43 Table 5. Means and Standard Deviation of Survey Items on Procedural Justice Means and Standard Deviation of Survey Items on Procedural Justice No Survey Items M SD Procedural justice 36 My teacher administers policies fairly 3.07 0.68 37 The policies my teacher creates treat everyone equally 3.06 0.73 38 The standards set by my teacher are enforced equally among all students 3.08 0.70 39 My teacher treats all students the same when implementing classroom policy 3.15 0.60 40 My teacher follows different rules when dealing with different students 2.70 0.83 41 My teacher does not favor one student over another 2.99 0.77 42 My teacher applies policies consistently to all students 3.14 0.66 43 My teacher follows fair procedures in decision making 3.07 0.73 44 All students are treated equally by my teacher 3.08 0.71 In regards to differences based on subgroups of gender towards procedural justice and academic dishonesty, no significant differences were found between men (M = 2.41; SD = 0.46)) and women (M= 2.40; SD = 0.49); t (133) = 0.12, p = 0.91. There were also no significant differences between male (M=3.03, SD=0.56) and female (M=3.05, SD=0.52) on procedural justice. See table 6. Table 6. Gender Differences Variable Group n M SD t df p ES(d) Procedural Justice Male 69 3.03 0.56 -.16 131 .87 .01 Female 64 3.05 0.52 Academic dishonesty Male 69 2.42 0.46 .12 131 .91 .01 Female 64 2.41 0.49
44 As well as program, no differences were found when comparisons were made among Thai program between International program. No difference on procedural justice was found between Thai program (M = 2.92, SD = 0.46) and International program (M = 3.07, SD = 0.56, t= -138, p = 0.17)). In the similar manner, for academic dishonesty, there were no difference was found between Thai program and International program. Thai program (M = 2.34, SD = 0.55) and International program (M = 2.43, SD = 0.45, t= -0.93, p = 0.35). See table 7. Table 7 . Program Differences Variable Group n M SD t df p ES(d) Procedural Justice International 105 3.07 0.56 -138 131 .17 .01 Thai 28 2.92 0.46 Academic dishonesty International 105 2.43 0.45 -0.93 131 .35 .04 Thai 28 2.34 0.55 In addition, in regards to differences based on subgroups of class towards procedural justice and academic dishonesty, no significant differences were found between freshman (M = 3.22; SD = 0.59; F = 1.38; p = 0.253), sophomore (M= 2.98; SD = 0.45), junior (M= 3.01; SD = 0.48), and senior (M= 3.03; SD = 0.77) on procedural justice. There were also no significant differences between freshman (M = 2.50; SD = 0.56; F = 0.52; p = 0.669), sophomore (M= 2.36; SD = 0.40), junior (M= 2.41; SD = 0.49), and senior (M= 240; SD = 0.49) on academic dishonesty. See table 8. In a similar manner, no differences were observed among Faculties of study. There is no difference on procedural justice was found between Arts & Humanities
45 Table 8. Class Differences Variable Class N M SD F df p η 2 Procedural Justice Freshman 34 3.22 0.59 1.38 3,121 .253 .03 Sophomore 36 2.98 0.45 Junior 43 3.01 0.48 Senior 12 3.03 0.77 Academic Dishonesty Freshman 34 2.50 0.56 0.52 3,121 .669 .01 Sophomore 36 2.36 0.40 Junior 43 2.41 0.49 Senior 12 2.40 0.49 Table 9. Faculty Differences Variable Faculty N M SD F df p η2 Procedural Justice Arts & Humanities 48 3.02 0.44 .49 5,119 .78 .02 Business Administration 18 3.02 0.69 Education & Psychology 27 3.03 0.45 Nursing 11 3.24 0.62 Religious studies 15 3.16 0.78 Science 6 2.94 0.33 Academic Dishonesty Arts & Humanities 48 2.41 0.50 .75 5,191 .59 .03 Business Administration 18 2.53 0.50 Education & Psychology 27 2.41 0.55 Nursing 11 2.21 0.36 Religious studies 15 2.52 0.41 Science 6 2.40 0.38 (M = 3.02, SD = 0.44, F = 0.49, p = 0.78), Business (M= 3.02, SD = 0.69), Administration Education & Psychology (M = 3.03, SD = 0.45), Nursing (M = 3.24,SD = 0.62), Religious studies (M = 3.16, SD = 0.78), and Science (M = 2.94, SD = 0.33). There is no difference on academic dishonesty was found between Arts &
46 Humanities (M = 2.41, SD = 0.50, F = 0.75, p = 0.59), Business (M= 2.53, SD = 0.50), Administration Education & Psychology (M = 2.41, SD = 0.55), Nursing (M = 2.21, SD = 0.36), Religious studies (M = 2.52, SD = 0.41), and Science (M = 2.40, SD = 0.38). Relationship Between Procedural Justice and Academic Dishonesty As indicated in Table 10 on the correlation between subscales of academic dishonesty and procedural justice; Seriousness of offense and procedural justice (r = .41), personal engagement and procedural justice (r= -.03), Frequency and procedural justice (r=.09), reasons and procedural justice (r=.15). Table 10. Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation Coefficient (n=133) Correlation Coefficient Variable Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6 1 Academic dishonesty 2.41 0.47 .61** .59** .77** .68** .27** 2 Seriousness of offense 2.92 0.90 .09 .22* .17 .41** 3 Personal engagement 1.81 0.65 .51** .21* -.03 4 Frequency 2.09 0.80 .37** .09 5 Reasons 2.65 0.56 .15 6 Procedural justice - Note. *p≤.05; **p≤.01 Result indicated that there is a weak correlation between academic dishonesty and procedural justice (r=0.27, p<.01) indicating that only about 7% of the variance (r2=.0729) in academic dishonesty can be explained by procedural justice. Summary of Findings 1. Violation of academic integrity is quite serious )M=2.92(; students are rarely personally engaged in these offense )M=1.81(, and that overall, students are
47 rarely engaged in academic integrity violation )M=2.09 (and that students are likely to have reasons for violation of academic integrity )M=2.65( 2. Students at AIU agree )M=3.04 (that teachers are generally fair in implementing academic policies in the classroom. 3. No gender, class, program and faculty differences on academic dishonesty. 4. No gender, class, program and faculty differences on procedural justice. 5. There is a weak )r.=27 (between academic dishonesty and procedural justice . About 7 %of the variance in academic dishonesty can be explained by procedural justice.
