Asia-Pacific International University THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION by Chomphunut Phutikettrkit April 2019
i THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION By CHOMPHUNUT PHUTIKETTRKIT APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE Darrin Thomas, PhD Josephine Esther Katenga, PhD Research Advisor Chair of Master Program Rhita Maidom Naltan Lampadan Panelist Dean, Faculty of Education Dr. Surapee Sorajjakool, PhD External Examiner
ii ABSTRACT Master of Education Emphasis in TESOL Asia-Pacific International University Faculty of Education TITLE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY Researcher: Chomphunut Phutikettrkit Research advisor: Darrin Thomas Date completed: May 2019 This study investigated the relationship between students’ perception of procedural justice and academic dishonesty among students at Asia-Pacific International University who were enrolled in the International Program, and also some Thai Program English majors. This study was designed using a correlational and descriptive survey design. The study sample was 133 respondents selected using a convenience sampling procedure. The questionnaires were given to students who were willing to participate in this study. Data was analyzed quantitatively. There were no difference in the students’ perception between procedural justice and academic dishonesty when compared by gender, program, class, or faculty. A weak significant relationship was found between students’ perception of procedural justice and academic dishonesty (n = 133, r = 0.27).
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 Background of Study ....................................................................................1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................3 Purpose of Study ...........................................................................................4 Objectives......................................................................................................4 Research Questions.......................................................................................4 Hypothesis.....................................................................................................5 Significance of Study ....................................................................................5 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................6 Delimitations.................................................................................................6 Limitations ....................................................................................................6 Organization of Chapters ..............................................................................7 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.........................................................8 Procedural Justice and Related Studies.........................................................8 Theory, Example and Related Studies...........................................................9 Student and Procedural Justice. .........................................................10 Achievement and Procedural Justice. ................................................11 University and Procedural Justice......................................................13 Administrators and Teachers. .....................................................14 Gender, Socioeconomic and Procedural Justice. ...............................15 Culture and Procedural Justice. .........................................................15 Asia and Procedural Justice........................................................16 South Asia, East Asia and Procedural Justice.............................17 Thailand and Procedural Justice. ................................................18
iv Christianity and Procedural Justice ............................................19 Summary .....................................................................................................19 Academic Dishonesty and Related Studies.................................................19 Definition of Academic Dishonesty ..................................................20 Examples and Related Studies...........................................................21 Culture and Academic Dishonesty ....................................................23 Thailand and Academic Dishonesty. ..........................................24 Student and Academic Dishonesty....................................................25 Achievement and Academic Dishonesty. ..........................................27 University Classroom Practices and Academic Dishonesty.......................................................................................27 Gender and Academic Dishonesty ....................................................28 Competitiveness and Academic Dishonesty .....................................29 Perspectives in the West. ............................................................29 Perspectives in the East. .............................................................29 Conceptual Framework ...............................................................................30 Summary .....................................................................................................31 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................32 Research Design..........................................................................................32 Research Questions.....................................................................................32 Study Area...................................................................................................33 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques ......................................................33 Data Collection Instruments........................................................................34 Procedure for Data Collection.....................................................................35 Data Analysis..............................................................................................35 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................36 4. RESULTS PRESENTATION .........................................................................38 Sample Size.................................................................................................38 Results Presentation ....................................................................................38 Preliminary Analysis...................................................................................40 Relationship Between Procedural Justice and Academic Dishonesty ................................................................................................46 Summary of Findings..................................................................................46 5. SUMMARY.....................................................................................................48
v Summary .....................................................................................................48 Findings and Discussion .............................................................................49 Recommendations for Application .............................................................54 Recommendations for Further Study ..........................................................56 Conclusion ..................................................................................................56 REFERENCE LIST .....................................................................................................57 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................80
vi LIST OF TABLES 1. Research Question, Analysis and Sources of Data ................................... 37 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (n = 133)............................ 40 3. Variable descriptive statistics (n=133) ..................................................... 41 4. Means and Standard Deviation of Survey Items on Academic Dishonesty ............................................................................ 42 5. Means and Standard Deviation of Survey Items on Procedural Justice .................................................................................. 44 6. Gender Differences................................................................................... 44 7. Program Differences................................................................................. 45 8. Class Differences...................................................................................... 46 9. Faculty Differences................................................................................... 46 10. Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation Coefficient (n=133) ............. 47
vii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Conceptual Framework for the Study....................................................... 31
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of Study As the education in the 21st century has increased educational requirements, teachers and students are facing more pressure in the school environment (P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2007). The, competition in educational systems has increased bringing both positive and negative impacts on students. Students nowadays encounter many different challenges such as problems: in the classroom, with their teachers, in their relationships with their parents, and from their environment. In addition, college tuition fees have increased, which has led to large amounts of students’ debt (Holt, 2017). Students also face challenges finding employment after college because the market is saturated. Despite the growing increase in tuition fees, more people are pursuing and striving for further education in order to get better opportunities in their career paths (Ferguson & Wang, 2014). Ferguson and Wang on their study on graduates in Canada: Profile, Labour Market Outcomes and Students Debt of the Class of 2009-2010 (2014) show that high educational levels are associated with higher employment rates. And so we get a situation where to get a good job, students are forced to pursue postgrad qualifications even though this might mean more debt. This research aimed to investigate the relationship between students’ perception of unfair practices in the classroom and academic dishonesty. In other words, the researcher sought to find if there is a relation between unjust processes in
