University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture

(USC Thesis Other)

Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 1
Academic Dishonesty Among International Students:
Exploring Aspects of Language and Culture
by
Jacques Michael Zalma
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2018
Copyright 2018 Jacques Michael Zalma
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 2
Acknowledgements
There are so many people that I wish to thank. This journey was certainly a marathon and
required the support of friends, family, colleagues, and faculty; all of whom I am indebted to.
First, I would like to recognize the support and patience of my best friend and wife,
Emily. You provided endless support, unwavering love, and literally paved the way for me
throughout this process. You are my inspiration and there are not words to express the love I feel
for you nor the gratitude I have for the honor of being your husband. The last four years have
brought two more degrees into our household and I look forward to what lies ahead for us,
embracing each journey together, side by side.
I share this accomplishment with my parents, Irving and Sylvia. Though neither attended
college, they pushed me to pursue my dreams while continually trying to understand what a
career as a university administrator entails. They worked tirelessly to ensure that I had the
opportunity to pursue my dreams, which often meant sacrificing their own. They took interest in
my desires and made every effort to understand my passions. My mom’s constant optimism and
encouragement throughout my pursuit for this degree while reminding me as I wrote each page,
‘you’re getting closer,’ provided me the gentle nudge I so often needed to keep moving forward.
And though my father is no longer with us, I feel him every day and he continues to be a great
source of inspiration. I love you both so much! This degree is as much yours as it is mine.
Tom and Aida, you have opened up your world to me and invited me into your family. I
feel so blessed to share in your love and am so grateful to you for the encouragement, grace,
understanding, and patience that you consistently have provided me. I love you both!
My siblings, Marlyne, Juliette, Jim, Carolyn, Tommy, Mindy, and Denise, your love and
support has been a constant blessing. I also want to thank my nieces and nephews, Thomas,
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 3
Alicia, Eli, Leah, Benito, Lili, and Gracie. I have missed too many birthdays, sporting events,
and family functions, but know that I am going to work tirelessly to make it up to you.
To the LAW ’18 cohort. In a blink it is over, but together we muddled our way through it.
I am so thankful to you and look forward to continuing our friendship and dialoguing about
readings that are not required. Looking back, the journey was so much easier because of all of
you.
To my committee. Dr. Howlett, you have been a part of every milestone in my
professional career. I attribute so much of who I am today professionally to your tutelage. Dr.
Green, the interest you showed in my research came secondary to the care and compassion that
you showed me and my family in times of need. Thank you. And Dr. Tambascia. I would not
have been as successful without you as my chair and in my corner. Thank you doesn’t seem to be
enough. Your support and encouragement was the driving force that helped me cross the finish
line.
Lastly, I would like to thank my research participants. Not only could I not have
accomplished this goal or conducted this study without your help, but your willingness to share
personal details about your journey reminded me of why I chose this topic and the profession of
student affairs. I dedicate this dissertation to all the students brave enough to study abroad.
Embracing the cultural and language barriers in an effort to accomplish your goals; you have far
more courage than I do and your efforts have not go unnoticed. Your voice has been heard and it
is remarkable.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 4

Table of Contents
List of Figures 7
List of Tables 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations and Delimitations 15
Definitions 16
Conclusion 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
International Students in U.S. Higher Education 19
Importance of Academic Integrity 21
Consequences of Academic Misconduct 23
Career Implications 24
Plagiarism Outside of Academia 25
Defining Academic Misconduct 26
Exam Misconduct 27
Cheating 27
Plagiarism 27
Fabrication 27
Unauthorized Collaboration 28
Facilitating Academic Misconduct 28
Prevalence of Academic Misconduct 28
Factors Associated with Academic Misconduct 29
Class Rank 29
Language Proficiency 29
Field of Study 30
Culture 30
Reducing Academic Misconduct 31
Institutional Culture 31
Clearly Defining Cheating 31
Consistent Enforcement of Policy 32
The Role of Cultural Transition 32
Acculturation and Academic Misconduct 37
Assimilation 37
Integration 38
Marginalization 38
Separation 39
Student Conduct Administrators 40
Faculty Role in Supporting Academic Integrity 43
Technology Assistance 44
Patchwriting or Plagiarism 45
Faculty as Expert 45
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 5

