Ranting Canuck

Academic integrity: Fostering a culture of academic honesty
Submitted by: Heather FitzGerald,
For course ED 6890

ABSTRACT

In an era in which media exposes today’s college students to daily examples of poor role models who lie, cheat, break rules, and still get ahead, it is no wonder that our academic classrooms are witnessing higher levels of dishonesty and lack of integrity in academic performance. Recognizing that academic offenses are both purposely and at times mistakenly committed, this paper focuses on the instances when one consciously commits an academic offense.  This research paper identifies the means by which higher education institutions can foster a culture of academic integrity.  Specifically this paper examines ways to foster academic integrity through the implementation of honour codes, development of skills, modifications to learning and assessment techniques, the use of technology and the development of moral reasoning in students.
 
INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the lack of demonstrated academic integrity by students attending higher education institutions in Canada and the United States has received increased media attention.  In this regard, higher education institutions refer to colleges and universities.  In April 2004, Primetime, a syndicated issues based news program, hosted a special entitled “A cheating crisis in America’s schools”.  This report exposed the high number of students participating in the unethical practice of stealing papers from the internet (Primetime, 2004).  It also posed important ethical questions concerning the morals and abilities of students who perform these feats.  In February 2007, Maclean’s Magazine published “The great university cheating scandal”, questioning, why, when universities know cheating is occurring, still allow students to graduate (Gulli, Kohler & Patriquin, 2007).  Then, in April/May 2007, Duke University made headlines in the New York Times and in Business Week, regarding the cheating scandal of the institutions’ MBA students (Damast, 2007; Finder, 2007). 
This paper employs a historical research methodology that utilizes peer reviewed journal articles as information sources.  It discusses the common profiles and typical behaviours of cheaters, as well as the impact of cheaters behaviours on higher education institutions.  It then examines existing strategies for combating academic dishonesty, discussing honour codes and other elements such as informative workshops, online courses, learning environments, assessment techniques, moral reasoning, student development, and technology.  Recognizing at times academic offenses are mistakenly committed; this paper predominately focuses on the instances when one consciously commits an academic offense. 
The purpose of this research is to identify effective means of fostering a culture of academic integrity.  There are many opinions why cheating has drastically risen in recent decades.  Common excuses for students’ behaviour, as cited by students, faculty and staff, include, students are pressured to succeed, students are distracted with extracurricular activities and part-time jobs, and finally, students do not know any better. 
Some researchers believe more opportunities exist in today’s classrooms to cheat, blaming large class sizes and inadequate assessment mechanisms for the rise in cheating (Bowers, 1964; Whitley Jr., 1998).  Others suggest a student’s moral and ethical development contribute to decisions to cheat (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2006; Kibler, 1993).  Regardless of why students are cheating, educators must understand who is cheating and how cheating is occurring if they are to enhance academic integrity at their institutions.  The following examines common profiles and behaviours of student cheaters, as well as the impact of cheating on institutions. 

CHEATER PROFILES

As endless as the reasons students cheat, so are the profiles of the cheaters (Jordan, 2001).  Patterns exist which create a picture of who does the cheating.  For instance, males cheat more than females; younger students cheat more than older students; students who are highly active in extra-curricular activities cheat more than students who are not involved; and finally, academically unsuccessful students cheat more than successful students (Bowers, 1964; Culwin, 2006; Drake, 1941; Jordan, 2001, Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes & Armstead, 1996; Wajda-Johnston, Handal, Brawer & Fabricator, 2001; Whitley Jr., 2001).  This however does not mean that women, older students, uninvolved students, or academically successful students do not cheat.  Given the right situational factors, combined with the needed incentives, any tempted individual could commit an act of cheating.
While not visually identifiable, a student’s moral and ethical development affects a student’s decision to cheat (Kibler, 1993).  Students who have achieved higher levels of moral reasoning possess a greater understanding of how their decisions affect people around them.  In regards to academic integrity, students who have achieved higher levels of moral reasoning engage in less academic dishonest behaviours than students who possess lower levels of moral reasoning. 
 Additionally, researchers have evaluated the role of academic environments and cheating such as the impact of class size, evaluation methods, teaching styles and a student’s abilities on academic dishonesty.  It was found that students in more supportive environments, which often includes, smaller class sizes, increased interaction with the professor, and access to greater support services often cheat less (Bowers, 1964; Whitley Jr., 1998).  This is important as understanding how environments contribute to cheating, helps educators understand how changes to the environments can mitigate cheating. 