2 the learning environment and academic dishonesty. Several studies have pointed out the importance of procedural justice in academic settings and in academic organizations. For instance, some studies have shown that justice in schools or in organizations builds trust in teachers, students and employees (Resh & Sabbagh, 2014; Rajabi, Abdar, & Agoush, 2017). Moreover, procedural justice in organizations enhances commitment of employees (Saadati, et al., 2016). Procedural justice is a process of distributing fairness to everyone equally. Justice or fairness is not important only in the education field, but it is also important in the workplace and everywhere where an organization is established. Justice creates a fair environment and helps people feel satisfied with their organization, particularly in schools. Students are not satisfied and are displeased when they realize that teachers treat them unfairly. They might even start acting out as a result of this, making it hard for teachers to control the learning environment in the classroom and to motivate students to put effort in their studies and reach the highest potential. One particular event that occurred at this university was when a student was disrespectful to a teacher, because they felt that the teacher had treated them unfairly. The student felt that the teacher favored other students and gave them higher marks based on personal preferences. The study of Horan, Chory and Goodboy (2010) indicated that most students feel that they are treated unfairly by their teachers. However, when students perceive fairness in the classroom environment, their performance is enhanced according to their perspective of justice in the classroom setting (Rodabaugh, 1994). Therefore, this research will investigate the perception of students regarding procedural justice in the classroom and the effect of justice on their academic dishonesty. Several studies have been conducted on procedural justice and academic
3 dishonesty. However, this study will seek the relationship of procedural justice in the classrooms concerning academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU), Saraburi, Thailand. The students from this university come from diverse nationalities, backgrounds, cultures, and they have different values and belief systems. Problem Statement At Asia-Pacific International University, many people have done research on students – for example, students’ motivation in learning (Kitjaroonchai & Kitjaroonchai, 2012), the correlation between students’ achievement and their morality (Kitjaroonchai & Hungyo, 2017), perception of students toward the use of Thai in English Classrooms (Kitjaroonchai & Lampadan, 2016). However, these studies have not covered the areas of procedural justice and academic dishonesty. According to the university’s policy, academic excellence is not the only expectation from the students. Academic honesty is also emphasized in the university policies. Strict penalties have been set for academic dishonesty, such as if students cheat or copy others’ work. a. First, if it is a minor problem, students may receive a warning from the teacher, and they may receive a zero mark for that particular exam or assignment . b. Second, if students persist in cheating, they will fail the course . c. Finally, if students continue to be dishonest in their studies, they will be dismissed from studying at the university) Academic Bulletin, 2016-2018.( However even with this firm policy, academic dishonesty still occurs in academic settings. Although it has been clearly indicated in the university’ policy, some students still continue to be dishonest when it comes to assignments, tests,
4 quizzes, and exams. Perhaps it is because some students feel like the grading systems and instructions in the classroom are not clear for everyone. Another example involves some students who are sponsored students. They have to reach certain grade levels to retain their scholarships. This puts a lot of pressure on them because if they cannot reach the appointed grade level as they will lose their scholarship. Some students may try to find alternative ways to pass the course, by cheating on exams or copying from their friends, leading to academic dishonesty. Purpose of Study This study aims to find the relationship between students’ perception of procedural justice and academic dishonesty among students at Asia-Pacific International University, Saraburi, Thailand. Objectives 1. To explain student’s perceptions about procedural justice and academic dishonesty . 2. To determine if there is a difference in procedural justice by gender, class, faculty, and program . 3. To determine if there is a difference in academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program . 4. To determine if there is a relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University . Research Questions The study was guided by the following research questions:
5 1. What are students ’perceptions about procedural justice and academic dishonesty? 2. What are the differences in perceptions towards procedural justice by gender, class, faculty, and program? 3. What are the differences in perceptions towards academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program? 4. Is there any relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University? Hypothesis 1. H10 There is no difference in procedural justice by gender, class, faculty, and program. H1A There is a difference in procedural justice by gender, class, faculty, and program. 2. H20There is no difference in academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program. H2A There is difference in academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program. 3. H30There is no relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University H3AThere is a relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University Significance of Study
6 The findings from this study on the relationship between students’ perception of procedural justice and academic integrity will help teachers to be more aware of classroom practices, particularly in treating individual students equally. When it comes to assessment, teachers will grade each student according to their performance and not by favoritism. Moreover, teachers will be aware of applying classroom rules fairly in the learning environment. Definition of Terms Procedural Justice: the process of decision making for teachers in applying and implementing the university’s academic rules and classroom’s rules fairly to every student and treating students equally (Brashear, Boles, & Brooks, 2004; Maiese, 2004). Academic dishonesty: honest behavior in academia that includes not copying homework, assignments from friends, and not cheating during exams, tests, or quizzes. Doing individual work by oneself (Craig & Dalton, 2014). Delimitations This study focuses within the context of Thailand. The survey was specifically distributed among college students at Asia-Pacific International University, Thailand. Therefore, the results from this study can only apply to other institutions in a similar context. Limitations The instrument used in this study was a survey questionnaire intended to explore students’ perceptions of procedural justice and academic dishonesty. Therefore, participants’ in-depth perceptions were not included this study. In addition, the questionnaire may have dealt with sensitive matters for some participants, which
7 may have led them not to answer the questions honestly. Lastly, this study was conducted at a private university, so the results cannot be generalized to other universities. Organization of Chapters The first chapter is a background of the study that consists of a problem statement, purpose of the study, research questions, and significance of the study, the definition of the terms, delimitations, limitations, conceptual framework, and lastly the organization of chapters. These components from chapter one give a broader understanding of the topic of this research. The second chapter is a review of the literature. This section is divided into two parts: procedural justice and academic dishonesty. The review of literature starts with the definition of the terms, procedural justice and academic dishonesty, followed by the theory, examples, and related themes. Chapter three explains how the research was conducted, such as research design, study area, sample size, sampling techniques, data collection, and instruments. Chapter four explains on the results presentation, such as sample size, demographic characteristics, results of the finding etc. for the last chapter is a summary of the paper which included discussion, recommendation and conclusion.
8 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this study is to find the relationship between students’ perception on procedural justice and academic dishonesty. Therefore, in this section, the review stresses relevant themes from the research title and the study’s conceptual framework. The first part of the literature review focuses on procedural justice by giving a definition followed by theory and examples, students and procedural justice, achievement and procedural justice, universities and procedural justice, administrators and teachers, gender, socioeconomic and procedural justice, as well as culture and procedural justice. The second part of the literature review is about academic dishonesty. First, a definition of academic dishonesty is indicated, and then examples are given: Asian vs Western academic dishonesty, Thailand and academic dishonesty, students and academic dishonesty, achievement and academic dishonesty, universities, classroom practices and academic dishonesty, as well as gender and academic dishonesty. A conceptual framework is proposed before the conclusion of this chapter. Procedural Justice and Related Studies Procedural Justice has been defined in several studies and by different dictionaries. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the term Procedural Justice is defined as:“The element of justice concerned with the application of laws, rather than with the content of the laws themselves. If an unjust law is applied, then procedural justice may be obtained although the outcome is unjust” (Oxford Dictionary, 2018).
9 Another definition as stated by Forrest and Miller (2008) is that procedural justice is “The proceeding in having an equitable result.” In addition, “Procedural justice is defined as prima facie justice” (Rohl & Machura, 1997). It is not acceptable if it is perceived as unjust (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In other words, people will accept and be willing to follow the rules if they see that the rules are fair (Vidmar, 1988). In contrast to the definition from the Oxford Dictionary, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) describes procedural justice as “The idea of fairness in the processes that resolves disputes and allocates resources. It is not a practice, but a philosophy and a movement which promotes positive organizational change, upholds police legitimacy in the community, and enhances officer safety” (Services, n.d.). Understanding the judicial process is a predictor of “attitudes and behavior”, especially when it is recognized as “unfair” (Hershcovis, et al., 2007). Theory, Example and Related Studies There are several theories that explain Procedural Justice. Carmen (2012) stated that procedural justice is the process of making a fair decision to get a fair result. Grubb and Tredway (2010) suggested that procedural justice should apply in every aspect in schooling. Rules should be practiced regularly and fairly so people can accept that they are fair to follow and get used to them. Furthermore, procedural justice does not promote embarrassment to students. Instead, it emphasizes rules and “responsibility” (Tyler, 2006). When the justice process seeks to promote morality by exercising fairness, people who are involved in the practice will feel that legal authorities are acting morally (Tyler & Blader, 2005). Therefore, “Procedural justice requires no interference in the outcome of procedures” (Kristina, 2016).