Conclusion 45
Chapter Three: Methodology 47
Methodological Approach 48
Site Selection 49
Population and Sample 49
Purposive Sampling 50
Privacy 52
Instrumentation 53
Integrity Survey 53
Interviews 53
Data Collection 54
Survey Instrument 54
Interviews 55
Data Analysis 56
Organizing Data 57
Theoretical Framework 58
Validity 58
Role of Researcher 59
Conclusion 60
Chapter Four: Analysis of Data 62
Summary of Participants 62
Findings 64
Understanding Policies and Expectations 68
University Culture 72
Emphasis of Academic Integrity 75
Faculty Involvement 78
Language Proficiency 80
Academic Preparation 80
Are Reports of Academic Misconduct Biased? 83
Is Language an Excuse? 85
Length of Time at University 88
Transitioning to the University 89
Continuing Students 90
Preparing for Graduation 92
Conclusion 94
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 96
Discussion of Findings 99
Assimilation 100
Integration 103
Marginalization 104
Separation 105
Summary 107
Implications for Practice 108
1. Defining Academic Misconduct 109
2. Cultural Sensitivity 110
3. Consistent Enforcement of Policies 112
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 6

Recommendations for Future Research 113
Population Sample 113
Institutional Support 113
Longitudinal Study 114
Financial Resources 114
Conclusion 115
References 116

Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Info Sheet 125
Appendix B: Invitation to Complete International Student Academic Misconduct Survey 127
Appendix C: Invitation to Complete Faculty/Staff Academic Misconduct Survey 128
Appendix D: Student Academic Misconduct Survey 129
Appendix E: Faculty Academic Misconduct Survey 152
Appendix F: Student Interview Protocol 178
Appendix G: Staff and Faculty Interview Protocol 181

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 7

List of Figures
Figure 1. International Student Enrollment Trends in United States 2006-2015 19
Figure 2. Academic Acculturation Model 38, 100
Figure 3. Perception of International Students Reported for Academic Misconduct in 67
Comparison to Domestic Students
Figure 4. Perception of International Student Involvement in Academic Misconduct in 67
Comparison to Domestic Students
Figure 5. International Students’ Perceived Understanding of Academic Misconduct 68
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 8

List of Tables
Table 1. Student Interview Participants 63
Table 2. Faculty and Staff Interview Participants 65
Table 3. Do International Students Have a Different Understanding of Campus Policies 71
Concerning Student Cheating?
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 9

Abstract
Academic misconduct among college students continues to trouble institutions of higher
education and international students are involved in a disproportionate amount of academic
misconduct relative to their enrollment. This study examined how the experiences of
international students influence their decision to participate in academic misconduct. The
conceptual framework of Acculturation was used to help understand the narratives of students,
staff, and faculty participants. Data from this study found that there is a relationship between a
student’s connectedness to the university and the courses that they are enrolled in, and their
involvement in academic misconduct. Students who expressed a connection to the university or
indicated that the courses they were taking had practical implications on their future career stated
that they were less likely to engage in academic misconduct.
Recommendations for practice include the need for academic misconduct to be clearly
defined, for faculty to be cognizant of cultural differences and the need to include relevant
examples and scenarios on course syllabi, and for policies to be consistently enforced. It is
recommended that faculty and university administrators presume that students do not fully
understand the concept of academic misconduct nor how to effectively avoid it. Including
language and examples that embrace diverse cultural backgrounds on course syllabi may prevent
unintentional acts of cheating. Additionally, it is recommended that universities implement
systems that encourage reporting of academic misconduct early to prevent systemic issues from
occurring.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 10

