학업적 비정직성과 윤리적 추론: 뉴질랜드 약대생과 의대생 연구(Med Teach, 2013)

학업적 비정직성과 윤리적 추론: 뉴질랜드 약대생과 의대생 연구(Med Teach, 2013)

Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: Pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand

MARCUS A. HENNING, SANYA RAM, PHILLIPA MALPAS, BOAZ SHULRUF, FIONA KELLY & SUSAN J. HAWKEN

University of Auckland, New Zealand

학업적 비정직성(Academic dishonesty)는 cheating, fabrication and falsifying, and plagiarism 등을 포함한다. 학업적 비정직행위가 널리 확산되면서 이 현상의 결정인자에 대한 관심이 촉발되고 있다. Jurdi 등은 학업적 비정직행위에 관한 태도가 실제 비정직행위에 가담할지를 결정한다고 주장했으며, 이는 theory of planned behavior와 일관된 것이다. 더 나아가, 그들의 모델에 따르면 학업적 비정직행위에 대한 태도나 그것에 가담할지를 결정하는 것은 인구통계학적/심리사회적/학업적/상황적 요인이 있다고 했다. 추가적으로, 도덕 및 윤리적 발달이 있는데, 비록 이론적이지만 학문적 진실성과 관련된다고 보고된 바 있다.

Academic dishonesty encompasses the areas of cheating, fabrication and falsifying, and plagiarism (Guthrie 2009). The prevalence of academic dishonesty has prompted an increas- ing interest into the determinants of this phenomenon (Jurdi et al. 2011). Jurdi and colleagues (2011) suggested that attitudes with respect to academic honesty determined actual engagement in dishonest behavior; this is consistent with established theories such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991). Furthermore, according to their model, the antecedents that predetermine attitude to, and engagement in, academic dishonesty can be considered in terms of demographics, and psychosocial, academic, and situational factors (Jurdi et al. 2011). In addition, the area of moral and ethical development, albeit theoretically, has been linked to academic integrity (Hardigan 2004; Jurdi et al. 2011)

또한 남학생과 여학생 사이에 학업적 비정직 행위에 대한 차이에 대한 근거도 잇으나, 일부 연구에서는 남성과 여성 간 차이가 없다고 한 것도 있다.

There is also evidence suggesting differences with respect to engagement in academic dishon-esty between male and female medical students (Babu et al.2011). However, other studies have not found differences between male and female students in terms of engaging in academic dishonesty (Rennie & Rudland 2003; Bilic-Zulleet al. 2005; Jurdi et al. 2011). 

방법

Method

참가자와 샘플링

Participants and sampling

절차

Procedure

현실적 시나리오를 기반으로 함으로써 학생들이 그들의 professional context를 고려할 수 있고, 그 시나리오에 친숙함을 느끼게끔 했다. 구체적 문장은 다음과 같다.

Distinct from Hauser et al. (2007), this scenario was based on a realistic scenario so that students could consider their professional context and thus be familiar with this case. The wording the scenario was as follows:

스테픈스 의사는....Z라는 약이...

‘‘Dr Stephens is in charge of a patient who is seriously ill. All this patient needs in order to return to his good health is a small dose of drug Z. Unfortunately drug Z is extremely hard to get hold of. However, Dr Stephens knows a source. In order to get the drug she will have to steal it for her patient.’’

 

학생에게 질문은 다음과 같다.

Students were asked,

 

스테픈스 의사가 약을 훔치는 것을 인정할 수 있는가?

‘‘Is it ethically permissible for Dr Stephens to steal the drug for her patient?’’

 

6점 척도로 (절대 동의하지 않음 - 언제나 동의함) 평가하였고, 주관식으로 판단의 이유를 설명할 수 있게 했다.

Students were asked to appraise the case using a six-point Likert scale (from never agree to always agree). A commentary box was state their available below the case to allow students to reasons for their decision.

학업적 비정직행위에 대해서는 문헌에 등장한 구체적인 행동을 가지고 32개의 문항을 만들었다. 학생들은 "전혀 사실이 아님 - 매우 사실임"으로 6점 척도로 응답.

To measure self-reported engagement in academic dishon- esty, students were asked to respond to 32 items regarding specific behaviors often cited in the literature in the area of academic dishonesty Students were asked to rate each of the items in terms of a six-point Likert scale of ‘‘never true’’ to ‘‘very true.’’ For example,

• ‘‘using abbreviations written on arm during a written examination,’’
• ‘‘using hidden notes in written examinations,’’ and
• ‘‘copying from a neighbor during an examination without the person realizing.’’

