Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Academic dishonesty among high school students.

D L McCabe1

  • 1Faculty of Management, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark 07102, USA.

Adolescence
|March 24, 2000
PubMed
Summary

Students often blame others for their academic dishonesty, according to new research. Focus groups revealed that traditional surveys may not fully capture student perspectives on cheating behaviors.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Preliminary study on the effects of combined hydrolytic enzyme agents on mouse Krebs-2 carcinoma.

The Journal of the American Osteopathic Associationยท1974
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Educational Psychology
  • Sociology of Education

Background:

  • Academic dishonesty is a prevalent issue in higher education.
  • Previous research predominantly utilized surveys, potentially limiting insight into student perceptions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To explore students' authentic beliefs and attitudes towards academic dishonesty.
  • To understand the nuances of student perspectives on cheating beyond traditional survey data.

Main Methods:

  • Employed qualitative focus group discussions to gather in-depth student opinions.
  • Analyzed qualitative data to identify recurring themes in student discourse on cheating.

Main Results:

  • Student discussions revealed a tendency to externalize blame for academic dishonesty.
  • Participants frequently attributed cheating behaviors to external factors or other individuals.
  • Focus groups provided richer contextual understanding compared to survey methods.

Conclusions:

  • Student perceptions of academic dishonesty are complex and may involve self-serving attributions.
  • Future research should consider qualitative methods to complement quantitative findings on student cheating.
  • Understanding attributional biases is crucial for developing effective interventions against academic dishonesty.

Related Experiment Videos