Ethical Behavior at Bayview - Essay Example

? Ethical Behavior at Bayview Introduction. All the s of higher learning aim at attracting excellent as well asestablishing honesty culture and standards, which are virtuous in all students (Bok, 2000). It is worth noting that different institutions have tried to curb this issue by adherence to some academic codes of hour, rituals of the institution or pledges of the students during their admission into the school in vain. This urge necessitated the discovery of technology that has made academic cheating easy to be realized and difficult to be identified by the faculty or dean of institutions (Bouville, 2010). As one of their duties, institutions expect the dean or members of the faculty to make sure that learners maintain academic integrity in their instruction process for their course work or syllabi. Thus, it has become a common practice for many institutions to make Academic cheating a rule of violation (Bouville, 2010). Ironically, many individual despise it, yet research shows that most of them have been involved in cheating at one instance or another during their academic activities. In the global year 2008 and 2009, there were different forms of accusations by financial managers, corporate officers, and street executive which involved the unethical cheating character (Bowers, 2004). One article that mostly featured in the public domain, argued out that, in the area of business, academic cheating is a chronic challenge which had escaped successfully without a lasting solution. This article came up with an estimate of 56% as a percentage ratio of students who study business that were claimed to be involved in academic cheating during their career. Additionally, the article states that, on approximation, 47% of the non business students were involved in the academic cheating of a certain type. This raised the concern that this might have been the case at Bayview University, more significantly affected wad the dean. Different members of the faculty have come to belief that academic cheating in this institution is more widespread than at other universities (Cole, 2000). A significant number of other faculty members argue that academic cheating can never qualify to be categorized to be a challenge in the institution (Keith-Spiegel, 2008). In attempts to have this issue resolved satisfactorily, this report presents an analysis of the current ethical character of business students at the University of Bayview. In this study, we hypothesize that the proportion of Bayview University’s business students involved in a form of academic cheating is smaller than that of other institution’s business students. Managerial Report. Methodology. Participants. The sample for this study constitutes about 90 business students. The sample was obtained from this year class that was going to graduate. The sample was made up of about 42 female students and 48 male students. Procedure. A survey was given to the ninety business students. The participants of this study were given three questions on different types of academic cheating. The first question sought to find whether the subjects were involved in some internet copying during their career at Bayview. The second question sought to find out whether the participants attempted to copy the work of other students during an examination. The third question sought to reveal whether some students collaborated with other students on an assignment meant to be handled individually. A participant who gave a yes as an answer in one or more of the questions was classified to have taken part in some form of academic cheating. The responses to the given questions gave out data in respect to about three categories of academic cheating. The data collected was recorded in tables 1 and 2.Results. Table 1: Cases of academic cheating in business students at Bayview University. Student Copied from Internet Copied on Exam Collaborated on Individual Project Gender 1 No No No Female 2 No No No Male 3 Yes No Yes Male 4 Yes Yes No Male 5 No No Yes Male 6 Yes No No Female 7 Yes Yes Yes Female 8 Yes Yes Yes Male 9 No No No Male 10 Yes No No Female 11 No No No Male 12 No Yes Yes Female 13 No No Yes Male 14 No No No Male 15 No Yes Yes Male 16 No No No Male 17 No No No Male 18 No No No Female 19 No No No Female 20 No No Yes Male 21 No No No Male 22 Yes No No Female 23 No No No Female 24 No No No Male 25 No No Yes Female 26 No Yes No Female 27 No No No Female 28 No No Yes Male 29 No No Yes Male 30 No No No Male 31 No No No Male 32 Yes Yes Yes Female 33 No Yes Yes Male 34 No No No Male 35 No No No Female 36 Yes No Yes Female 37 Yes No Yes Male 38 No No No Female 39 Yes Yes Yes Male 40 Yes Yes Yes Female 41 No Yes Yes Male 42 No No No Female 43 No No Yes Female 44 No No Yes Male 45 No No Yes Male 46 No No No Female 47 No No No Male 48 Yes No No Male 49 No No No Male 50 Yes No No Female 51 No No No Male 52 No No No Male 53 Yes Yes No Male 54 No No No Male 55 No No No Female 56 No No Yes Male 57 No No No Male 58 No No No Female 59 No No No Female 60 No No No Female 61 No No No Female 62 No No No Male 63 No No No Female 64 No No No Female 65 No No No Male 66 No Yes Yes Female 67 No No No Female 68 Yes Yes Yes Female 69 No No No Male 70 