좀더 해석을 명확하게 하기 위해서 32개 문항으로 EFA 수행

To provide greater clarity to the interpretation, this intial set of 32-items was examined using exploratory factor-analysis.

사회적 바람직성social desirability  척도도 포함되었으며, 구체적으로는 자기기만척도self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) scale 를 사용하였음. Li와 Bagger는 SDE가 "비의도적으로 스스로를 보다 바람직한 방식으로 보여주고자 하는 것, 긍정적인 방향을의 비뚤림이지만, 그것이 스스로의 모습이라고 진정으로 믿는 것"을 보여준다고 설명했다. 이 척도는 잠재적 confounder를 통제하기 위해서 분석에 포함됨.

A social desirability measure was incorporated, specifically the self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus 1991). Li and Bagger (2007) stated that SDE aims to elicit information about ‘‘an unintentional propensity to portray oneself in a favorable light, manifested in positively biased but honestly believed self-descriptions (p. 526).’’ This measure was entered into the analysis to control for this potential confounder.

Data analysis

두 단계로 진행됨.

Two phases of data analysis were conducted

Preliminary analyzes.

Incidence of academic dishonesty.

A multiple analysis of covariance model (MANCOVA) was used to appraise the level of association between the dependent variables (incidence of academic dishonesty) and the independent variables case responses, gender and course of study. Several covariates were also entered into the analytical model to control for potential confounding influences (SDE, age, and year of study). Both age and year of study were converted to two sets of dummy variables. For age, two dummy variables were coded, coding over 25 as 1 and all else 0 (older group) and 15–19 age group as 1 and all else 0 (younger group). In addition, to annul any problems with assumptions related to the cumulative effect of year of study we created a similar set of dummy variables. Henceforth, two dummy variables weregenerated: first year two was coded as 1 and all else 0 (younger year) and then year 4 was coded as 1 and all else 0 (older year).

Results

Participants

 

 

 

예비 분석

Preliminary analyzes

EFA에서는 학업적 비정직행위의 구체적 영역이 발견되었다.

The exploratory factor analysis revealed three identifiable factors that relate to specific areas of academic dishonesty.

• (1) copying relating to items that explicitly probed the notions of copying with or without crediting the source or manipulation of data;
• (2) cheating referring to items related to intentional engagement in the use of unauthorized material by deceptive or dishonest means; and
• (3) collusion in reference to items that imply collaborating withor aiding other students or ignoring actions by other studentsin relation to academic dishonesty.

 

이 영역에 따르면, 91% 학생이 copying에, 34%가 cheating에, 60%가 collusion 경험이 있음을 밝혔다.

According to these domains, 91% of students disclosed some form of engagementin copying, 34% in cheating, and 60% in collusion. 

학업적 비정직행위

Incidence of academic dishonesty

허용성permissibility 수준에 따라 고허용 그룹과 저허용 그룹으로 구분함

To explore the possibility of interactions, the responses tothe case scenario were converted to a categorical variable by considering the contrast between higher levels of permissibil-ity (ratings 4–6) versus lower levels of permissibility (1–3).Additionally, an inspection of the right skewed distribution of the response scores to the cases scenarios suggested that it would be sensible to create a dichotomous variable. Genderand course of study were also entered as independent variables. 

 

 

고찰

Discussion

가장 두드러지는 결과는 학생들이 학업적 비정직행위를 한 적이 있다고 밝힌 정도와(copying, collusion) 의사의 비도덕적 행위에 대해서 평가한 수준이 밀접하게 연관되어있었다는 점이다. 더 나아가서 collusion(공모, 결탁)은 성별/학년/전공에 따른 차이가 나타났다.

The foremost findings suggested that the way students disclosed engagement in academic dishonesty,namely copying and collusion, was linked to the way they rated a cases scenario related to a doctor stealing a drug for a patient in need. Moreover, a further aspect of academic dishonesty, collusion, was seen as a differential element with respect to gender, year, and course of study; 

학업적 비정직 행위에 가담Engagement

Engagement in academic dishonesty

전문직으로서의 행동은 지조있는principled 자세를 개발하고, 윤리적, 도덕적 딜레마를 해결하는 방식에 토대를 두고 있음을 시사하는 강력한 근거가 있다. 이 연구에 따르면 학업적 비정직행위에 가담하는 것은(copying, collusion) 학생들이 시나리오 사례에 응답한 것과 관련되어 있었다.