Chapter One: Introduction
Academic dishonesty is an affront to the American higher education system and a threat
to its students, alumni, and institutions of higher education. Many students pursue degrees to
engage in learning, gain preparation for careers, and increase their anticipated lifetime earnings.
Colleges and universities are committed to providing educational opportunities and conferring
degrees to its students based on their realized academic success. Cheating leads to inflated,
unearned grades that misrepresent the student’s knowledge and may lead to additional unethical
decisions during a student’s academic and professional career (Lin & Wen, 2007).
All student populations contribute to the growing concern of academic dishonesty at
colleges and universities, although international students have been found to be reported more
frequently for alleged violations in relation to their enrollment than domestic students (Beasley,
2016). The issue of academic dishonesty is particularly relevant, as international student
enrollment in the United States has more than doubled over a ten year span, reaching over one
million students during the 2015/2016 academic year (Institute of International Education, 2016).
Colleges and universities have increased efforts to recruit international students as a means of
ensuring their financial viability and promoting a diverse student population (Choudaha &
Chang, 2012). International student recruitment is an expensive, but albeit necessary venture to
capture a population of students who wish to enroll in the American higher education system
without the benefit of state subsidies, federal financial aid, or grant programs (Choudaha &
Chang, 2012). Additionally, public colleges and universities may benefit financially by requiring
international students to pay non-resident supplemental tuition. It is estimated that international
students contributed over $35 billion to the United States economy in 2015 and that
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 11

approximately 75% of international students fund their education from sources outside of the
United States (Institute of International Education, 2016).
In addition to the economic benefits stemming from enrolling international students, the
United States is also viewed as the leader in educating students in fields that support the global
economy (Altbach, 2004). International students may have a significant impact on the culture
and physical diversity of institutions that they attend. As international students increasingly
enroll in the U.S. higher education system, it is critical that institutions identify the challenges
that surface from their increased enrollment rather than solely focusing on the economic benefits.
Academic dishonesty among international students occurs at a disproportionately higher rate in
relation to their enrollment (Amsberry, 2009; Robinson, 1992; Webb, 2006). It merits research to
understand the contributing factors affecting international students and how academic
misconduct among this population can be mitigated. It is also important to note that international
students can be viewed as a subculture within the American higher education system, and higher
education professionals may benefit from an increased understanding of how culture impacts
student’s decisions (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Rawlings & Sue, 2013).
Statement of the Problem
Academic misconduct among college students continues to trouble institutions of higher
education (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002). International students are disproportionately
involved in incidents of academic misconduct relative to their enrollment. Existing literature
indicates that college students engage in academic misconduct despite various efforts by colleges
and universities to discourage cheating (Bertram Gallant, Binkin, & Donohue, 2015; McCabe et
al., 2002), and that international students are more likely to be perceived to engage in, and
subsequently reported for, academic misconduct (Beasley, 2016).
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 12

A student’s decision to cheat is often viewed as a reflection of their core values and
beliefs, and is usually associated with ethical and moral reasoning. However, a student’s cultural
background and consideration for their understanding of policies and expectations is often
overlooked prior to labeling an international student as a cheater. Language proficiency, cultural
awareness, and age can all have a significant impact on how international students make
decisions about academic work.
Though studies related to academic misconduct have been well researched, the focus on
international students is limited. It is thus difficult to draw effective conclusions regarding
academic misconduct and the international student population which is the impetus for this
study. Though Pecorari (2003) did not find evidence suggesting that international students
engage in academic dishonesty more so than their domestic peers, more recent studies identified
international students as an at-risk group noting that they are reported for academic misconduct
at a higher rate than their domestic peers (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Diekhoff, LaBeff,
Shinohara, & Yasukawa, 1999; Wong, 2004). A study that had nearly 1,800 participants from
nine universities resulted in an acknowledgment of cheating by more than two thirds of the
college student participants (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001). The study further
delineated the student’s responses by the severity of the infraction and the student’s awareness of
the policy prior to engaging in the behavior. The perceived seriousness and understanding of
university policy can be a vital component to explore in order to better understand why
international students are involved in academic misconduct.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to better understand why international students are
disproportionally reported for incidents of academic misconduct, especially with regard to
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 13