10 There is a plethora of research findings that have broadened the understanding of theories on procedural justice. The first example from the study of Grubb (2009) has revealed that most experienced teachers will have an opportunity to teach the “best” students. Student achievements are enhanced when they learn from teachers who have plenty of experiences. However, students who have low performance are most likely assigned “inexperienced teachers” to them. This finding reveals the unequal opportunities in term of the learning environment or resources given to all the students. In addition to Grubb’s studies, another study shows that unfair practices by teachers affect students' minds until they cannot concentrate. For example, communication in class; if a teacher respects the students’ personal opinions, and the principle of equality, the same evaluation criteria should use for all students (Berti, Molinari, & Speltini, 2010). Students perceive that teachers should treat every student equally (Tarhan, 2018). Likewise, in the study on police and offenders, Brame, Bachman, and Sherman (1997) as cited in Tyler (2006) found that if the police dealt with an offender justly, that person would have a lower chance of committing wrongdoing in the future. In accordance with this study, Ayres and Braithwaite (1992), claim that “Motivation” often encourages people to follow the rules. Therefore, the practice of justice should be applied not only in the school, but everywhere. Student and Procedural Justice. Providing equality to every student has a lifelong impact on students. In accordance with this, the study of Resh and Sabbagh (2014) states that experiences from school not only affect students’ attitude, but they also shape students’ behavior. Two studies investigated the relationship between students and procedural justice. The first, the finding of Carmen (2012) revealed that perception of fairness could be
11 distinguished by “ethnicity, grade in high school, academic subject, and by achievement and behavior status, but not by gender”. The second, the study of Gregory and Weinstein (2008), took place in a specific classroom situation with a sub-sample of 30 African-American students. The result from the study showed that students did not cooperate with teachers who were recognized as being untrustworthy. In contrast, students trusted teachers’ authority if they were caring teachers. Accordingly, another study conducted among Israeli middle school students in 2010-2011 that had 5,000 participants from 48 middle schools found that if relationships between teachers and students are good, students will feel trust toward the school, and they will be more positive to the school’s procedural justice (Resh & Sabbagh, 2014). In building fairness in the classroom, Forrest & Miller, (2008) mentioned that teachers have to be fair in the process of marking all the students work because students will recognize unjust procedures. Moreover, a teacher should make a clear construction of classroom rules for all students (Forrest & Miller, 2008). The study of Lind, Tyler and Huo (1997) states that trust and compassion is more connected to justice. Students may have a severe emotional response if injustice has occurred in the process of scores given to them. Scores are one of the sources that motivate students in their learning, and they affect real-life situations (Brody, 2012). As a result, teachers have made many changes knowing of their impact on procedural justice in the classroom, and knowing how students perceive fairness in learning environment. Achievement and Procedural Justice. Several studies have found a relationship between academic achievement and procedural justice. The study of Rodabaugh (1994) shows that perception of unfairness in the classroom atmosphere can affect students’ achievement. Students
12 will have higher accomplishment in their study when they perceive that teacher is fair to them (Rodabaugh, 1994). Similarly, the study from Kazemi (2016) has confirmed that procedural justice affects students’ grades. Teachers play a big role in motivating students to learn and to be successful academically. How teachers treat each student, or the actions of the teachers, can lead students to strive for excellence or not. Achievement is accordance with the fairness of the procedures. “Unfair” procedures bring frustration and reduce student achievements (Mark, 1985). Giving a rationale for having certain rules improves students’ work, as does allowing them to share their opinions on certain tasks (Williams, 1999). Another study on organizations and procedural justice was conducted by several researchers. The study from Antonio, Silvia and Pedro (2012) found that transparency in promotion is an important element in enhancing the perception of procedural justice in the organization, and it is related to job satisfaction. Employees’ trust in senior management can predict the perception of procedural justice in an organization (Pignata, Winefield, Provis, & Boyd, 2016). Saadati, et al. (2016), also found that job satisfaction has a significant relationship with organizational justice, as well as with organizational commitment and organizational justice. A study conducted among nurses in private hospital and public hospitals showed that organizational justice is significantly correlated with institutional trust (Rajabi, Abdar, & Agoush, 2017). In addition, nurses’ positive perception of procedural justice has a positive relationship with organizational commitment (Shikur & Navjot, 2016). A study by Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, and Deci (2015) revealed that procedural justice regarding payment also has a great effect on employee need satisfaction.
13 University and Procedural Justice. Teaching practices can predict the performance of students better than scoring practices (Gordon & Fay, 2010). However, A study by Kovačević, Žunić, and Mihailović (2012) found that there is a significant relationship between “justice perception and university grades”. Several studies have shown that both college students and high school students perceived justice in the classroom negatively when teaching practices were unfair (Horan, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010; Tarhan, 2018). The main reason students follow university rules is not because of “instrumental perspectives”, but because of “normative perspective” which considers morality and fairness (Campbell, 2009). Most university students have negative perceptions of college procedural justice. They perceived that teachers do not treat the students fairly. These perceptions included grades distributions, instructors not consistently applying class policies, and announcement or information for exams not be known by all students (Horan, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010) However, the study of Thorkildsen (1989) showed that the results from interviewing students about the concept of fairness in school learning were positive. Student perception of educational goods and fair distribution have been examined by common classroom practices. In the study, students indicated that peer tutoring was the fairest for all grades. Aside from that, when students see injustice occurring in the school, they tend to be silent rather than to speak up. Moreover, when students experience unfairness in regards to grades and school rules, it leads them to perceive that the teacher and the principal are acting unjustly (Tarhan, 2018). However, the involvement of students in academic dishonesty may result from unfair practices in classroom or a teacher may not have followed proper procedures in dealing with
14 academic dishonesty cases. Therefore, it is important for teachers to listen to students and discuss matters with them before giving a formal warning of academic misconduct (Evans & Levine, 2016). Administrators and Teachers. The use of ‘fair procedures’ between administrators and teachers could help in building more trust among them. When administrators provide knowledge about procedural justice to teachers, this enhances their confidence and assurance in the administration (Zeinabadi & Rastegarpour, 2010). Moreover, the perception of fairness in the organization can strengthen the commitment to the work (Martinson, Crain, Vries, & Adnderson, 2010). A teachers’ legitimacy will become low when students perceive that the teacher treats students unfairly. Therefore, teacher injustice has a direct correlation to the teacher’ legitimacy (Maria, Jorge, & Isabel, 2017). In addition, an instructor’s credibility and character can be an accurate predictor of classroom justice (Ibid). Another study by Pereira, Vala and Correia (2016) showed that participants would perceive a teacher’s fairness to be low if they see the that the teacher treats students unfairly. This may happen when they learn that the teacher treated students differently. When teachers acknowledge the procedural justice process, their justice will be enhanced, and this impacts their organizational commitment as well. The results of this study showed that teachers with a high understanding of procedural justice will have higher effectiveness in their teaching (Francesca, 2004). Students consider ‘fairness’ in their relationships with teachers more essential than academic results from the class (Resh & Sabbagh, 2014).
