Ethical Behavior of Business Students at Bayview University - Case Study Example

? Ethical Behavior of Business at Bayview Grade Introduction The world of business just like any other sector calls for professionals who are ethical. Employees of a given firm or even individual business people should be able to depict ethical standards that is expected by their stakeholders. It is thus the responsibility of not only parents but institutions of higher learning to develop individuals who are ethical. However with advancement in technology students in institution of higher learning have been found to cheat when it comes to assignments and the examination (McCabe, 2001). Two main approaches are adopted by the students; copying from the internet as well as from their friends. Figures show that close to 57.0% of business students admitted to engaging in cheating activities against 47.0% of non business students. Currently the dean of the Collage of Business at Bayview University is concerned with such issues. This report is based on a research commissioned by the dean to help him and the university to make rational decisions concerning cheating. The report will analyze the collected data, discuss the findings and make recommendations for the dean regarding business student cheating on exams. Analysis and discussion a) All students Internet copying Exam copying Collaborated Cheated Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes 16 17.778 18 20.000 29 32.222 37 41.111 No 74 82.222 72 80.000 61 67.778 53 58.889 Total 90 100.000 90 100.000 90 100.000 90 100.000 From the above table, it can be seen that out of 90 students, 16 students admitted to have copied from internet. This translates to 17.78 %. The remaining 74 students who stand for 82.22% said they did not copy from internet. With regard to exam copying from other students, 18 students (20%) admitted to have engaged in the practice while 72 students, 80% did not. 32.22% of the students admitted to have collaborated with others in projects that were supposed to be done individually while 41.11% admitted to have engaged in at leastsome form of cheating in exams. b) Male students Internet copying Exam copying Collaborated Cheated Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes 7 14.583 9 18.7500 18 37.500 21 43.750 No 41 85.417 39 81.250 30 62.500 27 56.250 Total 48 100.000 48 100.000 48 100.000 48 100.000 From the table, 14.583% of the male students agreed to have copied from the internet and 18.75% admitted to have copied in exams. In addition, 37.5% of male students agreed to have collaborated with others in assignments that were supposed to be handled individually and 43.75% said they at least engaged in exam cheating. c) Female students Internet copying Exam copying Collaborated Cheated Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes 9 21.428 9 21.428 11 26.190 16 38.095 No 33 78.571 33 78.571 31 73.810 26 61.905 Total 42 100.000 42 100.000 42 100.000 42 100.000 From the table, 21.43% of female students that participated in the study indicated that they have at least copied from the internet. At the same time, 21.43% of the students also admitted to have copied in exams. 26.19% said they collaborated in the assignments which were supposed to be done individually and 38.10% of the students admitted to have cheated at one point. From the results, it can be seen that male students had a big percentage involved in at least some form of cheating at 43.75% as compared to only 38.095% of girls who engaged in at least some kind of exam cheating. Collaboration between students in the projects intended for individual efforts appear to be the students’ most preferred form of cheating leading with 32.222% of all students doing it. From the areas analysed, internet copying is the least popular form of copying with only 17.778% of all students doing it. The results also reveal that more girls engaged in internet copying at 21.428% as compared to male students where 14.583% were found to engage in internet copying. 1. 95% confidence intervals for proportions a) 95% confidence interval for all business students From the above calculations, ? = 37/90 = 0.4111, Margin error = Z0.025(sqrt(?(1-?)/n)). But Z0.025 = 1.96, Therefore margin error = 1.96(sqrt(0.4111(1-0.4111)/90)) = 0.1017 This means that the confidence interval at 95% confidence level is 41.11 +/- 10.17 = (30.94%, 51.28%) b) 95% confidence interval for male students ? = 0.4375, margin error = Z0.025(sqrt(?(1-?)/n)) = 1.96(sqrt(0.4375(1-4375)/90)) = 0.1403. Therefore the confidence interval will be 43.75% +/- 14.03% = (29.72%, 57.78%) c) 95% confidence interval for female students ? = 0.3810, margin error = Z0.025(sqrt(?(1-?)