Search

Self-efficacy is a significant construct in education due to its predictive relationship with achievement. Existing measures of assessment-related self-efficacy concentrate on students' beliefs about content-specific tasks but omit beliefs around assessment-taking. This research aimed to develop and test the Measure of Assessment Self-Efficacy (MASE), designed to assess two types of efficacy beliefs related to assessment (i.e. 'comprehension and execution' and 'emotional regulation') in two scenarios (i.e. a low-stakes online quiz and a high-stakes final exam). Results from confirmatory factor analysis in Study 1 (N = 301) supported the hypothesised two-factor measurement models for both assessment scenarios. In Study 2, results from MGCFA (N = 277) confirmed these models were invariant over time and provided evidence for the scales' validity. Study 3 demonstrated the exam-related MASE was invariant across cohorts of students (Ns = 277; 329). Potential uses of the developed scales in educational research are discussed.

Most secondary and postsecondary institutions take a behavioral approach in dealing with student cheating—punishing those caught with grade reductions and/or suspensions. While some form of punishment may be necessary, it is not sufficient. As an instantiation of negative morality, academic misconduct offers an opportunity for moral education. The present investigation builds on the literature related to developmental approaches in responding to academic misconduct. It does so by describing theoretical underpinnings and instructional design of a developmental approach (Intervention), as well as results from a quasi-experimental study of its effects on moral sensitivity. Participants (N = 798) included university students who had been found responsible for academic misconduct and completed the Intervention. As hypothesized, participants not only reported greater attentiveness to moral issues after completing the Intervention, they also demonstrated greater awareness of the moral values related to academic misconduct. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemic is an apt adjective for describing the problem of academic dishonesty. When asked if they have cheated in the past year, a "disproportionately large number" (i.e., the majority) of secondary and tertiary students in the United States (and in every other country in which it's been studied) report having done so. The problem of academic dishonesty has been labeled "epidemic" since the 1980s, but research evidence suggests it had been so for many decades (Atkins & Atkins, 1936; Bowers, 1964). In addition to being "excessively prevalent," academic dishonesty is also "contagious"--seeing others cheat significantly increases one's likelihood of doing so. Academic dishonesty not only undermines students' learning and the validity of its assessment but also their moral development and character. Students who cheat in high school are significantly more likely cheat at university and more likely to be dishonest with their spouses and employers in adulthood. With this mind, educators--at all levels and in all roles--might ask themselves two basic questions: Why do so many students cheat? And what, if anything, can been done to abate the seemingly intractable problem? In this article, the author will answer both questions as he argues that academic dishonesty is "natural" and "normal," while also "unethical" and "evitable." In doing so, the author offers faculty, administrators, and policy makers a well-grounded explanation of the nature of cheating but also a clear articulation of why it's wrong and how the epidemic can be ended.

The belief that cheating is wrong doesn't prevent its enactment. For example, many students cheat despite believing that is wrong or unjustifiable. The question taken up in this article concerns how the resulting cognitive dissonance is ameliorated; that is, how do students cheat and not feel guilty? This article will describe two "good" theories that offer some insight into the psychological and social processes underlying the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Specifically, attribution theory and social norms theory serve as conceptual lenses for understanding how students manage cognitive dissonance related to academic dishonesty. Finally, in the spirit of Kurt Lewin, these two "good" theories are discussed in terms of the design and development of "wise interventions" aimed at promoting academic integrity and reducing the prevalence of cheating.

For anyone concerned about students' moral development, academic dishonesty presents a pervasive problem but also a promising possibility. The present paper describes the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of process-oriented, four-component model approach to promoting students' "moral functioning" related to academic integrity, and the research project currently underway that is providing Web-based professional development to teachers for using the model in their high school classrooms. In doing so, we hope to develop a scalable approach that offers teachers an opportunity to be the primary agents of change in transforming the problem of academic dishonesty into a possibility for positive youth development.