Case Study On Academic Dishonesty

Question 1

Academic integrity and its corollary academic dishonesty have always been paramount to the value and meaning associated with a post-secondary degree from an institution of higher education. The academic dishonesty crises described in the prompt is a critical issue for higher education on multiple fronts. The first being that students are coming into higher education with K-12 backgrounds that have both inadequately prepared them for the rigor of college as well as not emphasized the importance of doing your own work. The next front is that of plagiarism, and complete disregard for the formal rules laid out by organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA) on how to reference others information in your work.

It is both unethical and immoral to “cheat the system” or “bend the rules.” In thinking of moral development, the first moral development theory that comes to mind regarding the academic dishonesty issue is James Rest’s neo-Kohlbergian approach. Kohlberg’s depiction of moral development was seen as too structured according to Rest and his associates, so I believe the newer approach relates better to implementing a campus plan around addressing academic dishonesty. Rest’s theory presents relationships as a broad, macro view of moral development which focuses on things such as society-wide cooperation (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). This focus is critical as it relates to this particular academic dishonesty issue since the student community at large seems to condone bending the

In thinking about applying RMMDI to academic advising and programming, one can look towards Iowa State University, and its use of implementing the RMMDI in training is peer educators. Jones and Abes (2013) explain that Iowa State’s Academic Success Center uses the theory to help peer educator understand their own leadership styles and how their identities can be used to affect another student’s ability to be academically successful. I believe that the most effective tool in curbing academic dishonesty is the students themselves. As administrators we can only do so much regarding policies and programs, ultimately students are more likely to listen to peers (Shin, Ranellucci, & Roseth, 2017). Thinking about Perry’s theory, the University of California at Santa Cruz implements the theory into its advising. Perry’s dualistic to evolving commitment model mirrors their advising philosophy that students move from a right-wrong way of thinking in their first year of advising to a higher position in their later years. Advisors at UC Santa Cruz suggest that the students they see in academic advising are more willing to make