48 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISSCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION The study findings regarding the relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty in this section will be the summary of the study. In addition, this section will discuss the results from chapter four, some recommendations will be given, and finally, conclusions will be made about the answers to the research questions and the study’s results. Summary The purpose of this study was to seek the relationship between student’s perceptions of procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University. The research determined to find if there is any difference between student’s perceptions of procedural justice and academic dishonesty based on subgroups of gender, class, faculty and program. The sampling technique used in this study was non-random convenience sampling techniques. Moreover, quantitative cross-sectional survey research design was used as a data collection instrument. The researcher adapted questionnaires from Craig and Dalton (2014) and Brashear, Boles, & Brooks (2004) to construct the data collection instrument. 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.
49 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 four different levels. The chart had five different questions and topics overall, with 44 question in total. The study had 133 participants who are the undergraduate students at AsiaPacific International University (AIU). All the students are from different years and programs of study offered in the university. Findings and Discussion In this study, the findings of student’s perceptions of procedural justice and academic dishonesty showed that the respondents agreed that doing homework for their friends is not very serious (M = 2.73, SD = 1.02). Students also agreed that it is not very serious to copy homework assignments from friends (M = 2.76, SD = 0.90). In addition, students think that it is not a serious offense to ask friends to do homework for them (M = 2.77, SD = 1.02). However, students hardly pay someone to do homework for them (M = 1.39, SD = 0.76). On the other hand, the overall view of students perception toward procedural justice was that teachers treat students fairly (M = 3.04, SD = 0.54). For example, students agreed that teachers consistently apply classroom policies fairly to everyone. While comparing the differences in perceptions towards procedural justice by gender, class, faculty and program, the result showed that there were no differences
50 based on subgroups of gender, class, faculty, and program. In the same way, the finding showed no differences of perception toward academic dishonesty based on subgroups of gender, class, faculty, and program. The finding from the last research question which was to find if there was any relationship between procedural justice and academic dishonesty at Asia-Pacific International University, indicated a weak correlation between academic dishonesty and procedural justice (r=0.27, n=133). The results of the relationship between academic dishonesty and procedural justice found in this study have revealed several important findings. First, students perceive that copying from notes in an exam, test, and quizzes from their peers as something quite serious and students rarely engaged in doing that. Another interesting finding is that students have no problem copying their friends’ homework or asking friend to do their homework. Students understand that copying the work of others is wrong. However, they think that it is not wrong if they have asked permission from the friend and both of them agree (Saana, Ablordeppey, Mensah, & Karikari, 2016). So perhaps the severity of the punishment determines the level the seriousness of the act. For example, students are rarely ever reprimanded from copying their friends’ homework. In fact, this is seen a given when it comes to homework, but in exam you get an F for copying from your friend. In both cases, copying was done. So, the more serious the consequence the more it is considered morally wrong and hence something not to be done. Muhney, Gutmann, Schneiderman, DeWald, McCann, & Campbell (2008), also found that more than 90 percent of students agree that cheating during exam were academic misconduct. One perspective for explaining this finding is to look at the Christian principles that drive students’ behavior. Christian institutions teach student live
51 upright lives. White (1903), in her book entitled Education argues that the aim of education is to prepare students to develop character. Students should not only be nurtured academically but spiritually as well. They should be taught to be honest to God and themselves, therefore, this might be one of the reasons why students stay away or rarely engage in academic dishonesty. However, further work will need to be done to see why this is so. Religion helps students to avoid academic misconduct, which is unlike less religious students who tend to accept academic dishonesty (Rawwas, Al-Khatib, and Vitell, 2004). However, the finding from the study also pointed out that students are likely to have reasons for violation of academic integrity (M = 2.69). For example, from their perception, students engaged in academic misconduct because their English is not good enough (M = 2.90; (SD = 0.90), worth to take risk to get good grade (M= 2.77; SD = 0.80) and they do not understand the lesson well enough to complete their work (M = 2.77; SD = 0.90). This finding aligned with that of a study from Hong Kong, which showed that most students were involved in academic misconduct to get good grades (Kwong, Ng, Mark, & Wong, 2010). In addition, a study from Spain Clariana, Badia, Cladellas & Gotzens (2013) also found that more than half of the students were involved in cheating. Students may not agree that the conduct of academic dishonesty was unethical, yet they still engaging in academic dishonesty behavior (Ma, 2013). There are several studies that have investigated the reasons why students engage in academic dishonesty. According to Amua-Sekyi and Mensah (2016), students engage in academic dishonesty because they are afraid of failing. From another study by Simkin and Mcleod (2010), it was found that students cheated because they want to “get ahead” of their friends. They want to be the first. In
52 addition, schoolwork overload leads students to cheating behavior (Muhney, Gutmann, Schneiderman, DeWald, McCann, & Campbell 2008). Second, students at AIU agree (M = 3.04) that teachers are generally fair in applying academic policies in the classroom and treat students equally. Thorkildsen (1989) mentioned that the practices in the classroom environment reflected the perception of students on procedural justice. Therefore, the finding reflected that teachers have a positive perception, credibility, and caring hearts (Chory, 2006). Moreover, students perceived that teachers enforce the policies created in classroom to everyone equally. This showed that teacher has an understanding of procedural justice, and that knowledge leads them to apply these rules to the classroom fairly. (Francesca, 2004). Third, the study found no differences between gender, faculty, and class regarding perceptions of academic dishonesty and procedural justice. This finding is supported by a study among pharmacy students from four Northern California pharmacy programs. The study showed no significant relationship regarding academic dishonesty between genders. However, the study was different from other studies where male students seemed to have a higher chance of involvement in academic dishonesty than female students (Ip, Pal, Doroudgar, Bidwal, & Shah-Manek, 2018; Gibson, Khey, & Schreck, 2008). This finding was similar to a study by Clariana, Badia, Cladellas, and Gotzens (2013), who also found that male students were engaged in cheating more often than female students. In addition, the study from Becker and Ulstad (2017) also supported that male students seemed more likely to be involved in academic misconduct. Data from the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (SNAHE) and disciplinary boards of several Swedish universities revealed that female students were more likely to refuse to be involved in academic
