About The Theory of Planned Behavior…
In the last blog post I briefly commented on the prevalence of academic honesty violations in colleges and universities. For this next post, it seemed fitting to delve deeper into the reasons behind why so many students made the choice to cheat. Perhaps if librarians understood the underlying motivations of the students they served, they could take measures to help prevent them from making the wrong ethical choice.
After examining dozens of articles and theories, I found Meng et al.’s (2014) approach of connecting the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to the decision-making behavior of students to be the most engaging.
Key Highlights:
The Theory of Planned Behavior explains that individuals’ behaviors are driven by three main factors: attitude (personal ethics/morals), subjective norms (how others feel about the situation), and the perceived behavioral control over a situation. When faced with a decision such as cheating, a student will filter the experience through their own moral code about the correctness of the behavior, examine how others close to them feel about this choice, and attempt to determine how easy that behavior would be to pull off.
Later in the article, the authors posit that each individual has a particular “ethical” type. These types involve varying degrees of relativism and idealism. Idealists believe there is a particular code that one can follow that will result in the correct outcome every time, whereas Relativists like to find their own way to the “best” outcome and this changes from situation to situation.
It gets a tad bit complicated from here, but needless to say, this is where the four different types come from:
1. Situationalists (high relativism, high idealism) are the free-spirits who reject rigidity and rules in favor of examining each situation independently and considering how others might be affected.
2. Absolutists (low relativism, high idealism) have rigid moral guidelines that they are not willing to sway from. They apply these to every situation and expect that others do the same.
3. Subjectivitsts (high relativism, low idealism) are the “go with your gut” types who use their personal feelings and their own agendas to guide them. They tend to be viewed as selfish, as they consciously put their needs before others.
4. Exceptionists (low relativism, low idealism) are more middle of the road. They have a set of moral guidelines they follow, but are willing to bend the rules under the right circumstances. The most pragmatic of the bunch, they allow logic to be their guide.
Below, I included an image to represent these concepts in a more digestible format.
Image created by the blog author.
Essentially, what the authors are getting at here is that the type of ethical personality that one leans toward could drive the types of decisions that are made. For example, if the conditions for cheating are prime and everyone in class is doing it with very few repercussions, an Absolutist would still be unlikely to cheat if his or her moral code prevented it. In fact, they may even be likely to report the other students who participated in behavior they considered morally reprehensible (Meng, et al. 2014). In short, both concepts work together to create a model for predicting future behaviors.
Brief Reflections:
This was the first theory I read that I felt I could immediately apply. It takes two very important factors into account. First, the element of peer-pressure—what people around you think and how you want them to view you. Second, the assumed opportunity costs for attempting a particular behavior. This sums up the pressures present in a college environment. Students, who are often under the pressure of deadlines, must consider the best ways to manage their time while also succeeding in their courses. Increased stress or a perceived lack of time can cause students to make decisions they normally would not have. This is particularly true if they feel that there are few consequences for making the “wrong” ethical choice.
As a (future) librarian, I feel that this model can be used with success to help quell cheating behaviors. For example, librarians can work with faculty members to develop a stricter academic honesty code that has meaningful consequences. Perhaps my favorite application of this model, however, is in considering ways that the library can make cheating the harder and more annoying option by making honesty mind-bogglingly simple in comparison. This means increased marketing of the library’s services and a greater consideration of the usability of the library. Librarians should think of ways to make the library more convenient, such as providing services online or increasing operating hours. In my opinion, if a student views library services to be easily accessible and particularly useful, they will be more likely to choose the moral high ground when faced with stressful academic situations.
Discussion Questions:
Which “ethical personality” would you consider yourself falling under? What considerations do you make when considering an ethical dilemma in the library? Can you think of ways this model could be used to predict student behavior and help discourage cheating in the academic environment? Are there any other authors or theories that you think might complement this theory or better explain/predict student behavior?
See the entire exploratory paper behind the cut!