There is a strong argument implying that professional activities are likely grounded in the way people develop principled positions and solve ethical and moral dilemmas (Latif 2000). In reference to this study, engagement in copying and collusion were related to students’ responses to a case scenario

Granitz and Loewry 는 학생들이 다양한 윤리적 frames of reference 에 따라서 행동함을 보여주었다.(예컨대 rational self- interest 혹은 Machiavellianism (ethical egoism)) 내용 분석으로 표절 사례를 분석하여 이들은 대부분의 학생들이 deontology 와 유사한 frame of reference를 적용함을 밝혔다. 그러나 Granitz and Loewry 는 또한 많은 학생들이(18%) 잡힐 가능성이 매우 낮다는 전제 하에서는 다른 사람이 지불하는 비용을 통해 자신의 이익을 강조하는 시스템으로 frame되어 있음을 밝혔다.

Granitz and Loewry (2007) have suggested that students operate from varying ethical frames of reference such as rational self- interest or Machiavellianism (ethical egoism). By appraising plagiarism cases using content analysis, they found most students apply a frame of reference akin to deontology through fundamental considering duty and respect for human rights. However, Granitz and Loewry also determined that many students (18%) were framed according to a system that emphasized self-interest at the expense of others, with the proviso that they have a high probability of not getting caught.

실용적 관점에서, 학생들이 학업적 비정직행위에 가담할 이유는 다양하다. 일부 학생들은 전략적으로 "앞서나가기 위하여" 그럴 수도 있다. Ercegovac and Richardson은 학업적 비정직성을 예측할 수 있는 몇 가지 요인을 제시했다.

From a pragmatic perspective, it is probable that students have different reasons for engaging in academically dishonest behaviors. For example, some students may be strategically motivated to ‘‘get ahead’’ (Simkin & McLeod 2010). Additionally, Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) posited that several factors could predict academic dishonesty, which include

• a sense of societal skepticism,
• lack of trust,
• alienation from educational authority,
• larger class size,
• increased com- petition,
• collaborative work projects,
• lack of understanding,
• the need to produce higher grades, and
• fear of failure.

따라서, 학업적 비정직행위를 하는 학생들도  저마다 서로 다른 frames of reference 를 가지고 있을 수 있고, 따라서 각 학생의 사례들이 각각 그에 따라 고려되어야 한다. 고의적인 학업적 비정직행위로 간주되는 사례에 대해서는 다음의 것들이 적절할 수 있으나, 쉽게 정의되지 않는 사례에 대해서는 적절하지 않을 수 있다.

It is, thus, likely that students engaging in academic dishonesty do have different frames of reference and ratio- nales and as such each student’s case needs to be considered accordingly. The use of a disciplinary tribunal that incurs penalties related to

• non-credit for courses,
• a monetary fine,
• suspension of attendance, and
• cancellation of enrollment (The University of Auckland 2010),

 

may be appropriate in cases considered as intentional acts of academic dishonesty, but may not be appropriate for cases not so easily defined.

성별과 전공에 따른 차이

Gender and course differences

본 연구의 결과는 성별에 따른 차이도 보여주는데, 남학생에서 collusion형태의 학업적 비정직행위가 더 흔하게 나타났다.

The findings of this study also indicated a gender difference whereby male students disclosed higher levels of academic dishonesty in the form of collusion than female students.

• 남학생이 동료들과 더 비정직한 학습환경에서 공부하고 있을 가능성
  This implies that male students are more likely to be working with others in a dishonest learning environment whether by engaging ignoring behaviors or in peer-related behaviors.
• 남학생이 더 tolerant하다는 근거
  This finding supports evidence to suggest that male students are more tolerant towards unacceptable behavior, as noted during group work activities, than female students and this may be related to differences in sensitivity towards context (Underwood 2003).

 

성별 간 차이에 따른 또 다른 설명

Several other explanations for gender differences have also been posed in the literature, including

• 동기 차이 motivational differences (male students are more extrinsic compared the intrinsic nature of female students) (Hardigan 2004),
• 여자 비율 높음 female dominance in pharmacy (Aggarwal et al. 2002),
• 여학생이 더 위험-회피적 female students may be more risk-averse (Baker Jr & Maner 2009; Gupta et al. 2009), and
• 남학생이 더 사회적 이미지에 쉽게 영향을 받음. 상대적으로 여학생은 독립적 male students are more easily affected by social image compared to the independent nature of female students (Aggarwal et al. 2002).