53 misconduct than male students (Witmer & Johansson, 2015). To conclude, most studies found that female students were involving in academic dishonesty lesser than male students do (Fa’iezah, n.d.; Clariana, Badia, Cladellas, & Gotzens, 2013). Even though my study found no difference between gender and perception of academic dishonesty and procedural justice as opposed to the preceding studies, this could just be a difference in this particular sample. It only means that there is no difference in this particular sample. The reason for this may be that the majority of the participants in this study were from the social sciences which has already been found to have lower rates of academic dishonesty when compared to the hard sciences (Sendag et al., 2012). Several studies have pointed out the reasons why female students’ are less involved in academic misconduct than males. For example, female students have higher moral value standard than male students (Krawczyk, 2012). They were more sensitive in perceiving academic dishonesty as a problem than male students (Lento, Sayed, & Bujaki, 206). Therefore, this can help them to be more aware when doing something wrong. Female students will be more concerned on the consequences they might receive from their action and the disgrace they may receive from their friends, while male students are neglectful and they arenot really bothered by the misconduct they have done (Manalo, 2018). Third, the study indicated that most students were engaged in copying homework from their friends, and their friends allowed them to copy their homework. This showed that students did not consider copying homework from peers as something serious. Probably students perceived this act of cheating as the act of helping each (Amua-Sekyi and Mensah 2016). For example, the study from Saana, Ablordeppey, Mensah, and Karikari (2016), indicated that students in an African institution had misconceptions about academic dishonesty because they did
54 not consider copying homework from peers as something serious if the peer willingly allowed them to copy. Several studies reported that female students are lesser engage in academic dishonesty (Fa’iezah, n.d.; Clariana, Badia, Cladellas, & Gotzens, 2013), however, they tend to allow their friends copying their work more than male students do because of their caring attitude (Krawczyk, 2012). Finally, the last finding showed that there was a weak correlation (r=.27) between academic dishonesty and procedural justice. In addition, about 7% of the variance in academic dishonesty can be explained by procedural justice. Providing fairness in the classroom environment brings essential impact on student’s life such as students perception of fairness in the classroom and its effects on students’ achievement. In other words, their achievement level increased if they perceived that their teacher treated them fairly (Rodabaugh, 1994). Moreover, fair practices by teachers create trust and develop a relationship among the teachers and students in a positive way (Resh & Sabbagh, 2014). However, aside from procedural justice, there are other factors, which contribute to academic dishonesty. Some studies found that students committed cheating because of the difficulty of the subject, the lack of study and because of the consequences of cheating were not severe. (Khodaie, Moghadamzadeh, & Salehi, 2011). Another study from Maloshonok and Shmeleva (2019), found that subjective norms was the strongest predictor of academic dishonesty. Recommendations for Application The findings lead to several recommendations. First, students in this study perceived that copying their friends’ assignment or doing homework for peers was not a serious matter. Therefore, teachers should design and create the type of assignments that make it harder for students to cheat and teacher should consider on question items
55 in the assignment, which teacher may want to use again. (Amua-Sekyi and Mensah, 2016). In addition, teachers can make the percentage for the homework smaller, so cheating does not affect the whole grade. Another thing, teachers may encourage students that homework is given for their benefit and it helps them to understand the lessons. If the encouragement is not effective, teachers may give a warning, punish suspected cheaters, or deduct the points to stop the behavior of copying homework because if students do not study for themselves, they tend to have a higher chance of being involved in cheating in the exams, quizzes and tests. Teacher should build awareness and promote good value and behavior on academic integrity to students Simkin and Mcleod (2010). Another recommendation, the results showed that students assumed that the reason of academic misconduct occurs because students do not have enough English skills, which created difficulty in understanding the lessons learned from class. A study by Saana, Ablordeppey, Mensah, and Karikari (2016) pointed out that 73% of the students in Ghana, an African institution involved in academic dishonesty did so because of the difficulty of their subjects. It is true that the use of English has provided more resources for the students to access the contents from their educational fields that leads them to a broader scope of information (Pierson & Richard, 1999). Therefore, university may offer support service for international students such as tutorial or supplement courses, which can develop their English skills continually (Martirosyan, Hwang, & Wanjohi, 2015). Moreover, the study by Pierson and Bankston (2013), conducted among Theology students found that “pedagogy of communicative language teaching” was one of the way to help Theology students advance across the linguistic barriers. For example, the instructor has to focus on the development of English language skills and follow by identifying the key concepts.
56 Therefore, when it comes to teaching and learning with non-native English speakers’ teachers should take into consideration both the linguistic and the content. (Devadason, 2008; Pierson & Bankston, 2013). Recommendations for Further Study The study was conducted at only one institution and was limited to International students and Thai students who were studying English. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the whole population of the university because the perceptions are mostly from International students. At this point, the next study should consider including students enrolled in Thai programs to see if there are differences in perception between International students and Thai students. Another recommendation is that this survey should be distributed to teachers so that the study can include the perceptions of teachers, and observations from teachers. This could help to improve the reliability of the findings. Conclusion This study aimed to find the relationship between academic dishonesty and procedural justice among Asia-Pacific International University students enrolled in the International program, and students who were studying English in the Thai program. The results from the research showed a weak relationship between academic dishonesty and procedural justice. Moreover, the study showed the perceptions of students toward academic dishonesty and procedural justice in the classroom. Knowing these facts may help the university to implement or educate the students regarding academic honesty, and help the teachers to see the perceptions of students regarding justice in the classroom.
