were being addressed in the online classroom, 12 teachers at a university located in Florida were interviewed to obtain their perspectives and instructional practices regarding academic integrity online. Results indicate all participants believe it is their job to prevent academic integrity violations; however, only two instructors have reported it through school administrators, with many participants deciding to address the issue in their own classroom and not report it outside to school leadership for help addressing the issue. The importance of this study shows that most online instructors are doing what they believe is their best to address integrity violations; however, they may be promoting it by not reporting it outside of the classroom to school administration.

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 · 10.9743/jeo.2021.18.3.1

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

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1-10.
  2. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
  3. Baek, S. G., & Choi, H. J. (2002). The relationship between student's perceptions of classroom environment and their academic achievement in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(1), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024926 · DOI
  4. Bailie, J. (2014). What online students want compared to what institutions expect. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ summer172/bailie172.html
  5. Bretag, T. (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8 · DOI
  6. Brimble, M. (2016). Why students cheat: An exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 365-382. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_58 · DOI
  7. Burrus, R., Jones, A. J., Sackley, B. S., & Walker, M. W. (2013). It's the students, stupid: How perception of students reporting impact cheating. The American Economist, 58(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/056943451305800106 · DOI
  8. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi. org/10.1177/0049124113500475 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cifuentes, L., & Janney, A. (2016). Protecting students' integrity and reducing academic dishonesty in online learning. Distance Learning, 13(4), 9-15. Students Rights & Responsibilities (2021). Conduct process. Western Illinois University.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  11. DiVall, M. V., & Schlesselman, L. S. (2016). Academic dishonesty: Whose fault is it anyway? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80335 · DOI
  12. Donathan, L. N., Hanks, M., & Dotson, A. T. (2017). Minimizing incivility in the online classroom. Radiologic Technology, 89(1), 88-91.
  13. Eaton, S. S. (2017). Comparative analysis of institutional policy definitions of plagiarism: A Pan-Canadian university study. Interchange, 48(3), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780- 017-9300-7 · DOI
  14. Errico, C. D. (2016). Root casual analysis of higher education business engagement in academic dishonesty (Proquest 101729690 [Doctoral Dissertation, Northcentral University] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  15. Fish, L. A. (2016). A preliminary study of changes in online graduate business student perceptions over a course. Business Education Innovation Journal, 8(2), 41-50.
  16. Forsha, S. K. (2017). Virtue and moral development, changing ethics instructions in business school education. College Student Journal, 51(3), 429-443.
  17. Garza Mitchell, R. L., & Parnther, C. (2018). The shared responsibility for academic integrity education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2018 (183), 55-64. https://doi. org/10.1002/cc.20317 · DOI
  18. Greenberger, S., Holbeck, R., Steele, J., & Dyer, T. (2016). Plagiarism due to misunderstanding: Online instructor perceptions. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl. v16i6.20062 · DOI
  19. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi. org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. (2014). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students' understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1202-1218. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075079.2013.777412 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hammersley, M. (2016). Can academic freedom be justified. Reflections on the arguments of Robert Post and Stanley Fish. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 108-126. https://doi. org/10.1111/hequ.12086 · DOI
  22. Hearn Moore, P., Head, J. D., & Griffin, R. B. (2017). Impeding students' efforts to cheat in online classes. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 9-23.
  23. Hermkens, C. E., & Luca, M. R. (2016). Measuring academic dishonesty. Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology, 7(1), 246-250.
  24. Holbeck, R., Greenberger, S., Cooper, L., Steele, J., Palenque, S. M., & Koukoudeas, S. (2015). Reporting plagiarism in the online classroom. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 202-209.
  25. Isakov, M., & Tripathy, A. (2017). Behavioral correlates of cheating: Environmental specificity and reward expectation. PloS One, 12(10), e0186054. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186054 · DOI
  26. Jereb, E., Matjaž, P., Lämmlein,B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., & Šprajc, P. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students. PLoS One, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252 · DOI
  27. Kaptein, M. M. (2017). The battle for business ethics: A struggle theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 343-361. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-015-2780-4 · DOI
  28. Kiviniemi, M. T. (2015). The case for consequences for academic dishonesty. College Teaching, 63(2), 37-39. https://doi.org/10.1 080/87567555.2015.1005041 · DOI
  29. Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The Logic of Methods (3rd ed.). Waveland Press, Inc.
  30. Leppink, J. (2017). Educational article: Revisiting the quantitative- qualitative-mixed methods labels: Research questions, developments, and the need for replication. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(2), 97-101. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.11.008 · DOI
  31. Madara, D. S., & Namango, S. S. (2016). Faculty perceptions on cheating in exams in undergraduate engineering. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 70-86.