15 Gender, Socioeconomic and Procedural Justice. Students who have “low socioeconomic status” from all OECD countries tend to be inferior in school performance (Field, Kuczera, & Pont, 2007). Social identity influences judicial decision-making (Blader, & Tyler, 2009). Most students assume that teachers treat students with high ‘socioeconomic status’ better than they treat others. One study found a strong relationship between students’ socioeconomic status and their perception of discrimination and justice’ (Tomul, Celik, & Tas, 2012). Students who are of higher social classes tend to adapt to the school better, are more committed, and more trustworthy (Resh & Sabbagh, 2014). However, gender also had an impact on procedural justice as well. The study by Resh and Sabbagh (2014) found that gender could affect academic performance among students. Moreover, girls pay more attention at school than boys do, and so their academic performance was better than that of boys. A study by Antonio, Silvia, and Pedro (2012) found a moderate relationship between transparency with procedural justice in terms of gender. In contrast, a study by Rajabi, Abdar, and Agoush (2017) found no significant perceptions of organizational justice and trust based on student gender. In addition, among teachers, a study by Altinkurt, Yilmaz, and Karaman, (2015) found that male teachers have a more positive perception of procedural justice than female teachers do. Culture and Procedural Justice. People tend to have positive and cooperative attitudes toward the group and the leader when the processes of procedural justice are fair to every member (Lind & Earley, 2007). Putting ‘cultural and context’ in the right place will help teachers to enhance students’ achievements effectively (Miranda & Jaffe-Walter, 2018).
16 Asia and Procedural Justice. A study conducted on direct and indirect effects of procedural justice in a Chinese city has shown that when Chinese people see that police are being effective and doing what is right, they will be more inclined to cooperate with the rules (Sun, Wu, Hu, & Farmer, 2017). Mahoobeh, Esmaeli and Leila (2017) conducted a study on comparative perceptions of organizational justice and trust between private and public hospital in northern Iran. The study revealed that private hospitals had better perceptions of organizational justice and institutional trust in respect to nurses compared to public hospitals. Moreover, the study revealed that procedural justice had a higher relationship with institutional trust than did distributive and interactional justice. Therefore, a positive relationship to organizational justice affected the work quality (Mahboobeh, Esmaeli, & Leila, 2017). Accordingly, a study by Akbar and Ebrahim (2014) found a significant relationship between perceived organizational justice and quality of work life among hospital personnel. Organizational commitment has a positive relationship with perceived organizational justice and its other three components; procedural, distributive and interactional justice. However, for commitment, only procedural justice has shown a positive correlation (Ramin, Zahra, & Najme, 2013). The satisfaction of workers was correlated with organizational justice, and was also correlated with the level of organizational commitment (Masoomeh, et al., 2016). Furthermore, researchers have studied the relationship between organizational justice and employee health among Japanese employees. The results showed that low procedural justice had a significant relationship with the increasing risk of psychological distress among female employees (Inoue, Kawakami, Tsuno, Tomioka,
17 & Nakanishi, 2013). In addition, a study by Demir (2016) showed that teachers with high perceptions of procedural justice or organizational justice also had high levels of job satisfaction (Demir, 2016). However, when teachers felt that administrators treated them unfairly, they worked with low motivation and started complaining among themselves and blaming others (Aydin, 2008). As a result, their intention to quit increased (Basar & Sigri, 2015). Thus, the principle of treating everyone equally is very sensible (Yilmaz, 2010). When higher organizational levels are perceived to uphold fairness, it affects subordinates’ perception of procedural justice (Hon, Yang, & Lu, 2011). When students perceived that the process of dealing with university judiciaries was not fair, their attitudes and satisfaction levels toward the university’s system was low. In addition, if students believed that the process of dealing with the misconduct is fair, their satisfaction with the system was high (Campbell, 2009). South Asia, East Asia and Procedural Justice. The study on the Trans border Environmental Justice in Regional Energy Trade in Mainland South-East Asia (2012) showed that the government and the project developer should consider the distribution of environmental justice and to consider the welfare of the community when they are investing in the business to the neighbor countries. Moreover, environmental justice has a vast impact on the neighboring countries (Middleton, 2012). Accordance with the emphasis of justice in society, the study from Nepal on dealing with institutional legitimacy in post conflict societies shows that procedural justice has an effect on perceptions’ of citizen on institutional legitimacy than the instrumental outcomes (Fisk & Cherney, 2016). Using principle of fairness in the process of making decision will enhance the trust and confidence of citizens (Schulenberg, Chenier, Buffone, & Wojciechowski, 2015). The study of policing in direct and indirect effects of procedural justice on
18 cooperation and compliance around 300 South Korean citizens shows that procedural justice has positive direct effect on commitment in following the rules but not on cooperation and compliance. Procedural justice has indirect effects on cooperation by following the rules. However, there is no indirect significant found on compliance (Woo, Maguire, & Gau, 2018). Thailand and Procedural Justice. Several studies on procedural justice have been conducted in Thailand. One study investigated the perception of Carrier (Thailand) Ltd. employees on performance appraisals. The result shows that for the overall picture, employees have high perception of fairness in the work place (Pattanapanich, 2003). Perception of organizational justice has significant correlation with work motivation (Wongjumpa & Phompun, 2016). Procedural justice in organization has an influence on perception of organizational support. In addition, perceived organizational support has an effect on organizational citizenship behaviors (Panpluem & Jetsadaluck, 2017). A case study conducted at Bank of Ayudhya Public Company Limited, shows that procedural justice has a positive relationship with organizational commitment (Nianhom, 2008). Similarly, with the study of Seeta (2011) Procedural justice has influenced organizational commitment. Moreover, the study by Parnsumneig and Jetsadaluck (2008) found that the awareness of justice in a workplace has positive influences on organizational commitment as well. Relatedly another study Kasemsap, Thabhiranrak, and Pungnirund (2016) found that organizational justice has influence on organizational citizenship behavior.