CHEATER BEHAVIOURS

Common behaviours exhibited by cheaters include misrepresenting or falsifying data, excluding or improperly referencing sources; copying answers from another student; receiving  questions and answers to exams in advance and working with others when assigned individual tasks (Bowers, 1964; Christen Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Drake, 1941; LaBeff, Clark, Haines & Dickhoff, 1990; Newstead et al, 1996).   Despite the reality that academic cheating and dishonesty are on the rise (McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001a; Warn, 2006), there is hope.  According to the Centre for Academic Integrity, academic integrity is “a commitment, even in the face of adversity to the five values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.  From these values flow principles of behaviour that enable academic communities to translate ideals to action” (Centre for Academic Integrity, 2007). 
Research indicates that higher education institutions can foster a culture of academic integrity by collectively working with students, staff and faculty members (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2006; Lee, Meriano & Brisson, 2004; McCabe, 1993a).  McCabe (1993a) identifies the necessity to involve all campus community members “in an open and honest dialogue on the value of academic integrity” (p. 656).  It is essential to involve all stakeholders in the creation of a plan to address academic integrity, especially as individuals are more likely to uphold agreements when they are involved in establishing them (McCabe & Makowski, 2001; Whitley Jr. & Keith-Spiegel, 2001). 

IMPACT OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY ON INSTITUTIONS

Academic dishonesty affects students, higher education institutions and the greater society.  Cheating devalues degrees granted for all who attended and graduated from an institution.  Cheating also decreases the credibility of the institution granting the degrees (Lim & See, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1993).  Our society relies on colleges and universities to graduate professionals and potential future role models in fields such as medicine, engineering, law, business, and education.  If our degree-holding professionals have not actually attained the levels of education their degrees validate, then the effectiveness of professionals may risk the safety of society.  As student cheating continues to rise, academic institutions must react and implement strategies designed to reduce cheating, in turn, reestablishing their credibility.  The following will examine approaches higher education institutions have implemented to improve academic integrity on their campuses.

HONOUR CODES AS A STRATEGY TO FOSTER ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Honour codes, also referred to as honour systems, are a common mechanism utilized to create and maintain an environment of academic integrity.  As described by Whitley Jr. & Keith-Spiegel (2001):
Honor codes have four distinguishing characteristics:  unproctored examinations, an honors pledge signed by each student that he or she will abide by the institutional rules for academic integrity, a requirement for each student to report infractions of the honor code and a peer honor board that adjudicates allegations of academic dishonesty.
(p. 339)
While honour codes do not eliminate academic dishonesty in its entirety (Roig & Marks, 2006), the codes have been identified as one of the most effective mechanisms for controlling student cheating (McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 1999).  The presence or absence of an honour code plays highly into the culture of an institution and one’s likelihood to cheat.  Generally, students at honour code campuses are less likely to cheat, are more likely to report cheating and are more likely to uphold the integrity of the honour system (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2002; Whitley Jr. & Keith-Spiegel, 2001). 
Honour codes also have long-term impacts on students.  Graduates of honour code schools “talk about the lasting effects” (McCabe, Butterfield & Trevino, 2003, p. 382) the honour system has had on their personal integrity and their decision-making in life.  Faculty members who have worked within an honour system tend to have a greater comfort level and desire to involve students in the academic integrity process; sharing the responsibility with students when developing procedures, instead of trying to dictate to students how the system will work.  Such faculty members also tend to display outlooks that are more positive when institutions take action against academic integrity, than their non-code counterparts.  It is as though they have more faith in the system than faculty members who have not experienced to an honour system (McCabe, 1993b).   The following examines why each of the four elements of an honour code, which include unproctored examinations, the signing of an honours pledge, peer reporting and student adjudication, impact the culture of academic integrity at higher education institutions.