plagiarism. Though literature exists that suggests international students do not cheat more often
than other campus sub-populations (Pecorari, 2003), more recent studies have found that
international students are reported for academic misconduct more frequently than their domestic
peers (Amsberry, 2009; Webb, 2006). International students are a vital part of the fabric within
the U.S. higher education system and academic misconduct can negatively impact the reputation
of the university, the graduation rates of its students, and future recruitment of international
students.
A qualitative approach was utilized to gain a deeper understanding of the factors attributed to
international student’s involvement in academic dishonesty. Interviews with students, staff, and
faculty were conducted to learn about the problem from various perspectives and identify
differences between realized and perceived contributions. The findings from this study may be
used by student and academic affairs professionals to better promote academic integrity at their
institution with diverse student populations. The research questions that guided this study
include:
1. Why are international students perceived to be an at-risk population with regard to
academic misconduct?
2. How does language proficiency impact international student involvement in incidents of
academic misconduct?
3. How, if at all, does the length of time students attend an institution influence their
involvement in academic misconduct?
Significance of the Study
This study addressed the gap in the literature regarding the involvement of international
students in incidents of academic misconduct. This research aimed to understand why
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 14

international students are disproportionally involved in academic misconduct and may provide
guidance to university faculty and staff about how to promote international students’ academic
success.
International students are attracted to studying in the United States because of its reputation
for providing a quality education and preparation for a competitive workforce. Additionally, the
various types of education offered that focus on research, teaching, and liberal arts encourage
students to apply to institutions that cater to their needs. Institutions benefit as more students
submit applications, which then allows the universities to be viewed as more selective.
Furthermore, international students who enroll in American universities receive no federal aid
and are often required to pay higher tuition because they are not permanent residents.
The findings from this study may be used by professionals in student and academic affairs to
better articulate institutional expectations and promote academic integrity at their institution.
Understanding academic misconduct from the perspectives of faculty is necessary
because they are essential in articulating and upholding the university’s policies. University
faculty are responsible for educating their students and reinforcing the university’s expectations
regarding academic work. When they have reason to believe a student gained an unfair
advantage by submitting work that does not accurately reflect their own knowledge, faculty are
also charged with reporting incidents of alleged academic misconduct to the university.
Unfortunately, existing literature fails to include their narratives and focuses on institutional
policies and the student’s prohibited behavior. Including the narratives of faculty provided
breadth to this study and helped identify why international students are reported for academic
misconduct at a higher rate than their domestic peers.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 15

Staff will benefit from gaining an understanding of student narratives and the differences
between the narratives of international students and those of their domestic peers; this will
provide insight into how staff can best support student success.
Limitations and Delimitations
The findings of this study are bound within limitations that are based on the chosen
methodology. First, undergraduate international students were asked to participate in an
assessment to learn about their knowledge of university policies, the perceived severity of
various cheating behaviors, and their own involvement in cheating behaviors. Despite the
researcher’s best efforts to obtain accurate responses, it is possible that students did not
accurately self-report their involvement.
Second, the research is bound by referrals of academic dishonesty to the institution. The
relative relationship of academic misconduct involving international students compared to
domestic students is based on reported incidents. The true number of incidents of academic
misconduct is unknown and may represent a different relationship than what is reported to the
university.
Another limitation relates to the time allotted to conduct the research. The assessment
survey and follow-up interviews with students, staff, and faculty was conducted within the first
four weeks of the Spring term of the academic year. Students were asked to reflect on their
current experiences and provide a comparison to when they first arrived at the university. It was
expected that participants would recount current experiences more accurately and with more
detail than those that occurred in the past. An ethnographic study that interviews students
throughout their college experience would provide richer, more accurate data to review.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 16