19 Christianity and Procedural Justice Christian philosophy of education are based on the Bible and it emphasizes on holistic education. For example, students are encouraged to be a regular student so as to learn to be disciplined which helps in character development. Students are taught to live honestly in whatever they do. The Christian perspective is that we are responsible to God in every conduct. White (1903) provides a better understanding on this perspective. "The accounts of every business, the details of every transaction, pass the scrutiny of unseen auditors, agents of Him who never compromises with injustice, never overlooks evil, never palliates wrong” (White, 1903, pp. 108-109). Summary From various definitions given for “procedural justice’ from different perspectives, it can be concluded that procedural justice is a process of creating equality, fairness, and justice to everyone (Forrest & Miller, 2008). Procedural justice could be described as the contribution of fairness in the process of teaching and learning environments (Grubb & Tredway, 2010) or in work place settings. It is essential to maintain firm decision in the classroom or organization as procedural justice effect students’ performance in the classroom and also effect the employees’ satisfaction in work place and their commitment to the organization (Martinson, Crain, Vries, & Adnderson, 2010). Students will have less rebellion when they perceive justice in the classroom (Campbell, 2009). Moreover, students will be more respectful to the teachers when they recognize that the teachers treat all the students fairly (Resh & Sabbagh, 2014). Academic Dishonesty and Related Studies
20 Definition of Academic Dishonesty Academic integrity has been implicated in similar definitions by different universities and various sources. Academic integrity is the principle guideline to control academic institutions to maintain the ethical standards of education which include grades, publications, research, teaching and other relevant articles to the academic field (Quist, n.d.). Swansea University has defined academic integrity as the principle which contains honesty, trust, diligence, fairness and respect in keeping moral principles in works and their award. Academic integrity is based on the belief that “how you learn is as important as what you learn” (Swansea University, n.d.). The University of Auckland states academic integrity as meaning “being honest and fair in all scholarly activity in all departments within the campus” and the second definition is “the value which comes from your own beliefs to make the right decisions and judgments on your study and research”. In other words, to accomplish all tasks with honesty and integrity. (University of Auckland, n.d.). The International Center for Academic Integrity defines academic integrity as a commitment, to stand firm in every situation which includes six fundamental value component: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. Holding theses values will build a good character and transform ideas to action (ICAI, 2013). “Academic integrity means acting with the values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in learning, teaching and research. It is important for students, teachers, researchers and professional staff members to act in an honest way, to be responsible for their actions, and show fairness in every part of their work. All staff including students should be an example to others of how honesty and integrity should be implemented in their study and work. Academic integrity is important for
21 an individual’s reputation and ultimately a school’s reputation” (Exemplary Academic Integrity Project, 2013). Examples and Related Studies Academic dishonesty can be defined as “infringement, cheating and academic dishonesty”, which refers to the values, norms and any related practices in academic dishonesty. Moreover, when we look at it in its rawest form, this includes plagiarism, cheating on an exam or assignment, copying others’ work, bribery to get a good grade, buying exam papers, etc. (Bretag, 2018). Schools should clearly address academic expectations regarding ethics, integrity, and academic honesty. Administrators should deal with academic misconduct seriously. Students should be trained to avoid cheating and build a strong sense of morality so that they will do what is right (Cavico & Mujtabe, 2009). Ethical values and actions must be promoted to students, and institutions should speak out about improving academic integrity (McHaney, Cronan, & Douglas, 2016). Students should not only have knowledge of academic integrity, but also be trained on how to properly cite and reference (Nagaraju, 2018). Cavico and Mujtabe (2009) mentioned several factors why students cheat. First of all, we cannot deny that cheating happens everywhere; it is not limited to educational institutions, but it occurs in business and politics, too. It seems that everyone has somehow been involved in cheating for the sake of survival, or for the sake of having a better opportunity in life or society. Secondly, technology has become one of the channels to access sources of information that students may need. Sometimes it can be used negatively for taking the work of others as our own – e.g. plagiarism. Another factor is acquiring a diploma. It is much more important to get a diploma in order to get a job than to get knowledge itself. Finally, cheating can occur
22 among students with low self-esteem. They do not have confidence in their own work, so they decide to cheat or copy the work of others. This situation can be solved by providing more opportunities for teamwork, such as giving more group work assignments to enhance their confidence (Cavico & Mujtabe, 2009). They also have suggested the following procedures/suggestions to reduce a student’s need for cheating: Gain and focus attention on learning outcomes. Inform learners of the expected outcome (during the first session through the course syllabus and discussion). Stimulate recall of relevant prerequisites. Present new material through lectures and/or facilitation. Offer guidance for learning and application. Fairly assess students’ performance for improvement. Make transferability possible through application and discussion of experience. Allow for self-assessment. Ensure content retention by exposing students to the same material several times during the term/semester. Provide qualitative and timely feedback each week. Some examples may be seen on news broadcasts that show the actual conduct which has occurred in academia. A report from BBC News Education showed that cheating by students in GCSE and A-level exams has increased by one fourth in comparison to previous years. Students take their phones into the examination room illegally. Moreover, some staff were also not abiding by the rules. They allowed students to use their phones during exams. This was caused by pressure on students and teachers to maintain a good reputation and high scores in GCSE and A-level
23 exams. The students who were cheating received punishment in different ways; deduction of scores, messages of warning, and discarding of exam papers (Richardson, 2018). Looking at academic institutions, misconduct and plagiarism have increased among university students. A Russell Group report of students who were caught cheating from 2014-15 and 2016-17 showed that cheating has risen by 40%. The factors behind this increase in academic dishonesty were due to the consequences of too many pressures, such as higher tuition fees or the need to get a good paying job, and the resulting stress which falls upon them. These include having good grades to get a good job or a scholarship, because tuition fees have also increased, and scholarship providers require a good GPA. Students feel forced to do anything in order to maintain good academic performance (Lodhia, 2018). Environment is also one of the factors that influences students in regards to cheating (Beasley, 2014) Culture and Academic Dishonesty From a self-reported questionnaire of Pakistani university students, the finding showed that most graduate and post-graduate students were not aware of plagiarism, as well as university plagiarism policies and processes amongst students. Many of them did not know the meaning of plagiarism. However, some admitted that they intended to plagiarize materials from others (Ramzan, Munir, Siddique, & Asif, 2012). A study in the field of business revealed that the more students spend time studying in business schools, the more academic dishonesty and business ethics influence their attitudes (Ahmad, Simun, & Mohammad, 2008). The New Zealand Qualification Authority has reported that more than 300 students broke the exam rules for National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams in 2017 by bringing their notes and gadgets into the exam room. This
24 was the highest number since 2012 (RNZ, 2018). Academic dishonesty is also widespread in the Swedish university system. A study showed that lying behavior is the most common among university students, and the most common lies are “Lying about medical problems or other circumstances to get special consideration by examiners. The study showed around 79% had used the excuse of “Lying about medical or other circumstances to get an extended deadline or exemption for a piece of work” (Trost, 2009). A comparative study of secondary school and university students in Spain revealed that university students did not take academic dishonesty seriously. As a result, they cheated more frequently than did secondary school students. A study from a secondary school showed that its students had greater spiritual, personal, social and environmental well-being, and were more satisfied with learning. In addition, spiritual well-being among secondary education students was found to be higher than among university students (Garcia & Herrera, 2014). Thailand and Academic Dishonesty. In Thailand, over 90% of Thai college students admitted that they have engaged in academic dishonesty in various ways such as, cheating during examinations, copying others’ work, dishonesty in doing reports, and tampering with data collected. In addition, male students are more likely to be involved in academic dishonesty behavior than female students (Kornpetpanee, 2006). Similarly, in the study of Seritanon (2014), the most frequent form of academic dishonesty was copying others’ assignments. This was followed by making up data, which constituted over 40 percent. Male students had higher incidences of copying their friends’ assignments, while females were more prone to sharing their answers for assignments with their friends (Seritanon, 2014).