Unproctored examinations
Unproctored examinations are unsupervised.  Students are trusted to write their examinations, and to complete their work independently and honestly.  Knowing that students will cheat in low risk environments (Leming, 1980; Wajda-Johnston et al., 2001), one might question why an institution would even consider allowing unproctored examinations.  Surprisingly though, schools with honour codes strongly uphold their beliefs that this is an acceptable practice.  Under the system, peers regulate themselves.  If a student witnesses a peer cheating, it is the responsibility of the witness to report what occurred to the appropriate party. 
Risk is a large factor determining whether students will cheat (Housten, 1977; Leming, 1980; Wajda-Johnston, 2001).    One would think that the risk of penalization would deter one’s decision to commit an academic offense.  The majority of the research supports this notion with the exception of a study by McCabe and Trevino (1997) which found risk did not influence a student’s decision to cheat.  Overall, penalties relate to the perceived risk of committing the offense.  If the penalty is low, and the perceived risk based on the penalty is low, a student is more likely to cheat (Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006). 
According to research, unproctored examinations are successful (McCabe & Trevino, 1997).  Perhaps it is because students have been bestowed the trust of the institution, which increases the respect students hold for the institution.  Perhaps it is the fear of the social stigma associated with being a cheater.  Perhaps it is because of the moral obligation the students feel they must fulfill to uphold the honour system.  Regardless research identifies that honour code schools report less instances of academic dishonesty than non-code schools (McCabe & Trevino).

Signing of an honours pledge
An honours pledge is a promise made between each individual student and his/her institution that he/she will uphold the rules and principles outlined in the school’s honour code.  The pledge is an excellent strategy for introducing students to the institutional polices on cheating, plagiarism and academic integrity.  The signing of the honours pledge is a symbolic activity for students, where they openly commit to upholding the schools honour system.   
A student’s knowledge, acceptance and understanding of institutional policies related to academic integrity positively relates to a student’s academic honesty (Jordan, 2001).  Those who lacked the knowledge, acceptance or understanding of institutional policies were more likely to commit an academic offense (Bowers, 1964; Hard, Conway & Moran, 2006; Jordan, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2002).  The more an individual is aware of, and understands his/her institution’s policies on academic integrity, the more likely he/she is to uphold the elements of the policies (Hard et al., 2006; McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997).  Honour codes also tend to more clearly articulate policies, which increases the likelihood students will understand and uphold the expectations created for them (McCabe & Trevino, 1993).  This however, does not guarantee that students understand and accept the policies, but instead works to make the students aware of the existing policies.
Beyond the signing of the honours pledge, institutions need to take efforts to educate students about the policy.  Knowing younger students, typically in their first years of college, are more likely to commit academic offenses than students who are older (Bowers, 1964; Jordan, 2001; Whitley Jr., 2001); the first year experience (FYE) allows institution to pay special attention to this topic.   Opportunities exist within the FYE to interject educational elements, targeting first-year students.  Orientation programs, first-year seminars and first-year dormitories are examples of situations that offer captive audiences for programming on the topic of academic integrity. 

Peer reporting
Peer reporting requires any person who witnesses cheating, or is aware that cheating occurred, to report the cheater.  The peer reporter may take the information to a teaching assistant, a faculty member, or the academic integrity officer.  Whoever receives the report then follows the procedures of the honour code to manage the cheating incident. 
Students as a whole are not comfortable with the concept of peer reporting (Christensen, Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Lim & See, 2001; Trevino & Victor, 1992).  However, honour code environments tend to witness higher levels of peer reporting than non-code institutions (McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001b).  One explanation for this difference is that “in a code environment it appears that such decisions [to report a peer] weigh more heavily on the students” (McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2001b, p. 41).  In essence, the students feel a greater sense of responsibility to maintain the integrity of the honour system to which they belong. 
When a student knows someone will report him/her for cheating, he/she is less likely to cheat (Jordan, 2001).  Knowing peers perspectives greatly influence the likelihood of a student cheating, institutions that maintain high levels of academic integrity under honour systems rely on students to maintain the integrity of the system and report their peers.  Students belonging to honour systems will report their peers, as they do not want to lose the freedom the honour system provides and the trust the institution has instilled in them.
Peer reporting, even in honour systems, is not without its challenges.  Interestingly, peers view peer reporters as highly ethical for reporting cheating, but simultaneously ostracized the peer reporting for reporting a fellow student (Trevino & Victor, 1992).  Separately, students are less likely to report a close friend regardless of whether an honour code is in place (Bowers, 1964; Jordan, 2001; Lim & See, 2001; McCabe 1992, 1993a; Throckmorton-Belzer, Keith-Spiegel & Wrangham, 2001).  Instead, students are more likely to express their disappointment to their friend (Bowers, 1964; Jordan, 2001; Lim & See, 2001; McCabe, 1993a).  Overall, students are uncomfortable with the thought of having to report another student (Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Lim & See, 2001; Trevino & Victor, 1992). 
Peer-related factors are extremely influential in a student’s decision-making (McCabe & Trevino, 1997).  Individuals tend to make decisions they anticipate their peers will support.  Thus, for students who are already cheating,
Cheating is something they see around them, and is something they believe their peers are doing …  the more cheating a cheater sees and the more cheating a cheater believes peers are doing, the more cheating acts the cheater commits. (Jordan, 2001, p. 242)
Cheaters tend to overestimate the amount of cheating occurring around them and as a result will likely cheat more (Hard et al., 2006; Iyer & Eastman, 2006; Jordan, 2001).  This increases the likelihood that non-cheaters will witness academic dishonesty around them, causing the non-cheater to feel disadvantaged and possibly consider cheating to become more advantaged (McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 2001). 