57 REFERENCE LIST Ahmad, Z., Simun, M., & Mohammad, J. (2008). Malaysian University students' attitudes to academic dishonesty and business ethics. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(2), 149-160, doi:10.1080/02188790802040721. Akbar, A., & Ebrahim, M. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational justice and quality of work life among the personnel of a selected hospital in Ahvaz. Journal of Medical Ethics & History of Medicine, 7(2), 57-68. Alsuwaileh , B., Russ-Eft , D., & Alshurai , S. (2016). Academic dishonesty: A mixedmethod study of rational choice among students at the College of Basic Education in Kuwait. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 139-151. . Altinkurt, Y., Yilmaz, K., & Karaman, G. (2015). The effect of gender, seniority and subject matter on the perceptions of organizational justice of teachers: A meta-analytical study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 33-43. Amua-Sekyi, E., Mensah, E. (2016). Guilty in whose eyes? Student-teachers’ perspectives on cheating on examinations. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(21), 55-64. Anderman, E., Cupp, P., & Lane, D. (2010). Impulsivity and academic cheating. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 135-150. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com /doi/abs/10.1080/00220970903224636.
58 Antonio, L., Silvia, M., & Pedro, J. (2012). Reactions to the fairness of promotion methods: procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 394-403. Aydin, I. (2008). Principals' opinions of organizational justice in elementary schools in Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(4), 497-513. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810882027. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Balbuena, S., & Lamela, R. (2015). Prevalence, motives, and views of academic dishonesty in higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(2), 69-75. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED575015.pdf. Basar, U., & Sigri, U. (2015). Effects of teachers’ organizational justice perceptions on intention to quit: mediation role of organizational identification. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 45-49. DOI 10.12738/estp.2015.1.2326. Beasley, E. (2014). Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics and Behavior, 24(3), 229-252. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.845533. Becker, D., & Ulstad, I. (2007). Gender differences in student ethics: Are females really more ethical? Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 77-79. .
59 Berti, C., Molinari, L., & Speltini, G. (2010). Classroom justice and psychological engagement: Students’ and teachers’ representations. Social Psychology of Education, 13(4), 541-556. Bhat, A. (2018). Cross-sectional study- definition with examples. QuesitionPro. Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/cross-sectional-study/ Blader, S., & Tyler, T. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013935. Brashear, T., Boles, J., & Brooks, C. (2004). Measurement of distributive and procedural justice in scales management: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, (57), 86-93. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13078-1_74. Bretag, T. (2018). Business policy and strategy, ethics. Business and Management. Retrieved from http://business.oxfordre.com/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001. 0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-147. Brody, L. (2012). Banging the gavel on grading: Justice Musings of a new professor. Contemporary Justice Review, 15(2), 181-189. Campbell, C. (2009). Student perspectives on procedural justice and the university judicial process (Thesis for Master of Arts). Department of Sociology and Anthropology: College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/ohiou1237382026/inline.
60 Carmen, R. (2012). High school students' perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice: An exploratory study of justice with correlates of counterproductive and withdrawal behaviors (Dissertation for Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership). California State University, Fresno. Cavico, F., & Mujtabe, B. (2009). Making the case for the creation of an academic honesty and integrity culture in higher education. American Journal of Business Education, 2(5), 75-88. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052820.pdf. Chory, R. (2006). Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Communication education, 56(1), 633- 646. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037.0021-9010.89.4.633. Choudaha, R. (2018). A third wave of international student mobility: Global competitiveness and American higher education. Research & Occasional Paper Series. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582681.pdf. Clariana, M., Badia, M., Cladellas, R., & Gotzens, C. (2013). Academic cheating and gender differences in Barcelona (Spain). SUMMA psicolÓgica UST, 10(1), 65-72. Clariana, M., Badia, M., Cladellas, R., & Gotzens, C. (2013). Academic cheating and gender differences in Barcelona (Spain). Summa psicol. UST (En línea) 10(1). 65-72. Craig, R., & Dalton, D. (2014). Developing a platform for a culture of honest inquiry and the academic construction of knowledge in first-year students. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(1). Retrieved from https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/ Plagiarism/Student_perceptions_ of_the_ question_of_academic_honesty_ questionnaire.
61 David, L. (2015). Academic cheating in college students: Relations among personal values, self-esteem and mastery. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 88-92. Retrieved from https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042815018108/1-s2.0-S1877042815018108- main.pdf?_tid=fc2e1d1a-2280-43c2-a4a9- 043ee06cadc2&acdnat=1539913691_401eb69cd34781341aa795e3508f8646. Demir, K. (2016). Relations between teachers’ organizational justice perceptions and organizational commitment and job satisfaction in the school: A meta-analysis. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1) Retrieved from https://www.jhumansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/3396/1722. Devadason, I. (2008). ESP for Theology: Teachers Must Go the Extra Mile. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. 12(3), 1-34. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898191.pdf Dorn, S., & Edelman, S. (2018). The disgraceful cheating scandal at one of America’s best high schools. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/cheating-still-rampant-atdisgraced-stuyvesant-school/: New York Post. Doshi, V. (2014). India tried to stop cheating in school — So half a million students just skipped exams. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/09/india-tried-tostop-cheating-in-school-so-half-a-million-students-just-skippedexams/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.462af2aeb0fe: The Washington Post. Eaton, S. (2018). Website hijacking by contract cheating companies. Werklund School of Educatin, University of Calgary. Retreived from
62 http://www.academia.edu/36406915/Website_Hijacking_by_Contract_Cheating_Com panies. Eric, J., Pal, J., Doroudgar, S., Bidwal, M., & Shah-Manek, B. (2018). Gender-based differences among pharmacy students involved in academically dishonest behavior. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(4), 337-344. Evans, M., & Levine, P. (2016). ‘We need to talk about your assignment: The requirements of procedural fairness when academic misconduct is first suspected. Monash University Law Review, 42(2), p339-359. Fa’iezah, L. (n.d.). Gender differences in plagiarism attitudes among Indonesian university students in Perth Australia. Journal of Education, 1(2), 1-18. Ferguson, S., & Wang, S. (2014). Graduating in Canada: Profile, labour market outcomes and student debt of the class of 2009-2010. Canada: Minister of Industry. Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/45179151.pdf. Fisk, K., & Cherney, A. (2016). Pathways to institutional legitimacy in post conflict societies: Perceptions of process and performance in Nepal. An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 263-281. Forrest, K., & Miller, R. (2008). Procedural justice in the college classroom. American Psychological Association Education Directorate, 18(1),1,4,8,10. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/ptn/2008/03/issue.pdf.