Introduction
In an article entitled “Ethical Decision Making in Academic Dishonesty with Application of Modified Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review” published in International Education Studies, Meng, et al. (2014) connected the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to the decision-making process of students when faced with the possibility of cheating. The authors argued that this particular theory could not only explain the driving forces behind academic dishonesty, but could also be used as a model for predicting future occurrences (p. 128). This manuscript serves as both a summary of the authors’ claims and a critical evaluation of their merit from the perspective of a current library science student.
What is Academic Dishonesty?
Meng, et al. (2014) noted in their literature review that academic dishonesty is not a rigidly defined concept and can take many forms. Some of the examples they cited include: “copying test answers from friends, taking an exam on behalf of friends, failure to cite other people’s work, taking exams home, faking research papers and pretending they are one’s own work, breaking into the exam office or lecturers’ files to access the tests or answer keys, sabotaging peers’ work or gaining illegal access to school computers to change official grades” (p. 127). Interestingly, every author cited in the literature review provided a different perspective or definition for the term. Conclusively, the authors summed up the concept of academic dishonesty as both the manipulation of information to suit one’s own purposes (p. 127) and the defilement of course rule to assist others in unethical acts (p. 128).
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
According to the Meng, et al. (2014) the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) stipulates that there are three factors influencing one’s behavior when facing ethical dilemmas: first, one’s own perception or personal philosophy surrounding the “unethical” choice and its likely consequences (attitude); second, the expectations of other people who are important to the actor (subjective norms); and third, the perceived difficulty of performing the action (perceived behavioral control) (p. 128). These components work independently of one another to form intentions. An intention can be described as a measure of how hard someone is willing to try or the amount of effort one is willing to exert to perform an action. The stronger an individual’s intent is to do something, the more likely the action will be performed; thus, intentions are powerful antecedents to behaviors. (p. 129).
Another important predictor for specific behaviors is a person’s overall ethical ideology (also referred to as their personal moral philosophy). In other words, their preconceived notions about ethics in general are applied to a specific situation to form attitudes about the variety of actions that can be taken. Meng, et al. (2014) asserted that there are two specific dimensions within this ideology scale: relativism and idealism. According to the authors, the dimension of idealism is the degree to which a person believes that there is a specific action that can applied that will result in desirable outcomes every time. Relativism, on the other hand, is described as the degree to which someone rejects strict moral guidelines in favor of finding their own way to a desired outcome (p. 130). These dimensions come together to form a taxonomy of four possible ideologies. Situationalists (high relativism, high idealism) reject inflexible rules and are instead guided by the circumstances of each situation and their consideration of others. Absolutists (low relativism, high idealism) apply a set of predefined rules universally to every action and situation. Subjectivitsts (high relativism, low idealism) are most likely to use their own personal opinions and feelings to guide them and act within their own self-interest. Finally, Exceptionists (low relativism, low idealism) operate under a set of defined moral rules, but are more pragmatic in applying them and are willing to consider “exceptions to the rules” (p. 131).
Where the Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP) and Academic Dishonesty Intersect
In the article, Meng, et al. (2014) asserted that the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) combined with the concept of ethical ideologies is one of the most accurate models for describing and predicting academically dishonest behaviors (p. 129). The authors backed up their claims by using TPB to predict likely behavior in a situation that is relatively common in classroom environments. They assumed the setting of a highly pressured, self-serving student (attitude) who has a support network of peers that are planning on cheating (subjective norms), in an exam environment that is heavily monitored (perceived behavioral control). In this instance, the model helps predict that although the student’s attitude and subjective norms lean toward the development of a dishonest behavior, the perceived difficulty of doing so and the lack of control over the environment will be enough to influence the student against it (p. 128).