No No No Female 71 No No No Female 72 No No No Male 73 No No No Male 74 No Yes Yes Female 75 No No No Female 76 No Yes Yes Female 77 No No No Female 78 No No No Male 79 No No No Female 80 No No No Female 81 No No No Female 82 No No No Male 83 No No No Male 84 No No No Female 85 No Yes Yes Male 86 No No No Male 87 No No Yes Male 88 No No No Male 89 No Yes Yes Male 90 No No No Female Table 2: Summary of the data (Cases of academic cheating in business students at Bayview University). all students female students male students copied from internet 16 9 7 Copied on Exam 18 9 9 Collaborated on Individual Project 29 11 18 Analysis of Results. The data was analyzed using the excel program. A 95% confidence level was developed for male students, female students and all students who took part in a form of cheating. The analysis is represented in the table 3 and 4. Table 3: Analysis of cases of cheating in exam. All students   female students   male students   Mean 21 Mean 9.666667 Mean 11.33333 Standard Error 4.041452 Standard Error 0.666667 Standard Error 3.382964 Median 18 Median 9 Median 9 Standard Deviation 7 Standard Deviation 1.154701 Standard Deviation 5.859465 Sample Variance 49 Sample Variance 1.333333 Sample Variance 34.33333 Skewness 1.574344 Skewness 1.732051 Skewness 1.507808 Range 13 Range 2 Range 11 Minimum 16 Minimum 9 Minimum 7 Maximum 29 Maximum 11 Maximum 18 Sum 63 Sum 29 Sum 34 Count 3 Count 3 Count 3 Confidence Level(95.0%) 17.38896 Confidence Level(95.0%) 2.868435 Confidence Level(95.0%) 14.55572 Table 3: Summary of the statistics. Group Total No of students mean Standard Error 95% confidence interval Lower bound Upper Bound All students 90 21.00 4.041 12.92 29.08 Male students 48 11.33 3.383 4.564 18.10 Female students 42 9.667 0.6667 8.334 11.000 Discussion. From the data, the confidence level for all students was 17.38896, with that of female students was being 2.868435, whereas that of male students recording a value of 14.55572. This implies that the at 95% confidence, the mean roundness for the whole population of business students cheating in examination lies between 12.92 and 29.08, the whole population of male business students cheating in examination lies between 4.564 and 18.10, and the whole population of female business students cheating in examination lies between 8.334 and 11.00. A value outside this range is sufficiently improbable to be ignored for many purposes. This means that, a proportion of about 0.23 or 23% of students take part in a form of cheating at Bayview University. The 95% confidence level is normally regarded as limits that tolerable in making estimates of the population that are tolerable. This representation shows out that the proportion of business students involved in exam cheating was less than that which was displayed in the article by Chronicle Higher Education (2009). This article claimed that the proportion of students cheating in exams was 0.56 (56%). This study, on the other hand, show that the proportion of business students who happen to take part in cheating is approximately 23%. This is a proportion lower than that given in the article. It also shows out that the proportion of the non business students who take part in a form of cheating would be about 77% or 0.77. Basing on these statistics it is evidenced that, at Bayview University, the proportion of business students who take part in some type of cheating is less than that of the non business students who take part in exam cheating. On the other hand, comparing the proportion of business students at Bayview to that of other institution, it is evidenced that cheating of different type is more in other institutions than at Bayview University. This is evidenced by a proportion of 23% for business students at Bayview University who get involved in some type of cheating. Comparing this figure with that represented in the article by Chronicle Higher Education (2009) where the proportion of business students involved in cheating was 56%, it evidenced that the proportion of business students who take part in a type of cheating at Bayview is less than that of other institutions. This study, therefore, approves the hypothesis that the proportion of Bayview University’s business students involved in a form of academic cheating is smaller than that of other institution’s business students. With the high proportion of the non business students at Bayview who take part in some form of cheating, the dean of this institution has all reasons to be worried. Cheating tends to decrease the academic integrity of an institution. Students who take part in cheating tend to go without any attained skill. Such students often score zero on the competence scale. They seem to be more mindful of their own gains with less care on other learners thus putting the integrity of the university up stake. This is explained from the fact that, during the cheating, a student would not grasp any content or skill of the intended syllabi or career. Therefore, an institution of higher learning with students taking part in cheating would produce learners with questionable integrity. This certainly, shows that cheating tend to hurt the learners, and inhibit the tutors from giving out relevant and necessary