25 High-tech cheating has spread everywhere. The news network CNN reported that three prospective medical students used special pairs of eyeglasses with hidden cameras to record an entrance exam. Answers were then sent to electronic wristwatches; however, they were caught during the exam. All three students were subsequently blacklisted from entering Rangsit University (Melvin, 2016). Student and Academic Dishonesty Cheating strategies have also undergone development in many substantial ways. Students are able to find many ways to cheat, which include bringing of crib? sheets into the exam room, writing answers on their arms, legs or hands, or the creation of a code to share answers with friends (Koss, 2011). Furthermore, there are companies that offer to help students if they will pay the company to write academic papers for them (Eaton, 2018). Students have started using technology in their cheating endeavors. Kaplan reported in the New York Post that a student used his mobile phone to load an entire examination before sending it to his friends (Kaplan, 2017). Cheating has become a culture for students. Most of the students who cheat in an examination were also found do be copying their friends’ assignments as well. Some were caught several times for academic dishonesty. However, it seems that to stop their misconduct is not an easy task (Dorn & Edelman, 2018). CBC’s Investigation report showed that some students from the University of Regina taking law and ethics were found cheating during their exam. The instructor Sherk said he regretted not being personally present during the exam, but instead he asked teaching assistants to supervise the exam in his stead. This awakened administrators, who emphasized preventing academic misconduct before exams began. In addition to this, a student hacked into the university’s grading system and
26 changed his grades, and also hacked into the dean’s account. In addition, universities should strongly monitor and abolish the practice of bribing teaching assistants and professors who accept plagiarized student work (Leo, 2018). The data from one Australian survey with more than 15,000 respondents showed that one in five postgraduate researchers had never heard of academic integrity. Only three in five said they knew their university had an academic integrity policy, and they knew how to access it. However, almost 100 percent of postgraduate research students and undergraduate students agreed with the statement “academic integrity has relevance to my life or work experience outside the university” (Mahmud & Bretag, 2013). A survey of respondents from one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education, Harvard University, on student cheating showed that “17 percent admitted that they had cheated on a paper or a take-home assignment. An even greater percentage—42 percent—admitted to having cheated on a homework assignment or problem set” (Lang, 2013). Students explained in the study of Beasley that they would have stopped cheating if teacher had done something different and if they were given enough resources or skills. They did not want to be blamed for not being able to manage their time well, and they did not want to receive bad grades. Therefore, cheating seemed to be one of the best solutions for them (Beasley, 2014). Students decide to cheat when they think they do not have enough time to produce satisfactory work to obtain a good grade or to be able to submit an assignment on time. Furthermore, they are willing to hire a professional writer to write their paper (Cavico & Mujtabe, 2009). Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no possible solution to the problem of cheating. One study showed that when
27 students have a good relationship with their teacher and when they feel that they can trust their teacher, academic dishonesty declined (Anderman, Cupp, & Lane, 2010). Achievement and Academic Dishonesty. Many presumed that high achievement and academic dishonesty have no significant relationship. However, several studies have proved them wrong by finding that there is a relationship between these two variables. The research shows that students who had higher academic achievement were involved in academic dishonesty more than students who had lower academic performance. Some of the reasons students with higher performance decide to cheat are such as the following: they wanted to maintain good standard, they faced high competition, there was too much pressure to get all the work done on time, and people have high expectations of them; these factors push high achievers to cheat (Miller, Murdock, & Grotewiel, 2017). Students who have high personal values, higher self-esteem, and high mastery in life in general feel like cheating less (David, 2015). A study by Thomas among international students showed that academic dishonesty has a negative relationship with achievement emotion (Thomas, 2017). Students with intrinsic motivation (i.e., high intrinsic values, strong mastery, or learning goals), will engage in academic dishonesty less often than students with extrinsic motivation, (i.e., performance goals, ego goals, extrinsic motivation) toward academic achievement (Idrus, Asadi, & Amokhtar, 2016). University Classroom Practices and Academic Dishonesty Academic dishonesty has become a severe issue in many institutions. Therefore, different practices and rules has been implemented to stop these behaviors. Due to the increase of cheating in schools, India’s Government has implemented the
28 use of CCTV cameras in annual examination rooms, assigned police to catch the cheaters, and enforced strict rules regarding cheating. This led to half a million students not showing up to take their exams. Moreover, some teachers were caught through CCTV for reading out the answers to students, and some school principals were caught for training students to engage in bad practices when taking exams (Doshi, 2014). Most students know their institution’s regulations regarding academic dishonesty. However, only few of them really understand them. Even students who saw their friends engaged in academic dishonesty would choose not to report them (Saana, Ablordeppey, Mensah, & Karikari, 2016). A survey by Tindell and Bohalander (2012) showed that more than 90% of students brought their phones to class every day, and used their phones to text during class time, and 10% admitted that they have texted during an exam on at least one occasion”. Moreover, students are using their cell phones in classrooms to browse the internet, send pictures, or access social networking sites; they presume that the instructor is not aware of their phone usage (Tindell & Bohlander, 2012). Online classroom environments are more challenging to prevent academic dishonesty because students can access related information during quizzes. However, there are electronic records of online activity to detect whether or not there was any activity of academic dishonesty. The study showed that only a few students search for related information during quiz time (Simpson & Yu, 2012). Gender and Academic Dishonesty There are no significant findings between student attitudes towards plagiarism based on gender (Signh, 2015; David, 2015; Trost, 2009). Students who are involved in academic dishonesty feel that their friends are more dishonest than they are (David,
29 2015). Female students are more likely to report suspected cases of academic dishonesty than male students (Simon, et al., 2004 and Eric, Pal, Doroudgar, Bidwal, & Shah-Manek, 2018). Females disagree with dishonest behavior in academics more than male students do (Thomas, 2017). However, research conducted among pharmacy students showed no genderbased differences in academically dishonest behavior (Trost, 2009). Male students more frequently engage in academic dishonesty, plagiarism, or giving false excuses than female students do (Hensley, Kirkpatrick, & Burgoon, 2013; Kornpetpanee, 2006). Males are also involved in collusion more often than are female students (Henning, et al., 2013). Competitiveness and Academic Dishonesty Perspectives in the West. The most common reason students decide to cheat is the “desire to get ahead.” Business students are involved in cheating more than non-business students (Simkin & Mcleod, 2010). In addition, 45 percent of high school male students and more than 20 percent of female students agreed with the statement that “a person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed” (Institute, 2012). Another study conducted in a pharmacy school on motivations for cheating showed that the most three common factors which motivated students were fear of failure, procrastination of study, and stress (Ip, Nguyen, Shah, Doroudgar, & Bidwal, 2016). Perspectives in the East. As the students face more challenges with higher requirements in labor market and to be employed, students’ passion for grades has increased. A study by Khan (2014) investigated the effects of “pressure for employability, academic self-concept,
30 parental interest, psychological pressure, academic recognition, and financial concerns on students’ passion for academic grades.” The results showed that in Thailand, students cheat during exams because they do not want to fail. Yet some of them are too lazy to study, but they want to get high grades, and they cheat because they do not know what to answer in exams (Balbuena & Lamela, 2015). Furthermore, some students engage in cheating to get good grades for the purpose of receiving a scholarship to further their studies abroad (Alsuwaileh , Russ-Eft , & Alshurai , 2016). Teachers have used several ways to prevent cheating during exams or tests in Thailand, such as students wearing special hats during exams, using an open umbrella to stop cheating habit, (MGR, 2017). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework shows the relationship of the independent and dependent variables of academic dishonesty and procedural justice. Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the study Dependent Variable Independent Variable The conceptual framework above shows the relationship between academic dishonesty and procedural justice. Factors that influence academic dishonesty include students’ perception of academic dishonesty. The dishonest behavior or practices in Academic dishonesty Students’ perception of academic dishonesty Procedural Justice Students’ perception of procedural justice
31 academia may include plagiarizing written assignments, copying from others, or copying from notes during exams. On the other hand, procedural justice is meted regardless of whether a student practices academic honesty or not. In other circumstances, students’ perception of academic dishonesty and resultant procedural judgments may be due to a misunderstanding of what academic dishonesty and procedural judgment criteria entail. Therefore, students may unknowingly act out of ignorance or wrong perception. Summary Cheating has become a norm in academics because the goal of pursuing an education has shifted. Students’ goal is to get good grades so that they can be admitted into a top university, where they will be able to take the major they want. Some dream of going to medical school, or any good career in the future (Idrus, Asadi, & Amokhtar, 2016). With high competition in the real world, students are well able to achieve their goals, but unfortunately in dishonest ways (Cavico & Mujtabe, 2009).