63 Francesca, P. (2004). Teachers' perceptions of procedural fairness: Their impact on teachers' efficacy and commitment (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut. Retrieved from https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3138403/. Garcia, A., & Herrera, J. (2014). Effects of academic dishonesty on dimensions of spiritual wellbeing being and satisfaction: A comparative study of secondary school and university students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 349-363. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.832729. Gibson, C., Khey, D., & Schreck, C. (2008). Gender, internal controls, and academic dishonesty: Investigating mediating and differential effects. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2-18. Gordon, M., & Fay, C. (2010). The effects of grading and teaching practices on students' perceptions of grading fairness. College Teaching, 58(3), 93-98. Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455- 475. Grubb, D., & Tredway, L. (2010). Leading from the inside out: Expanded roles for teachers in equitable schools. New York: Taylor & Francis. Grubb, W. (2009). The money myth; School resources, outcomes, and equity (P. 147). New York: Ressell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.th/books?id=el_aBbEZz_UC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq= %E2%80%A2%09School+resources+are+often+allocated+according+to+student+per formance.+For+example,+the+%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D+teacher+(or+at+least +.
64 Henning, M., Ram, S., Malpas, P., Shulruf, B., Kelly, F., & Hawken, S. (2013). Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: Pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand. Medical Teaching University of Auckland, 35, 1211-1217. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ pdf viewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0d533e6e-0091- 4c39-b829-f3d91676ff58%40pdc-v-sessmgr06. Hensley, L., Kirkpatrick, K., & Burgoon, J. (2013). Relation of gender, course enrollment, and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), 895-907. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827641. Hershcovis, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M., Arnold, K., . . . Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228-238. Retreived from https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/management/faculty_ staff/media/ Hershcovis_et_al_JAP_2007_metaanalysis.pdf. Holt, A. (2017). Promoting genuine competition in private financing for higher education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578895.pdf: Urband Institute. Hon, A., Yang, J., & Lu, L. (2011). A Cross-level study of procedural justice perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 700-715. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/258631350_A_crosslevel_study_of_procedural_justice_perceptions. Horan, S., Chory, R., & Goodboy, A. (2010). Understanding students' classroom justice experiences and responses. Communication Education, 453-474.
65 ICAI. (2013). The fundamental values of academic integrity (2nd ed.). Clemson University. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf. Idrus, F., Asadi, Z., & Amokhtar, N. (2016). Academic dishonesty and achievement motivation: A delicate relationship. Higher Education of Social Science, 11(1), 1-8. DOI:10.3968/8738. Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Eguchi, H., Miyaki, K., & Tsutsumi, A. (2015). Organizational justice and physiological coronary heart disease risk factors in Japanese employees: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22(6), 775-785. Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Tsuno, K., Tomioka, K., & Nakanishi, M. (2013). Organizational justice and psychological distress among permanent and non-permanent employees in Japan: A prospective cohort study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(2), 265-276. Institute, J. (2012). 2012 report card on the ethics of American youth. Los Angeles, CA : Josephson Institute. Ip, E., Nguyen, K., Shah, B., Doroudgar, S., & Bidwal, M. (2016). Motivations and predictors of cheating in pharmacy school. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(8): 133. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5116785/. Ip, E., Pal, J., Doroudgar, S., Bidwal, M., & Shah-Manek, B. (2018). Gender-based differences among pharmacy students involved in academically dishonest behavior. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(4), 6274.
66 Justice, P. (2018). Oxford dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810105646844 Kaplan, M. (2017). Students are turning to high-tech cheating. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2017/11/08/students-are-turning-to-high-tech-cheating/: New York Post. Kasemsap, K., Thabhiranrak, T., & Pungnirund, B. (2016). Organizational justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior of operational employee of passenger car manufacturing plant in Thailand. SDU Research Journal, 12(2), 39-59. Kazemi, A. (2016). Examining the interplay of justice perceptions, motivation, and school achievement among secondary school students. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 103- 118. Retreived from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11211-016-0261-2. Khan, M. (2013). Students' passion for grades in higher education institutions in Pakistan. International Conference on Educatin & Educational Psychology, 112, 702-709. Khodaie, E., Moghadamzadeh, A., & Salehi, K. (2011). Factors affecting the probability of academic cheating school students in Tehran. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1587-1595. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.401 Kitjaroonchai, N. (2012). Motivation toward English language learning of Thai students majoring in English at Asia-Pacific International University. Catalyst, 7(1), 21-40. Kitjaroonchai, N., & Hungyo, E. (2017). The relationship between students’ involvement in moral and religious activities and their academic achievement at a faith-based institution: Evidence from Thailand, Catalyst, 16, 118-130.
67 Kitjaroonchai, T., & Lampadan, R. (2016). Perceptions of students towards the use of Thai in English calssrooms. Catalyst, 13(1), 15-27. Kornpetpanee, S. (2006). Academic dishonesty among university students. Journal of Educational Research and Measurement, 4(1), 143-164. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/relsec/Downloads/46825-Article%20Text-107823-1-10-20160119.pdf. Koss, J. (2011). Academic dishonesty among adolescents (Master of Science Degree). University of Wisconsin-Stout, Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.389.8031&rep=rep1&type= pdf. Kovačević, I., Žunić, P., & Mihailović, D. (2012). Concept of organizational justice in the context of academic achievement. Journal for Theory and Practice Management, 69, 37-45. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264933053_Concept_of_Organizational_Jus tice_in_the_Context_of_Academic_Achievement. Krawczyk, M. (2012). Sex, morals and exam cheating (Working papers, No. 9/2012(75)). University of Warsaw. Faculty of Economic sciences. Retrieved from http://lee.wne.uw.edu.pl/strona/media/publikacje_naukowe/Sex_morals_and_exam_c heating.pdf Kristina, M. (2016). Procedural justice and affirmative action. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 19(2), 425-443. Kwong, T., Ng, H., Mark, K., & Wong, E. (2010). Students' and faculty's perception of academic integrity in Hong Kong. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(5), 341- 355.