Additionally, a student’s driving ethical ideology predicts the attitudes they will form around cheating behaviors as a whole. Meng, et al. (2014) described this underlying ideology as the mediator between intention and behavior (p. 133). In fact, the authors found a specific correlation between high relativism and the likelihood of a student engaging in academically dishonest behavior and finding others doing so to be acceptable. Conversely, students with high idealism scores often saw academically dishonest actions as being completely unethical, leading to a higher instance of these students reporting the cheating behavior of others (p. 133).
In their conclusion, the authors explained the importance of understanding TPB and ethical ideologies and how they factor in to a student’s decision-making process when faced with an ethical dilemma. Meng, et al. (2014) suggested that with this awareness, educators can make predictions about how their students will behave in the classroom and seek to eliminate any dishonest behaviors before they arise. They asserted that instructors should not wait until a student has already been academically dishonest to act, but should instead be proactively ensuring honesty. The authors referred to this as cultivating “a culture of honesty” by “mak[ing] expectations clear, set[ting] high standards, demonstrat[ing] ethical behaviour [sic], reward[ing] students’ ethical behaviour [sic], and punish[ing] students’ unethical behaviour [sic], all of which may be necessary to alter the attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural [sic] control of students regarding academic dishonesty” (p. 134).
Opinions and Drawn Conclusions from the Article
When looking critically at the article presented above, there are a few flaws within the argument that the authors posed. First, neither the authors nor the model explain how previous experiences of similar situations inform actions or intentions. Second, the authors’ argument appears to assume that one’s overall ethical ideology is fixed and does not change over time as one matures or gains additional information about a situation. Finally, though it appears to be a major tenant in the model, the authors provide very little discussion about how social factors can influence behavior and override one’s “normal” ethical course of action. The attitudes of others are briefly mentioned in the exam situation they presented, but concepts like peer-pressure are never discussed. The nonchalant attitudes of others may make a student feel that dishonest behavior is acceptable, but actual pressure from a trusted peer may be enough to push the student over the edge and ignore their normal, default behavior. It is the opinion of this author that more attention should have been devoted to examining and explaining the social factors that influence a student’s behavior and predict the likelihood of the person performing an action that is uncharacteristic of them due to social pressure.
Despite these flaws, the model and the argument posed by the authors provide valuable insight into the ethical decision-making process. Although the authors never mention the role that librarians play in promoting ethical behaviors, the issue of academic dishonesty is one that begins in the campus library. Due to the structure of the current educational system much of a student’s coursework is assigned to be completed outside of the classroom. As a result, many academic infractions take place outside of a teacher’s watchful gaze in places like the campus library. The model the authors presented could help guide librarians facing the possibility of academic dishonesty as to the actions they could take to prevent it. For example, placing computer monitors in such a way that librarians can observe user activity raises the perceived difficulty level of performing dishonest actions and discourages cheating. Making library services (like “ask-a-librarian”) as convenient as possible for patrons so that the perceived ease of an honest use of the library outweighs that of a dishonest alternative is another strategy for addressing the perceived behavioral control component. To help shape student attitudes, librarians can model appropriate behavior in their own actions when searching for information by citing the sources they used when answering reference questions. Many campus libraries also offer academic honesty courses to ensure that students completely understand the consequences of cheating.
The Association for College and Research Libraries’ “Standards for Libraries in Higher Education” (2011) states that an imperative goal of academic librarians should be “…to develop and support information-literate learners who can discover, access, and use information effectively for academic success, research, and lifelong learning.” By understanding the driving forces behind why students cheat, librarians can develop library policies and procedures that discourage cheating and promote self-awareness. Additionally, they can work with instructors to develop interventions that prevent cheating both inside and outside of the classroom and encourage the development of ethically-minded citizens.
Post References:
Meng, Chan Ling, Jamilah Othman, Jeffrey Lawrence D’Silva, and Zoharah Omar. 2014. “Ethical Decision Making in Academic Dishonesty with Application of Modified Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review.” International Education Studies 7:126-39. Accessed Feb. 1, 2015. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/viewFile/34698/19819.
No comments:
Post a Comment