32 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The aim of this study is to seek the relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty. By finding out the answer for the research question, this section will cover the research design, research questions, study area, sample size, sampling techniques, data collection instruments, procedure for data collection, data analysis, and lastly ethical considerations. Research Design The design in this study uses a cross-sectional survey and correlation design with 47 items that were used to assess the perceptions of all participants toward procedural justice and academic dishonesty. This survey also required the participants to provide some demographical information, including gender and years in their program of study. A cross-sectional survey design is a survey collected at a certain period of time (Bhat, 2018). A correlation design is a quantitative research method which inquires if there is a relationship between variables by examining two different variables from the same group of subjects (Waters, n.d.). These two designs are suitable for this study because the purpose of this study is to find the relationship between the data for two variables, and it focuses on a specific area. Research Questions The study was guided by the following research questions:
33 1. What are the student’s perceptions about procedural justice and academic dishonesty? 2. What are the differences in perceptions towards procedural justice by gender, class, faculty, and program? 3. What are the differences in perceptions towards academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program? 4. Is there any relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University? Study Area Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) is situated in Muak Lek District, Saraburi Province, Thailand. The highest number of students is from Thailand, which is 534 out of 951. The official languages used in the university are English and Thai. Therefore, this study is suitable to find the relationship between students’ perceptions of procedural justice and academic dishonesty among International students and among Thai students who were majoring in English. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques The participants of this study were Thai English majors and International students who were enrolled in different programs of study at Asia-Pacific International University. The study used non-random Convenience Sampling techniques that allowed any participants who were willing to be involved in the study from the target population to participate (Thomas, 2016). This technique is suitable for this study because the objectives and the research questions from this study did not seek for a specific population or special characteristics of the target group. Therefore, any students who are willing to participate in this study could be involved. The study
34 included students from the first year to the fourth year, in both the International program and Thai program. This study involves only students who agreed to participate in it. Data Collection Instruments In this study, the researcher adapted questionnaires from Craig and Dalton (2014) and Brashear, Boles, & Brooks (2004) to construct the data collection instrument. The reason for choosing to adopt these two surveys was because the survey questions focused on students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty that were divided into five categories. Each question clearly reflected the perception of students’ practices of academic dishonesty, how frequently they have been involved in academic dishonesty, and their opinion about the reasons behind academic dishonesty. Moreover, these questions have covered what the researcher would like to seek from this study. For the perception of procedural justice, the researcher has modified the questions to fit the context, which focuses on perceptions of distributing fairness in the classroom by teachers. Therefore, the combination of these two questionnaires was suitable for the college students and the context of this study. The alpha Cronbach for questions on academic dishonesty section with 35 items was 0.92. The questionnaire in the study had two main sections. The first section contained biographical information of the respondents, such as gender (male or female), program (Thai or International), class (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or ESL), and Faculty (arts and humanities, business administration, education and psychology, nursing, religious studies, and science). The second section was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of tick boxes about students’ perception of academic honesty, which was adopted from Craig and Dalton (2014). It was followed by the second part, which was a rating chart with
35 four different levels. The chart had five different questions and topics overall, with 44 question in total. The first part intended to find out if students were aware of, had read, and understood the academic integrity policy and honor pledge. For example, “are you aware of an Academic Integrity Policy and Honor pledge at the AIU? Have you read it?” The respondents would check yes or no in the box provided. The second part focused on perceptions of academic dishonesty/seriousness of 8 common academics ‘offenses’, which students were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 4 in that section. The students were asked about how often they had engaged in the academic dishonesty, and how frequently they believed that academic dishonesty occurs. For the last topic in the chart, the questions sought to discover students’ perception of procedural justice and the fairness of policies in the classroom. For example, participants put an X in the box that indicated their opinion of statements such as copying a homework assignment from a peer, my teacher administers policies fairly, etc. (Brashear, Boles, & Brooks, 2004). The alpha Cronbach for the 9-item scale was 0.90. Procedure for Data Collection The researcher distributed the survey to any student respondents at AsiaPacific International University who agreed to be involved in the study and would complete it, both the demographical information and the items in the instrument. Respondents were assured that the information would be kept confidential. Finally, the respondents submitted the instrument back to the researcher for further processing. Data Analysis Descriptive data was collected in the study. The researcher used the mean and standard deviation to calculate descriptive data. A T-test was used to analyze the
36 differences in students’ perception toward variables between male and female. Lastly, to analyze the relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty, the researcher used correlation analysis to find the result. Table1. Research Question, Analysis and Sources of Data No Research Questions Analysis Source of Data 1 What are the student’s perceptions about procedural justice and academic dishonesty? Descriptive Survey from Students 2 What are the differences in perceptions towards academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program? t-test and ANOVA Survey from Students 3 What are the differences in perceptions towards academic dishonesty by gender, class, faculty, and program? t-test and ANOVA Survey from Students 4 Is there any relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University? Correlation Survey from Students Ethical Considerations This study was conducted among university students at AIU. Therefore, for ethical policy concerns, the researcher asked permission from the university to conduct this research and to distribute the questionnaire to AIU students. Moreover, researcher requested informed consent from the participants. All participants in this study were vulnerable groups of students. Nobody in this study was forced to complete the survey. The researcher collected data from respondents only after obtaining permission from them. The data collected from the participants was kept confidential, and this study promised to keep all the respondents’ information to be
37 anonymous (Resnik, 2015). This study is free from plagiarism. All the information or data collected from other sources was credited.