 

Jurdi 등은 남학생과 여학생 간에 사회적 책무성에 대한 인식이 다르나, 이 차이가 명확히 이해되거나 설명되고 있지는 않다고 하였음. 선택과 고집choice and persistence과 관련한 설명도 있는데, 예컨대 여학생이 선택에 있어서 좀 더 보수적이고, 남학생보다 전통적인 규범을 고집하는 경우가 많다.

Even though they did not find a significant gender result in their study, Jurdi and colleagues (2011) identified that there are different notions of societal responsibility between male and female students and the impact of these differences are not clearly understood or explained in the literature. There may also be an explanation related to choice and persistence (Pintrich & Zusho 2007); for example, female students may be more conservative in their choice and may likely persist with conventional norms than male students (Hardigan 2004).

어린 학생들이 더 비정직한 행위를 할 가능성이 높다는 것을 보여준 다른 연구들도 흥미로우나 이번 연구에서는 그렇지는 않았다.

It was interesting to note that other studies have suggested that younger students may be more predisposed to dishonest behaviors than older students (Hardigan 2004), but in this study no age effects were noted.

결론과 권고

Conclusion and recommendations

Granitz and Loewry 는 학생들은 서로 다른 ethical frames of reference를 가지고 있으며, 따라서 학생들이 어떻게 복잡한 윤리적 딜레마를 풀기 위하여 서로 상호작용work하는지 초기에 발견하는 것은 교육자들이 위험의 소지가 있는 학생들을 찾아내거나 단체상황에서 어떤 행동을 할 것인지 예측gauge할 수 있어서 향후의 행동을 미연에 방지할 수 있기에 중요함. 더 나아가서 케이스 시나리오는 윤리/도덕적 추론 수준을 측정하는데 활용할 수 있어서 대학기간 뿐 아니라 미래 행동의 implication으로서 사용될 수 있다. 학생들이 윤리적 도덕적 딜레마에 공모collude하는 방식은 교육 초기에 다뤄져야 하며, 이를 통해서 학생들이 전문직으로서 행동을 엄격하게 하도록  잘 준비하여야 한다.

A useful study, Granitz and Loewry (2007) suggest that students employ different ethical frames of reference, and therefore, early detection in relation to how students work with each other in solving complex ethical dilemmas may alert educationists to at-risk students or to gauge how students construct behavior in group situations, thus pre-empting later disciplinary action. Moreover, the case scenario approach could be used to gauge levels of ethical and moral reasoning (Kohlberg 1975; Hauser et al. 2007), which can then be discussed in line with professional conduct both at university as well as implications for future practice (Papadakis et al. 2004). The ways in which students collude to address ethical and moral dilemmas need to be discussed early in their training so that they are adequately prepared for the rigors of professional practice whether it is medicine or pharmacy.

 

Granitz N, Loewy D. 2007. Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. J Bus Ethics 72(3):293–306.

Hauser M, Cushman F, Young L, Jin RK-X, Mikhail J. 2007. A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind Lang 22(1):1–21.

Simkin MG, McLeod A. 2010. Why do college students cheat? J Bus Ethics 94:1–13.

---

Med Teach. 2013 Jun;35(6):e1211-7. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.737962. Epub 2012 Nov 12.

Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand.

Henning MA1, Ram S, Malpas P, Shulruf B, Kelly F, Hawken SJ.

Author information

• 1Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. m.henning@auckland.ac.nz

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is ample evidence to suggest that academic dishonesty remains an area of concern and interest for academic and professional bodies. There is also burgeoning research in the area of moral reasoning and its relevance to the teaching of pharmacy and medicine.

AIMS:

To explore the associations between self-reported incidence of academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning in a professional student body.

METHODS:

Responses were elicited from 433 pharmacy and medicine students. A questionnaire eliciting responses about academic dishonesty(copying, cheating, and collusion) and their decisions regarding an ethical dilemma was distributed. Multivariate analysis procedures were conducted.

RESULTS:

The findings suggested that copying and collusion may be linked to the way students make ethical decisions. Students more likely to suggest unlawful solutions to the ethical dilemma were more likely to disclose engagement in copying information and colluding with other students.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings imply that students engaging in academic dishonesty may be using different ethical frameworks. Therefore, employing ethical dilemmas would likely create a useful learning framework for identifying students employing dishonest strategies when coping with their studies. Increasing understanding through dialog about engagement in academic honesty will likely construct positive learning outcomes in the university with implications for future practice.

PMID:

 

23146078

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]