/n)) = 1.96(sqrt(0.3810(1-0.3810)/90)) = 0.1469 (Babbie, 2007 & Kaye et al. 2011). Therefore the confidence interval is 38.10% +/- 14.69% = (23.41%, 52.79%). According to Chronicle of Higher Education, the students cheating proportion in other business schools stood at 56%. In this case, we are comparing the proportion of students cheating in other business schools and the Bayview business school. We need to test if the proportion of cheating students at Bayview business school was less than the proportion of cheating students in other business schools or not.That is, testing if population proportion p is less than 56 %. The test hypothesis will be: H0: p ? 0.56 against H1: p ? 0.56. At 95% significant level, ? = 0.05. We already have ? = 0.4111, ?? = sqrt(P0(1-P0)/n) = sqrt(0.56(1-0.56)/90) = 0.0523. Z = (?-P0)/sqrt(P0(1-P0)n) = (0.4111-0.56)/0.0523 = -2.85 From the Z-table, the p-value is 0.0022. This is less than 0.05. This leads to rejection of H0, meaning that the cheating cases at the Bayview business school are less than other business schools. Thus in terms of ethical issues in line with cheating in exams, Bayview School is better (Rice, 2006). According to Chronicle of Higher Education, the proportion of cheating non-business students in other universities stood at 47%. In this case, we need to compare the proportion of business students in Bayview who engaged in cheating with the proportion of nonbusiness students from other universities who engaged in cheating. We specifically test if the population proportion p is less than 47%. The hypothesis to be tested is: H0: p ? 0.47 against H1: p ? 0.47. ? = 0.05 ? = 0.4111, ?? = sqrt(P0(1-P0)/n) = sqrt(0.47(1-0.47)/90) = 0.0526. Z = (?-P0)/sqrt(P0(1-P0)n) = (0.4111 – 0.74)/0.0526 = -1.12 From the Z-table, p-value is 0.1314. This is greater than 0.05. Hence we cannot reject H0. This means there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the cheating cases in Bayview business school is less than in non-business schools in other universities. That is, the ethical values with regard to cheating are not better in Bayview business school than non-business schools in other universities (Smithson, 2003). Conclusion and recommendations From the above analysis, although the proportion of business students at Bayview school that are engaged in at least some form of cheating is less than the proportion of business students from other universities doing the same, the fact that more than 41% of students at Bayview business school practice exam cheating is enough reason to worry. The fact that cheating cases in Bayview business school are higher as compared to non-business schools in other universities indicates that the university is not doing anything special to curb this rampant practice. The percentages of cheating students are unacceptably high and the dean of school should take drastic measures to bring this to an end. The best way to approach this should be to find out the reasons why large proportions of students have resorted to academic fraud. To do this, it would require engaging students and trying to find out the reasons why they cannot handle examinations on their own. They should be able to explain why they are normally ill-prepared for exams. They can then suggest how they would wish to be assisted to best prepare for examinations. Students who cheat in exams fail to appreciate the fact that exams are meant to determine if the students benefited from the teachings or not. Those who cheat end-up getting certificates even when they have not obtained the necessary skills.At the end of the day, they never get the knowledge they paid for and they are the ones who suffer the consequences at the point when they are required to apply the knowledge. This means that if the dean can initiate campaigns that would enable students realize that they cheat themselves by cheating in exams, some of them would rethink their engagement (McCabe, 2001). Talks should therefore be initiated. Students should also be regularly talked to about ethical behaviours with regard to exams. There should be mechanisms that aid in detecting cheating in exams. In this case, students should be made aware that cheating in exam is not acceptable and they are expected to stay away from such practices. Regular surveys should be carried out to monitor the success of any approach selected. Reference McCabe, D., Butterfield, K. & Trevino, L. (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232. References Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research 11th ed. Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. John A. Rice (2006), Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, Third Edition, Duxbury Advanced Kaye, David H.; Freedman, David A. (2011). "Reference Guide on Statistics". Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (3rd ed.). Eagan, MN Washington, D.C: West National Academies Press. p. 259 Smithson, M. (2003) Confidence intervals. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, No. 140. Belmont, CA: SAG Read More