38 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS PRESENTATION The results presentation for this section shows the relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty, including the sample size, means and standard deviation of survey items on academic dishonesty, procedural justice, and the correlation of variables. Sample Size The study had 133 participants who were all Asia-Pacific International University students. Of all the participants, 51.9% were male and 48.1% were female. For program of study, 78.9% were International program students, and 21.1% were from the Thai program. For class status, 25.6 % were Freshmen, 27.1% were Sophomores, 32.3% were Juniors, 9.0% were Seniors, and 5.3% were English as a Second Language (ESL) Students. The majority of the participants were Arts and Humanities majors at 36.1%. Education majors made up 20.3%, followed by Business, Science, Religion, and Information Technology at, 13.5%, 11.3%, 8.3% and 4.5% respectively. See Table 2 for details. Results Presentation Summary of the descriptive statistics about the perception of students toward academic dishonesty are shown in table 3. The results showed that the overall perception of the participants regarding academic dishonesty had mean and standard deviation scores of M = 2.41 SD = 0.47. The research instrument items used a 4-point
39 Table 2 . Demographic Characteristics of Participants )n = 133( Variable n % Gender Male 69 51.9 Female 64 48.1 Program Thai 28 21.1 International 105 78.9 Class Status Freshman 34 25.6 Sophomore 36 27.1 Junior 43 32.3 Senior 12 9.0 ESL 7 5.3 Faculty Arts & Humanities 48 36.1 Business Administration 18 13.5 Education & Psychology 27 20.3 Information Technology 6 4.5 Nursing 11 8.3 Religious Studies 15 11.3 Science 6 4.5 Likert scale. However, each sub-scale had a different interpretation (See Table 4 for a thorough breakdown of the questions per subscale) The first sub-scale is “Perceptions of academic integrity/seriousness of ‘offence’”; This is categorized in numbers scaling from one to four. The explanation of the range were 4 = very serious, 3= quite serious, 2= not very serious, 1= not at all serious. The second and third sub-scale is, “How often have you engaged in the following behavior? and How frequently do you believe the following occur?”. The explanation of the range was 4= frequently, 3= sometimes, 2= rarely, 1= never. The fourth sub-scale is “How likely do you think the following reasons might be given for academic dishonesty?” the interpretation was 4= most likely, 3= likely, 2= unlikely, 1= most unlikely. The last sub-scale in the
40 questionnaire is, “Procedural justice”. The interpretation of the range was 4= strongly agree, 3= agree, 2= disagree, 1= strongly disagree”. In the subscale questions, students viewed violence of academic integrity as very serious (M=2.92) Students rarely personally engage in these offense (M=1.81), and that overall, students rarely engage in academic integrity violation (M=2.09) and that students are likely to have reasons for violation of academic integrity (M=2.65). The alpha Cronbach for academic dishonesty, 35-item scale, was 0.92 and the alpha Cronbach for procedural justice, 9-item scale, was 0.90. See Table 3. Table 3. Variable Descriptive Statistics )n=133( Variable M SD skewness #Items Cronbach’s Alpha (α) Academic dishonesty 2.41 0.47 -0.02 35 .92 Seriousness of offence 2.92 0.90 -0.69 8 .95 Personal engagement 1.81 0.65 0.90 8 .81 Frequency 2.09 0.80 0.27 9 .92 Reasons 2.65 0.56 -0.24 12 .89 Procedural justice 3.04 0.54 -0.51 9 .90 Preliminary Analysis The respondents agreed with the statement indicated in item 5 that doing homework for their friends is not something very serious (M = 2.73, SD = 1.02). Students also agreed with item 1 that it is not very serious if they copy a homework assignment from their friends (M = 2.76, SD = 0.90). A similar perception was found for item 6; students think that it is not a serious offense to ask their friends to do their homework for them (M = 2.77, SD = 1.02). However, item 15 indicated that students rarely or never pay someone to do homework for them (M = 1.39, SD = 0.76).
41 The majority of the other items regarding reasons that students engage in academic dishonesty showed that respondents disagreed with most statements. For example, respondents disagreed in relation to item 28 that academic dishonesty is a normal behavior (M = 2.59, SD = 0.85), and they disagreed that the reason why students are involved in academic dishonesty was because the penalties are minimal (M = 2.62, SD = 0.80). See Table 4. Table 4. Means and Standard Deviation of Survey Items on Academic Dishonesty No Survey Items M SD Perceptions of Academic Integrity/Seriousness of ‘Offense’ 1 Copying a homework assignment from a peer 2.76 0.90 2 Copying from notes in an exam/test/quiz 3.08 1.03 3 Copying a classmate’s answer in an exam/test/quiz 3.06 1.04 4 Providing answers to a friend/ classmate in an exam/test/quiz 2.93 1.00 5 Doing homework for a friend/ classmate 2.73 1.02 6 Having a friend/ classmate do the work for you 2.77 1.02 7 Plagiarizing work from others and passing it off as your own 3.06 1.10 8 Paying someone to do the assignment 2.94 1.16 How often have you engaged in the following behavior? 9 Copied homework assignment from a peer 2.06 0.81 10 Copied from notes in an exam/test/quiz 1.63 0.83 11 Copied a classmate answer in an exam/test/quiz 1.58 0.80 12 Provided answers to a friend/ classmate in an exam/test/quiz 1.88 0.85 13 Allowed a friend/ classmate to copy your work 2.30 0.88 14 Done homework for a friend/ classmate 1.79 0.91 15 Paid someone to do your work 1.39 0.76 How frequently do you believe the following occur? 16 Copying a homework assignment from a peer 2.44 1.02 17 Copying from notes in an exam/test/quiz 2.09 0.92 18 Copying a classmate answer 2.17 1.03 19 Providing answers to a friend/ classmate in an exam/test/quiz 2.21 0.94
42 Table 4 continued No Survay Items M SD 18 Copying a classmate answer 2.17 1.03 19 Providing answers to a friend/ classmate in an exam/test/quiz 2.21 0.94 20 Doing homework for a friend/ classmate 2.00 0.95 21 Having a friend/classmate do the work for you 1.96 0.92 22 Plagiarizing work from others and passing it off as your own 2.01 1.01 23 Paying someone to do the assignment in an exam/test/quiz 1.77 0.90 How likely do you think the following reasons might be given for academic dishonesty? 24 Lack of time to complete assignment 2.74 0.81 25 Low chance of being caught or reported 2.67 0.80 26 Penalties are minimal 2.62 0.80 27 Worth the risk to get a better grade 2.77 0.80 28 Normal behavior (everyone does it/not considered serious) 2.59 0.85 29 Taught to copy in school 2.09 0.92 30 Lack of understanding of how to complete assignment 2.77 0.90 31 Never been taught how to paraphrase and quote 2.47 0.86 32 Too much effort required to paraphrase and quote 2.59 0.83 33 Authors’ words are best 2.74 0.82 34 English not good enough 2.90 0.90 35 Lack of interest 2.77 0.84 In relation to procedural justice, the overall overview of the students’ perceptions was that teachers treat students fairly (M = 3.04, SD = 0.54). For example, in items 39 and 42, students agreed that teacher consistently apply classroom policy fairly to everyone (M = 3.15, SD = 0.6; M = 3.14, SD = 0.66). Table 2 indicated the descriptive results of the study on procedural justice. The majority of the other items related to procedural justice were also positive (agree). For example, in items 38 and 44, respondents reported that teachers treated students equally (M = 3.08, SD = 0.70). See Table 5 below for details.