68 Lang, J. (2013). News flash… Harvard students cheat, too. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/11/news-flash-harvard-students-cheat-too/: TIME. Lento, C., Sayed, N., & Bujaki, M. (2016). Perceptions of student academic dishonesty by male and female accounting faculty: Incidents and responses. Paper presented at 2016 Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA) Annual Conference (January 11, 2016). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713952 Leo, G. (2018). U of Regina suspects 'significant' number of students cheated in law and ethics class. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/university-regina-engineeringcheating-1.4567955: CBC News. Lind, E., & Earley, P. (2007). Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 227-242. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599208246877. Lind, E., Tyler, T., & Huo, Y. (1997). Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 767-780. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.73.4.767. Lodhia, D. (2018). More university students are cheating – but it's not because they're lazy. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/01/universitystudents-cheating-tuition-fees-jobs-exams: The Guardian News. Mahboobeh, R., Esmaeli, A., & Leila, A. (2017). Organizational justice and trust perceptions: A comparison of nurses in public and private hospitals. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine, 15(8), 205-211.
69 Mahmud, S., & Bretag, T. (2013). Postgraduate research students and academic integrity: ‘It's about good research training’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 432-443, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.812178. Maiese, M. (2004). Procedural justice. Beyond Intractability. Retrieved from: https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/procedural_justice Maloshonok, N., & Shmeleva, E. (2019). Factors influencing academic dishonesty among undergraduate students at Russian Universities. Journal of Academic Ethics, pp. 1-17. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-019-9324-y#citeas Manalo, E. (Ed.). (2018). Self-reported cheating among medical students: An alarming finding in a cross-sectional study from Saudi Arabia. PLoS One, 13(3). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875787/ Maria, G., Jorge, V., & Isabel, C. (2017). Teachers' legitimacy: Effects of justice perception and social comparison processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 1-15. Mark, M. (1985). Expectations, procedural justice, and alternative reactions to being deprived of a desired outcome. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(2), 114-137. Martinson, B., Crain, A., Vries, R., & Adnderson, M. (2010). The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(3), 67-83. Retreived from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032394/.
70 Martirosyan, N., Hwang, E., & Wanjohi, R. (2015). Impact of English proficiency on academic performance of international students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 60-71. Masoomeh, S., Aghdas, S., Amin, A., Golkhatmi, B., Alireza, G., & Golkhatmi, B. (2016). The relationship between perceived organizational justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Health, Spirituality and Medical Ethics, 3(1), 10-17. McHaney, R., Cronan, T., & Douglas, D. (2016). Academic integrity: Information systems education perspective. Journal of Information Systems Education, 27(3), 153-158. Retrieved from http://jise.org/Volume27/n3/JISEv27n3p153.pdf. Melvin, D. (2016). Students snared in high-tech cheating scam in Thailand. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/asia/thailand-high-tech-examinationcheating/index.html: CNN. MGR, O. (2017). Anti-cheating umbrellas from copying during exams at Hat Yai. Retrieved from https://mgronline.com/south/detail/9590000118840. Middleton, C. (2012). Trans border environmental justice in regional energy trade in Mailand South-East Asia. ASEAS-Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 5(2), 292-315. Miller, A., Murdock, T., & Grotewiel, M. (2017). Addressing academic dishonesty among the highest achievers. Theory Into Practice, 56, 121–128. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2017.1283574. Miranda, C., & Jaffe-Walter, R. (2018). When data use devolves into deficit talk: Creating the conditions for productive teacher collaboration using data. Journal of Cases in
71 Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1555458917751567. Muhney K., Gutmann M., Schneiderman E., DeWald J., McCann A., & Campbell P. (2008). Prevalence of academic dishonesty in Texas dental hygiene programs. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 72(11): 1247–60. Nagaraju, S. (2018). Academic integrity with reference to plagiarism: A study in senior school. International Journal of Library & Information Science (IJLIS), 7(1), 20-27. REtreived from http://www.iaeme.com/ijlis/issues.asp?JType=IJLIS&VType=7&IType=1. Nianhom, A. (2008). The relationship between the perception of organizational justice, quality of work life and organizational commitment: A case study of Bank of Ayudhya Public Company Limited (Dissertation in Master). Department of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Faculty of Arts, Retrieved from http://digi.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/lib/0697/01TITLE.pdf. Olafsen, A., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E. (2015). Show them the money? the role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 447-457. P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Retrieved from 21st century student outcomes and support systems. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21 framwork 0816.pdf Panpluem, P., & Jetsadaluck, V. (2017). The influence of organizational justice on in-role performance: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support. E-jodil, 55- 67, 7(1). Retrieved from http://e-jodil.stou.ac.th/filejodil/14_4_535.pdf.