Student adjudication
Student adjudication is the fourth element of Honour Code systems.  Student representatives either entirely or predominately compose an adjudication team, which is responsible for determining fates of peers caught cheating (Whitely Jr. & Keith-Spiegel, 2001).  Individuals highly regard the opinions of their peers.  Having to stand before the adjudication team is an undesirable situation.  As such, the fear of facing peer adjudicators serves as a large deterrent to committing an academically dishonest act.
The ethicality of student adjudication is contentious.  Critics of student adjudication question whether students are capable of acting without bias.  Other critics are concerned about the stress such a responsibility places on students. For example, one researcher hypothetically spoke of the stress her students have endured while trying to determine the fate of a student athlete when the adjudication teams’ decision determines whether the school will allow the athlete to participate in the upcoming ‘big game’ (Trisha Bertram Gallant, personal communication, Centre for Academic Integrity conference, October 2006).  
 Supporters of student adjudication find these concerns to be extreme realities to the calm and disciplined systems that represent the majority of the student adjudication panels within honour code schools.  Part of the reason for the success of honour codes is because students feel responsible for upholding the expectations placed upon them (McCabe & Trevino, 1993).  The students want to be fair to all parties involved. 

ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES USED BY BOTH HONOUR CODE AND NON-HONOUR CODE INSTITUTIONS TO FOSTER ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Substantive research supports the implementation of an honour code within institutions as an effective means to reduce cheating (Bowers, 1964; Cole & McCabe, 1996; McCabe & Trevino, 1993).  In addition to honour codes, modified honour codes, which contain between one and three elements of a full honour code, have also proven to be effective in managing cheating occurrences (McCabe & Makowski, 2001; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2002; Roig & Marks, 2006).  While honour codes are an extremely effective means of reducing cheating, McCabe (1992) found that the lowest levels of cheating were at a non-code school and the highest levels of cheating were at a code school.  This indicates that having an honour code on campus is not enough to reduce cheating.  Other factors are necessary, including the acceptance and upholding of the code by all campus community members.  It also indicates that campuses can successfully mitigate cheating by other means and methods.  A culture of academic integrity can exist without an honour code.  The following will discuss other strategies used to enhance an institutions academic integrity, including the development of skills, learning and assessment techniques, the role of technology, and the development of students’ moral reasoning abilities. 

Development of skills
At times, the decision to cheat has less to do with a students’ motivation and more to do with a student’s skills.  Poor study habits, mediocre study conditions, undeveloped time management skills and an over-commitment to extracurricular activities all contribute pressures that may increase the likelihood of students cheating (Bowers, 1964; Iyer & Eastman, 2006; Whitley Jr. & Keith-Spiegel, 2001).  Providing workshops to educate students on how to better manage themselves, their time, and improve their study habits could result in improved academic integrity (Walden & Peacock, 2006). 
Additionally, institutions should not overlook the educational needs of faculty and staff members who require the same information students receive to ensure that policies related to academic integrity are correctly and consistently, interpreted and applied (Flint, Clegg & Macdonald, 2006; Pickard, 2006).  As noted by Parameswaran (2007),
Student dishonesty is a privileged crime because blame and punishment often seek out only one criminal.  Faculty who are indifferent to or aid student dishonesty are rarely indicated.  Even when they are a cause, they are seen only as a solution. (p. 263)
Faculty members play a key role in the education of students.  In addition to understanding how to apply policies, faculty can assist students by increasing efforts within the classroom to define assignment expectations.  Students are much more likely to uphold a rule when they understand the reasoning behind it (Hard et al., 2006; McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997).  Knowing knowledge of institutional policies significantly relates to lower rates of cheating (Bowers, 1964; Hard et al., 2006; McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997; Jordan, 2001), a need exists for educational institutions to invest resources into educating all community members (staff, faculty and students) of the policies, the expectations and the procedures for managing situations when an academic offense occurs. 
The development of skills can take multiple forms including academic integrity workshops, ungraded course assignments, and resource websites containing policies, procedures and proper referencing techniques (Culwin, 2006; Whitley Jr. & Keith-Spiegel, 2001).  Other institutions have established student education committees, or academic integrity offices, both designed to promote academic integrity year round and support students when they have questions.  By educating students at the onset of their university careers about academic expectations and about resources available to support students in their academic pursuits, and by and continually reinforcing academic integrity year-round, students cannot blame ignorance as an excuse for cheating.  