feedback to their learners in the process of learning. Cheating in examinations is no longer a mere classroom management challenge to be easily dealt with by a unit faculty, but rather a responsibility of teaching. This behavior is quite extremely unethical, which over time, has been advanced to include the utility of high-tech tools that go beyond the boundaries of an institution to the information that may appear to be distant (Johnson, 2005). This calls on the dean of Bayview University to have him work together with the professional organizations and administrators in order to establish and maintain a learning environment that is healthy having a high degree of trust in the administration and the faculty. A responsible, supportive relationship of the administrator and the faculty would serve a substantial role in helping the dean and the members of the faculty in responding to presumed instances of academic cheating (Gallant, 2008). Studies have shown out that a dean who is fit would establish a degree of trust in which the members of the faculty could positively handle cases of academic dishonesty in the classrooms (Johnson, 2005). This would also enable the faculty members to gain confident concerning the administration that backs up their judgment. There are a number of ways in which academic ethics could be maintained at Bayview University. To start with the compliance strategy, the dean should ensure that the academic ethics code is upheld and that the students comply with the disciplinary process and regulations established to curb the violation of the examination policy. This strategy ensures that the cost of academic cheating is more than the benefit of cheating (Dichtl, 2003). A Learner who would be involved in academic cheating, under this strategy, is considered to be deviant. The punishment mechanism for such a student, in this strategy, is an effective restraint of propagating academic dishonesty. Another strategy that would work well to curb cheating in exams is called the integrity strategy. This involves a case where the misconduct of students is thought to be as a result of morals that are underdeveloped and the inability of students to know the relevance of academic integrity (Kibler, 2003). The strategy suggests that the dean should teach the students the values of integrity and honesty of the learners in order for them to  utilize the vital information in their academics. This strategy considers a method of disciplinary in response to academic cheating as a developmental and disciplinary method. The disciplinary method ought, therefore, be used in the education process. Additionally, this strategy insists on a communication to the students concerning the relevance of academic integrity as an epicenter to values of an institution which would style up the institution’s academic success. Conclusion. The magnitude of academic cheating at Bayview shows how wide explosively behavior can widely manifest itself in the society. Certainly, this behavior has become self centered to other peoples’ concern. Administrators and teachers should always champion the formation of formidable professional character of students and ensure that the students are accountable to their misconduct. In order to prevent academic cheating in the higher learning institutions, it is vital for all the stakeholders to infest some effort that is consented towards the problem of cheating. Faculty, dean, students, and administrators of an institution should come to an agreement concerning the strategy that would be applied to curb cheating in their institutions. All parties are expected to adhere to the chosen strategy so as to fight academic cheating in the institution. The contribution of students should not be ignored since students are the main players in cheating are often the ones who bear the penalties. Additionally, students have a role in enforcing the agreed strategy among their peers. Administrators and faculties should also operate as a team in the enforcement of the regulations and rules, which uphold the integrity of academics in the institution. References. Bok, D. (2000). Universities cheating. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bouville, M. (2010). Why is examination cheating Wrong? Study in Philosophies & Education, 29(1), 67-76. Bowers, J. (2004). Student dishonesty in colleges. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research. Cole, S. (2000). What is student cheating? About Campuses, 5, 5–12 Dalton, C. (2008). Creating in a campus climate for academical integrity. Washington, D. C.: National Association of Student. Dichtl, J. (2003). Teachers of Integrity. History Teachers, 36(3), 367. Gallant, T. (2008). Contemporary Organization Strategy: Stopping Students Cheating. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 33-46. Johnson, S. (2005). Academicals Dishonesty: New Twists to Old Problems. Athletic Therapy Today, 10(4), 48-50. Kibler, W. (2003). Frameworks for addressing academic cheating from a learner developmental perspective. NASPA. Journal, 31, 8–18. Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). Why a professor may ignore cheating: Opinion of a nation sample of psychology instructor. Ethics &Behaviours, 8, 215–227. Read More