72 Parnsumneig, P., & Jetsadaluck, V. (2008). The quality of working life and the influence in perceiving justice in organization toward behavioral of employees' commitment to organization. Academic Resource, 24(2), 129-142. Pattanapanich, B. (2003). Perception of fair performance appraisals: A case study of carrier (Thailand) Limited (Master Project, M.B.A. Management). Bangkok: Graduate, Retrieved from http://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/Man/Budsakorn_P.pdf. Pereira, M., Vala, J., & Correia, I. (2016). Teachers' legitimacy: Effects of justice perception and social comparison processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 1-15. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12131/abstract. Pierson, C. Bankston, (2013). English for Bible and Theology: Understanding and Communicating Theology across Cultural and Linguistic Barriers. Teaching Theology and Religion. 16(1), 33-49. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12003 Pierson, C., & Orem, R. (1999). "The Role of Adult Education and English Language Education in Nation-Building: A Case Study of the Emmanuel Bible Institute of Oradea, Romania," Adult Education Research Conference. Retrieved from http://newprairiepress.org/aerc/1999/papers/37 Pignata, S., Winefield, A., Provis, C., & Boyd, C. (2016). A longitudinal study of the predictors of perceived procedural justice in Australian University Staff. Frontiers in Psychology, 25(7), 1271. Retreived from www. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01271. Pnevmatikos, D., & Trikkaliotis, I. (2012). Procedural justice in a classroom where teacher implements differentiated instruction. Moral Development and Citizenship Educaiton, 6, 115-163. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6091- 837-7_13#citeas.
73 Qualls, R. (2014). The relationship between disciplinary practices in childhood and academic dishonesty in college students. College Student Journal, 48 (3), 362-374. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=afe0f3e8- 6277-4303-a18c-d3ffdea5b8f7%40sessionmgr102. Quist, M. (n.d.). Academic integrity: Definition, policy & overview. Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/academic-integrity-definition-policy-overview.html Rajabi, M., Abdar, Z., & Agoush, L. (2017). Organizational justice and trust perceptions: A comparison of nurses in public and private hospitals. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine, 15(8), 205-211. Ramin, R., Zahra, S., & Najme, A. (2013). Study of the effects of perceived organizational justice and its components on organizational commitment of administrative and financial employees of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences General Hospitals in 2012. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 4(1), 35-43. Ramzan, M., Munir, M., Siddique, N., & Asif, M. (2012). Awareness about plagiarism amongst university students in Pakistan. High Education, 64, 73-84, DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4. Rawwas, M., Al-Khatib, J., & Vitell, S. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and Chinese marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 89-100. Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2014). Justice, belonging and trust among Israeli middle school students. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1036-1056. doi: 10.1002/berj.3129.
74 Resnik, D. (2015). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm. Richardson, H. (2018). More students found cheating in GCSE and A-level exams. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/education-42578874. RNZ. (2018). NZQA cancels results of cheating students. Retrieved from https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/358644/nzqa-cancels-results-of-cheatingstudents: New Zealand Education. Rodabaugh, R. (1994). College students' perceptions of unfairness in the classroom. To Improve the Academy, 13, 269-282. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/319/. Rohl, K., & Machura, S. (1997). Procedural justice (page 108). Ashgate. Saadati, M., Saadati, A., Asghari, A., Bidgoli, M., Ghodsi, A., & Bidgoli, A. (2016). The relationship between perceived organizational justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Health, Spirituality and Medical Ethics, 3(1), 10-17. Saana, S., Ablordeppey, E., Mensah, N., & Karikari, T. (2016). Academic dishonesty in higher education: Students’ perceptions and involvement in an African Institution. BMC Research Notes, 1-13. DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2044-0. Schulenberg, J., Chenier, A., Buffone, S., & Wojciechowski, C. (2015). An application of procedural justice to stakeholder perspectives: Examining police legitimacy and public trust in police complaints systems. An International Journal of Research and
75 Policy, 27(7), 779-796. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1102252. Seeta, R. (2011). The relationship between the perception of organizational justice and organizational commitment of the government office of women's affairs and family ministry of social development and human security (Master Degree). Public Administration Program in Public Administration, Silpakorn University. Retrieved from http://www.thapra.lib.su.ac.th/objects/thesis/fulltext/snamcn/Rungnapha_ Seeta/fulltext.pdf. Sendag, S., Duran, M., & Fraser, M. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty (e-dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 849–860. Seritanon, S. (2014). A study of academic dishonesty among university students by applying warner's randomized response technique. Journal of the Association of Private Higher Education Institutions of Thailand, 20(1), 50-60. Retrieved from https://tcithaijo.org/index.php/apheitjournals/article/view/29940/25783. Services, C. O. (n.d.). What is procedural justice? Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.mass.gov/files/2017-08/pj_fact_sheet.pdf: U.S. Department of Justice. Shikur, A., & Navjot, P. (2016). Perceived procedural justice and its relationship with organizational commitment. ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(1), 15-29. Retrieved from http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx? target=ijor:zijmr&volume=6&issue=1&article=002.
76 Simkin, M., & Mcleod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3):441-453. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225191610 _Why_Do_College_Students_Cheat. Simon, C., Carr, J., McCullough, S., Morgan, S., Oleson, T., & Ressel, M. (2004). Gender, student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: Who reports in academic dishonesty cases? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 75- 90. Simpson, E., & Yu, K. (2012). Closer to the truth: Electronic records of academic dishonesty in an actual classroom setting. Ethics and Behavior, 22(5), 400–408. Singh, M. (2015). Malaysian public university students' attitude towards plagiarism. Journal of Language and Communication, 2(2), 297-309. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/36568828/MALAYSIAN_PUBLIC_UNIVERSITY_STUD ENTS_ATTITUDE_TOWARDS_PLAGIARISM. Sun, I., Wu, Y., Hu, R., & Farmer, A. (2017). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and public cooperation with police: Does western wisdom hold in China? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(4):454-478. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1177/0022427816638705. Tarhan, S. (2018). Turkish secondary education students' perceptions of justice and their experiences of unjustice. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 247-260. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n2p247. Thairath. (2014). Copying homework leads to good grades, yet the Thai education quality decline! Retrieved from https://www.thairath.co.th/content/431562.