Learning and assessment within course delivery
The learning environment greatly affects the likelihood of a student cheating.  Independently, classes with large student enrolment, a heavy reliance upon textbooks for lectures, or a high use of exams for evaluation of learning all cultivate cheating and academic dishonesty (Bowers, 1964; Whitley Jr., 1998).   Additionally, classes with a large number of first-year undergraduate students also negatively influence academic integrity (Bowers 1964; Whitley Jr. 1998).
The research of Housten (1976), and Whitley Jr. and Keith-Spiegel (2001) focuses on how modification to seating in testing environments and alterations to test formats can reduce the abilities of cheaters to cheat.  Christensen Hughes (2003) recommends making assignments meaningful.  Students are more likely to exude greater effort into their studies when they can take pride in their work and know the assignments they are completing have a purpose.  As noted by Christensen Hughes & McCabe (2006):
Many students have arguably come to realize that working collaboratively can be time-efficient and learning-effective, and can lead to higher grades for everyone involved.  Given a student culture that values collaboration, faculty should be realistic when assigning independent work and be clear about their rationale for doing so. (p. 15)
 Meaningful assignments help students become more engaged in the learning process.  Students will be more likely to complete their work honestly, when they understand how the assignment contributes to their greater learning processes and learning needs. 

Technology in cheating and detection
Technology has given students access to new methods of cheating.  Whether it is texting during a test, storing notes in a programmable calculator, photographing exams with cell phones, or hacking into computer systems, today’s students are participating in riskier behaviours to stay ahead.  One of the strongest tools institutions possess to fight against these developments is to foster a sense of community and pride in all institution members.  As previously mentioned, students are less likely to cheat when they are motivated to act honestly. 
Faculty, staff and institutions also need to stay abreast of new developments in technology, which can assist in the detection of plagiarism and other forms of cheating (Badge, Cann & Scott, 2007; Carter & Punyanunt-Carter, 2006; Iyer & Eastman, 2006; McKeever, 2006).  Institutions need to evaluate their stance on technology - will students be guilty until technology proves them innocent? – This is commonly the argument used against using Turnitin.Com and other plagiarism detection software.   Institutions also need to recognize the limitation of the software.  For example, in plagiarism detection software, most programs are unable to detect when material is properly cited in student work or when it is improperly paraphrased (McKeever, 2006). 

Moral reasoning and student development
Making cheating more challenging does not provide students with the fundamental value system they need to act ethically.  In addition to the personal and contextual factors influencing a student’s decision to cheat, Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning provide another view of understanding.  Kohlberg’s model focuses on “moral reasoning, the cognitive component of moral behaviour” (Evans, 2003, p. 189).  Understanding the moral reasoning abilities of students is important, as it has been suggested, “university life, including academic coursework, structured programs, and social networks, can have a significant impact on moral development” (Evans, 2003, p. 189); where “development is about becoming a more complex individual” (McEwen, 2003, p. 155).  In Kohlberg’s model, the stages of moral development, students experience “moral development … in response to cognitive conflict that disrupts one’s current way of thinking” (Evans, 2003, p. 189).  As universities are environments filled with multiple perspectives, culturally influenced values, and temptations, they provide climates in which ‘cognitive conflict’ is bound to occur.  It is the role of educators to assist students as they begin to explore higher levels of moral reasoning.  This in turn, ideally will provide students with the values to make ethical decisions regarding cheating.
As a method of coping and rationalizing one’s behaviour, a student often employs neutralization strategies.  As defined by LaBeff et al. (1990) “neutralizing attitude held by student cheaters suggests that situational ethics are involved” (p. 191).  Many students justify their actions by blaming other individuals for this performance or by believing their behaviour is acceptable as ‘everyone else is doing it’ (LaBeff et al., 1990; McCabe, 1992; Whitley Jr., 2001).  Such excuses are examples of neutralization strategies.  The problem of students justifying their cheating behaviours increases when students do not believe an institution effectively manages cheating on campuses.  When students witness cheaters successfully getting away with cheating, it becomes difficult for students to believe in and support the academic integrity messages their institutions promote (Hendershott, Drinan & Cross, 2000).  Students need to be reassured that their ethical actions have a purpose and all students will be participating in a level playing field within the academic classrooms.  It is important for institutions to follow through with stated penalties for cheaters and to reward honest individuals who their moral behaviour.   