  32. McFarlane, D. A. (2012). Facilitating and dealing with learner differences in the online classroom. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.12973/ eu-jer.1.1.1 · DOI
  33. McGrail, E., & McGrail, J. P. (2015). Exploring web-based university policy statements on plagiarism by research-intensive higher education institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(2), 167-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9229-3 · DOI
  34. Mojtahed, R., Nunes, M. B., Martins, J. T., & Peng, A. (2014). Equipping the constructivist researcher: The combined use of semi-structured interviews and 128 decision-making maps. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 12(2), 87-95.
  35. Moten, J., Jr., Fitterer, A., Brazier, E., Leonard, J., & Brown, A. (2013). Examining online college cyber cheating methods and prevention measures. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(2), 139-146.
  36. Nkata, A. S., & Dida, M. A. (2019). Centralized education management information system for tracking Student's academic progress in Tanzanian secondary schools. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), 11(10), 25¬32. https://doi.org/10.5815/ ijmecs.2019.10.03 · DOI
  37. Patterson, S., & Malpass, F. (2015). The influence of Bill Schlackman on qualitative research. International Journal of Market Research, 57(5), 677-700. https://doi.org/10.2501/ IJMR-2015-058 · DOI
  38. Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Gore, J., & Holmes, K. (2016). Exploring quality teaching in the online environment using an evidence- based approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(8), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8. · DOI
  39. Richardson, J. C., & Alsup, J. (2015). From the classroom to the keyboard: How seven teachers created their online teacher identities. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(1), 142-167. https://doi.org/10.19173/ irrodl.v16i1.1814 · DOI
  40. Robinson, J. A., & Glanzer, P. L. (2017). Building a cultural of academic integrity. What students perceive and need. College Student Journal, 51(2), 209-221.
  41. Rust, D. Z., Brinthaupt, T. M., & Robbins, R. D. (2015). Starting off right: Institutional resources for online student success. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 63(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10 .1080/07377363.2015.997377 · DOI
  42. Satalkar, P., & Shaw, D. (2018). Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers' reflections on reporting misconduct. Accountability in Research, 25(6), 311-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1493577 · DOI
  43. Schwartz, A. J. (2015). Inspiring and equipping students to be ethical leaders. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(146), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20131 · DOI
  44. Simola, S. (2017). Managing for academic integrity in higher education: Insights from behavioral ethics. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(1), 43-57. https://doi. org/10.1037/stl0000076 · DOI
  45. Stowe, S. (2017). Will they or not? Online faculty intentions to report student plagiarism. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 21(1). https://www.abacademies.org/articles/ will-they-or-not-online-faculty-intentions-to-report-student- plagiarism-6724.html
  46. Tierney, W. G., & Sabharwal, N. S. (2017). Academic corruption: Culture and trust in Indian higher education. International Journal of Educational Development, 55, 30-40. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.05.003 · DOI
  47. Vinagre, M. (2017). Developing teachers' telecollaborative competences in online experiential learning. System, 64, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2017). The dynamics of punishment and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(10), 1385-1402. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000178 · DOI
  49. Yaniv, G., & Siniver, E. (2016). The (honest) truth about rational dishonesty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 53, 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.01.002 New York State Office of Child and Family Services (n.d.). Mandated Reporter Resource Center. https:// nysmandatedreporter.org/TrainingCourses.aspx. · DOI
  50. Norman, R. E., Byambaa, M., De, R., Butchart, A., Scott, J., & Vos, T. (2012). The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse. Emotional Abuse, and Neglect. PLoS Medicine, 9(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Reece, R. M., & Christian, C. (2008). Child abuse: Medical diagnosis and management (3rd ed.). American Academy of Pediatrics.
  52. Stone-MacDonald, A., & Douglass, A. (2015). Introducing online training in an early childhood professional development system: Lessons learned in one state. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10643-014-0649-2 · DOI
  53. Sundell, K. (1997). Child-care personnel's failure to report child maltreatment: Some Swedish evidence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21(1), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145- 2134(96)00133-0 · DOI
  54. Svensson, B., & Janson, S. (2008). Suspected child maltreatment: Preschool staff in a conflict of loyalty. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 25-31. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-008-0248-1 · DOI
  55. Svensson, B., Andershed, H., & Janson, S. (2015). A survey of Swedish teachers' concerns for preschool children at risk of maltreatment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(6), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0684-z · DOI
  56. Yang, C., Panlilio, C., Verdiglione, N., Lehman, E. B., Hamm, R. M., Fiene, R., Dore, S., Bard, D. E., Grable, B., & Levi, B. (2020). Generalizing findings from a randomized controlled trial to a real-world study of the iLookOut, an online education program to improve early childhood care and education providers' knowledge and attitudes about reporting child maltreatment. PloS One, 15(1), e0227398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0227398 · DOI
  57. Zaslow, M. (2014). General features of effective professional development. In H. P. Ginsburg, M. Hyson, & T. A. Woods; (Eds.), Preparing early childhood educators to teach math: Professional development that works (pp. 97-115).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, & Nelson, D.
Venue
The Journal of Educators Online
Publisher
Grand Canyon University
Published
2021
Volume
18
Issue
3
ISSN
1547-500X
DOI
10.9743/jeo.2021.18.3.1
Cited by
5
References
3

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