77 Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Thomas, D. (2016). Research as a language understanding the structure of research. Saraburi: ERT Group, Publishing. Thomas, D. (2017). Academic dishonesty and achievement emotions among international students in Thailand. International Forum, 20(2), 5-21. Thomas, D. (2017). Factors that explain academic dishonesty among university students in Thailand. Ethics & Behavior, 27(2), 140-154. doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1131160. Thorkildsen, T. (1989). Justice in the classroom: The student's view. Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2), 323-334. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1130979?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Tindell, D., & Bohlander, R. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60: 1-9. Tomul, E., Celik, k., & Tas, A. (2012). Justice in the classroom: Evaluation of teacher behaviors according to students' perceptions. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 59-72 Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057364.pdf. Trost, K. (2009). Past, have you ever cheated? A study of academic dishonesty in Sweden. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 367-376. Tyler, R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of Social Issurs, 62(2), 307-326. Retrieved from https://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tyler%20justice.pdf.
78 Tyler, T., & Blader, S. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1143-1158. Uludag, O., & Yaratan, H. (2013). The effects of justice and burnout on achievement: An empirical investigation of university students. Croatian Journal of Education, 15(2), 97-116. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0231/812194c1044c7c93b967677f78f3653a9bf3.pdf. Vidmar, N. (1988). The origins and consequences of procedural fairness. In T. Lind, & T. Tyler, The social psychology of procedural justice (pp. 877-892). New York: Plenum. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=faculty_s cholarship. Waters, J. (n.d.). Correlational research guidelines conducting correlational research. Retrieved from https://www.capilanou.ca/programs-courses/psychology/studentresources/research-guidelines/Correlational-Research-Guidelines/. Wayne, H. (Ed.). (2016). Academic Bulletin 2016-2018. Asia-Pacific International University, Thailand: Darnsutha Press Co., Ltd. White, E. (1903). Education. Ellen G. White Estate, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.centrowhite.org.br/files/ebooks/egw-english/books/Education.pdf Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133(2) Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247857152_The_Effects_of_Distributive_a nd_Procedural_Justice_on_Performance.
79 Witmer, H., & Johansson, J. (2015). Disciplinary action for academic dishonesty: Does the student’s gender matter? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 11(6). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-015-0006-2. Wongjumpa, S., & Phompun, S. (2016). The relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and work motivation of teachers under the office of Roiet Primary Education Service Area 3. Graduate Journal, 13(60), 111-118. Woo, Y., Maguire, E., & Gau, J. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance: Evidence from South Korea. Police Practice and Research, 19(2), 168-185. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1418147. Yilmaz, K. (2010). Secondary public school teachers’ perceptions about organizational justice. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10(1), 603-616. Zeinabadi, H., & Rastegarpour, H. (2010). Factors affecting teacher trust in principal: Testing the effect of transformational leadership and Procedural Justice. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1004-1008. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271406082_Factors_affecting_teacher_trust _in_principal_Testing_the_effect_of_t
80 APPENDIX Asia-Pacific International University QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is meant to gather information related to the procedural justice and academic integrity among students at Asia-Pacific International University, Saraburi, Thailand. Any information you provide will be held confidentially and will not be used for any other purpose except for ACADEMIC PURPOSES only. Please answer all questions honestly. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this research study through your valuable participation. SECTION 1: Background Information 1. Gender: i. Male ii. Female 2. Program: i. Thai ii. International 3. Class: i. Freshman ii. Sophomore iii. Junior iv. Senior v. ESL 4. Faculty: i. Arts and Humanities ii. Business Administration iii. Education & Psychology iv. Nursing v. Religious Studies vi. Science vii. Information Technology
81 SECTION 2: Opinion on Academic Integrity and Procedural Justice Demographics: Please put a check for your answer for the following questions: 1. Are you aware of an Academic Integrity Policy and Honor pledge at the AIU? Yes No 2. Have you read it? Yes No 3. Do you understand it? Yes No Place an X in the box that indicates your opinion of the statement N o Item Satisfaction level Perceptions of academic integrity/seriousness of ‘offence’ Very serious 4 Quite serious 3 Not very serious 2 Not at all serious 1 1 Copying a homework assignment from a peer 2 Copying from notes in an exam/test/quiz 3 Copying a colleagues answer in an exam/test/quiz 4 Providing answers to a friend/colleague in an exam/test/quiz 5 Doing homework for a friend/colleague 6 Having a friend a colleague do the work for you 7 Plagiarizing work from others and passing it off as your own 8 Paying someone to do the assignment How often have you engaged in the following behavior? Frequent ly 4 Someti mes 3 Rarely 2 Never 1
82 9 Copied homework assignment from a peer 10 Copied from notes in an exam/test/quiz 11 Copied a colleagues answer in an exam/test/quiz 12 Provided answers to a friend/colleague in an exam/test/quiz 13 Allowed a friend/colleague to copy your work 14 Done homework for a friend/colleague 15 Paid someone to do your work How frequently do you believe the following occur? Frequent ly 4 Someti mes 3 Rarely 2 Never 1 16 Copying a homework assignment from a peer 17 Copying from notes in an exam/test/quiz 18 Copying a colleagues answer 19 Providing answers to a friend/colleague in an exam/test/quiz 20 Doing homework for a friend/colleague 21 Having a friend a colleague do the work for you 22 Plagiarizing work from others and passing it off as your own 23 Paying someone to do the assignment in an exam/test/quiz How likely do you think the following reasons might be given for academic dishonesty? Most likely 4 Likely 3 Unlikel y 2 Most unlikely 1 24 Lack of time to complete assignment 25 Low chance of being caught or reported 26 Penalties are minimal 27 Worth the risk to get a better grade
83 28 Normal behavior (everyone does it/not considered serious) 29 Taught to copy in school 30 Lack of understanding of how to complete assignment 31 Never been taught how to paraphrase and quote 32 Too much effort required to paraphrase and quote 33 Authors’ words are best 34 English not good enough 35 Lack of interest Procedural justice Strongly agree 4 Agree 3 Disagre e 2 Strongly disagree 1 36 My teacher administers policies fairly 37 The policies my teacher creates treat everyone equally 38 The standards set by my teacher are enforced equally among all student 39 My teacher treats all student the same when implementing classroom policy 40 My teacher follows different rules when dealing with different student 41 My teacher does not favor one student over another 42 My teacher applies policies consistently to all student 43 My teacher follows fair procedures in decision making 44 All students are treated equally by my teacher