CONCLUSION

If universities are to foster an environment of academic integrity, it is not enough to develop reactive mechanisms to prevent and catch cheaters.  Proactive measures, to help students understand the importance of academic integrity, are also required.  When discussing academic dishonesty, Kibler (1993) noted, “Academic dishonesty involves moral, values and ethics issues.  The question of how to teach effectively in these areas goes beyond the context of academic dishonesty and should be addressed as a campus wide concern.” (p. 15).  University is the place for the expansion of knowledge, but also for the personal growth and development.   Universities provide a setting where one encounters values, morals and ethics different from one’s own.  Psychosocial and cognitive structural theories of student development examine the relationships between a person, their environment and their reactions.
In order for a culture of academic integrity to be effective, all stakeholders within colleges and universities need to be involved.  All three parties, students, staff and faculty, must collaborate, pooling resources and talents to successful combat academic dishonesty.  The majority of students do not believe that cheating is acceptable or appropriate (Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Jordan, 2001).  Yet, even when students are aware that stringent repercussions exist, large numbers of students are still committing academically dishonest acts (Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006).  Higher education Institutions need to take action to send all members of the campus community a clear message that dishonesty is unacceptable.  Institutions cannot allow the unethical behaviour of public role models to interfere with the development of students’ morals and values.  By taking small steps within the higher education experience now, future graduates will be able to rectify the state of affairs in public circles of business, education, politics and celebrities, by making their own decisions, and by making ethical decisions that benefit the greater good.   
This research explored how to foster a culture of academic integrity through the use of honour codes, the development of skills, the modification of assessment mechanism, the use of technology and the development of students moral reasoning.  This research did not focus on the influence of cultural values and internationalization on cheating within academic institutions throughout Canada and the United States.  The Western world influences much of the literature published on academic integrity.  The literature does not usually account for cultural differences.  As our institution become increasingly diverse, it is important to understand the cultural roots and values that influence the decision making of the students.  The topic of cultural influence on academic integrity is a topic which future researchers may be interested in studying. 
 
