Faculty and Student Academic Misconduct: Motivations and Understandings in Addressing Student Behavior in the Classroom of One Public University
Thesis
Overview
Research
Identity
View All
Overview
abstract
Faculty in todays colleges and universities are asked to fulfill many roles. One of the roles that affects their work but has not historically been addressed through faculty preparation programs is addressing allegations of academic misconduct. The methods, tools, and resources that are available to students who are willing to engage in behavior that may constitute academic misconduct continue to expand. Faculty also have resources and technology available to them that make it easier to identify potential student misconduct. Much research has been published discussing the severity and frequency of academic misconduct by students and faculty attitudes about academic misconduct. Little research is available that examines faculty decision making to prevent and address academic misconduct in the classroom. This qualitative case study was designed to increase understanding of the factors that influence faculty members in addressing academic misconduct in their courses of instruction. The study engaged rational choice theory as a lens to examine faculty behavior and decision making as they anticipated, prevented, and engaged academic misconduct at a large research-intensive public university in the southern United States. Tenure-track and tenured professors were interviewed. The findings indicate that faculty members make a range of choices with regard to academic misconduct in their classrooms. The most common decisions that faculty faced regarding academic misconduct were to (a) engage tenets of student conduct work, perhaps unknowingly, in addressing the behavior; (b) emphasize that the process of learning was more important than a deliverable for grading, (c) intentionally ignore or dismiss allegations of misconduct, and (d) examine their departmental and college culture for guidance in addressing the behavior. Faculty members were influenced by their educational and employment history, mentors in their academic department, and the institutional culture when developing a response to academic misconduct. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research are discussed.