REFERENCES
 
Badge, J. L., Cann, A. J., & Scott, J. (2007). To cheat or not to cheat? A trial of the JISC plagiarism detection service with biological sciences students. [Electronic version]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(4), 433-439.
Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2006). Organizational theory and student cheating: Explanation, responses, and strategies. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 839-860.
Bowers, W.J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in colleges.  New York: Bureau of applied Social Research, Columbia University.
Carter, S. L., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006). Acceptability of treatments for cheating in the college classroom. [Electronic version]. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 212-217.
Centre for Academic Integrity. (2007).  Fundamental values project.  Retrieved November 11, 2007 from http://www.academicintegrity.org/fundamental_values_project/index.php
Christensen Hughes, J. (2003). Academic integrity: A renewed Canadian focus. Society for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, (35), 7-9. 
Christensen Hughes, J. M., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Academic misconduct within higher education in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), 1-21.
Cole, S., & McCabe, D. L. (1996). Issues of academic integrity. [Electronic version]. New Directions for Student Services, 73, 67-77. from Academic Search Premier database database.
Culwin, F. (2006). An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographics of misconduct. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 167-182.
Damast, A. (2007). Duke MBAs fail ethics test. Business Week. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/apr2007/bs20070430_110466.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
Drake, C.A. (1941). Why students cheat. The Journal of Higher Education, 12(8), 418-420.
Evans, N.J. (2003). Psychosocial, cognitive and typological perspectives on student development.  In S.R. Komives, D.B. Woodard Jr. & Associates (Ed.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 179-202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Finder, A. (2007). 34 Duke business students facing penalties for cheating.  The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us/01duke.html
Flint, A., Clegg, S., & Macdonald, R. (2006). Exploring staff perceptions of student plagiarism. [Electronic version]. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(2), 145-156.
Gulli, C., Kohler, N., & Patriquin, M. (2007). The great university cheating scandal. Maclean’s Magazine.  Retrieved November 18, 2007 from www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070209_174847_6984
Hard, S. F., Conway, J. M., & Moran, A. C. (2006). Faculty and college student beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1058-1080.
Hendershott, A., Drinan, P., & Cross, M. (2000). Toward enhancing a culture of academic integrity. NASPA Journal, 37(4), 587-597.
Housten, J.P. (1976).  Amount and loci of classroom answer copying, spaced seating, and alternative test forms.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 729-735.
Housten, J.P. (1977). Cheating behavior, anticipated success, failure, confidence, and test importance.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 55-60.
Iyer, R., & Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students? [Electronic version]. Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101-110.
Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 233-247. 
Kibler, W.L. (1993). Student cheating: A student development dilemma. NASPA Journal, 30(4), 252-267.
LaBeff, E.E., Clark, R. E., Haines, V.J. & Dickhoff, G.M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating. Sociological Inquiry, 60(2), 190-198.
Lee, R.G., Meriano, C. & Brisson, A. (2004, October). Building academic integrity partnerships on campus and with your community.  Paper presented at the 2004 Center for Academic Integrity Conference, Manhattan, KS.
Leming, J.S. (1980). Cheating behaviour, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high and low risk conditions. Journal of Educational Research, 74(2), 83- 87.
Lim, V. K. G., & See, S. K. B. (2001). Attitudes toward, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in singapore. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 261-274.
McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. [Electronic version]. Sociological Inquiry, 62(3), 365-374. from Academic Search Premier database database.
McCabe, D. L. (1993a). Academic integrity: What the latest research shows. Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, 5, 340-343.
McCabe, D. L. (1993b). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 34(5), 647-658. from Academic Search Premier database database.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2003). Faculty and academic integrity: The influence of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 367-385. from Academic Search Premier database.
McCabe, D. L., & Makowski, A. L. (2001). Resolving allegations of academic dishonesty: Is there a role for students to play? [Electronic version]. About Campus, 6(1), 17-21.
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. [Electronic version]. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522-538. from Academic Search Premier database database.
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396. from Academic Search Premier database database.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001a). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001b). Dishonesty in academic environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29-45.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357-378. from Academic Search Premier datatbase database.
McEwen, M.K. (2003). The nature and uses of theory.  In S.R. Komives, D.B. Woodard Jr. & Associates (Ed.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 153-178). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McKeever, L. (2006). Online plagiarism detection services-saviour or scourge? [Electronic version]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 155-165.
Newstead, S.E., Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229-241.
Parameswaran, A. (2007). Student dishonesty and faculty responsibility. [Electronic version]. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2), 263-274.
Pickard, J. (2006). Staff and student attitudes to plagiarism at university college northampton. [Electronic version]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 215-232.
Primetime (2004).  A cheating crisis.  ABC News. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1323764&page=1
Roig, M., & Marks, A. (2006). Attitudes toward cheating before and after the implementation of a modified honor codes: A case study. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 16(2), 163-171.
Throckmorton-Belzer, L., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Wrangham, J. (2001). Student response to a collective penalty for reported cheating: A case study. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 343-348.
Trevino, L.K. & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 38-64.
Wajda-Johnston, V. A., Handal, P. J., Brawer, P. A., & Fabricatore, A. N. (2001). Academic dishonesty at the graduate level. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 287-305.
Walden, K., & Peacock, A. (2006). The i-map: A process-centered response to plagarism. [Electronic version]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 201-214.
Warn, J. (2006). Plagiarism software: No magic bullet! [Electronic version]. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 195-208.
Whitley Jr., B.E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235-274.
Whitley, J., B.E. (2001). Gender differences in affective responses to having cheated: The mediating role of attitudes. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 249-259.
Whitley, J., B.E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic integrity as an institutional issue. [Electronic version]. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 325-342.