Further, international students were invited to complete a survey that asked about their
understanding of academic policies at the institution. The survey instrument was only provided
in English and may be more difficult for Non-Native English Speakers (NNES) to complete.
This may have impacted the response rate from students who identify as NNES.
The researcher has also identified delimitations which were selected to limit the scope of
the study. The study was limited to one institution and included a sample of international
undergraduate students along with staff and faculty employed at the same institution. The sample
did not include students who transferred to the institution or identified as domestic students.
Further, though the self-assessment included questions related to various cheating behaviors, the
focus of this study addressed incidents of plagiarism.
Definitions
Academic Dishonesty is synonymous with cheating and is comprised of behaviors that
provide students with an unfair academic advantage (Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Kibler, 1993).
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that prevents
institutions of higher education from sharing student’s educational records without the student’s
consent. The law applies to institutions that receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of
Education.
International Students are those that require the issuance of a student visa to live and
study in the United States. A student visa (F-1) or exchange visa (J-1) is required for temporary
visitors interested in studying in the United States (Webb, 2006).
Plagiarism occurs when one presents another’s work as if it were their own. In an
academic setting, plagiarism is the submission of an assignment that incorporates the words or
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 17

ideas of an author without accurately citing and providing appropriate attribution to the original
author (Traniello & Bakker, 2016).
Conclusion
This chapter introduced the problem that will be addressed, its significance to higher
education, and the research questions that will guide the study. Additionally, limitations and
delimitations were presented along with definitions of terms that will be used throughout this
dissertation. The next chapter will provide a review of the literature pertaining to academic
dishonesty and international students studying in the United States. This will include a brief
history of the increased enrollment of international students in the U.S. and the development of
the student conduct profession.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 18

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Institutions of higher education place a high value on submitted assignments and exams
that accurately represent student’s knowledge and experiences. As such, violations of academic
integrity are viewed as serious transgressions against the academic community and are subject to
a variety of sanctions ranging from reductions in grades to dismissal from the university.
Historically, professors were responsible for establishing preventative measures and addressing
incidents of academic misconduct. The prevalence of academic misconduct, the goal of
implementing consistent practices and outcomes, and the requirement to uphold the rights of
students led many universities to centralize the conduct process. Today, student conduct
administrators are charged with holding students accountable for their actions and upholding the
core academic values of the institution.
According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (as cited in Institute
of International Education, 2016), international students account for just over five percent of
students enrolled in higher education within the United States. The number of international
students attending the U.S. have increased both in the aggregate and as a percentage of the
overall student population since the 2009/10 academic year (Institute of International Education,
2016). The increase of international students studying in the U.S. has helped market the higher
education system in the U.S. as a global leader in various fields, however international students
are also disproportionately reported for incidents of academic misconduct. This chapter will
provide a review of literature that addresses the disproportionally higher rate of reported
academic misconduct violations of international students.
International students are defined as those issued an F-1 or J-1 Visa to study in the United
States (Webb, 2006). In addition to the impact cheating has on individuals, institutional
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 19

reputation is also negatively impacted (Dick et al., 2002; Simkin & McLeod, 2010). It is
therefore necessary for institutions to include and enforce policies that clearly define the
expectations placed upon students to reduce the number of violations of academic misconduct.
This objective is made difficult due to a variety of behaviors that are associated with academic
misconduct and various perceptions that are present from faculty and students alike.
International Students in U.S. Higher Education
Over one million international students enrolled in colleges and universities in the United
States during the 2015/2016 academic year compared to just over 500,000 students in the
1999/2000 academic year (Institute of International Education, 2016). Figure 1 displays the
continual increase of international student enrollment since the 2006/07 academic year.

Figure 1. International student enrollment trends in United States from 2006/2007 to 2015/2016
academic years.
The increase of international students in the United States can be attributed to both a
desire on behalf of students and educational institutions. Sixty percent of the international
582,984
623,805
671,616
690,923
723,277
764,495
819,644
886,052
974,926
1,043,839
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
International Student Enrollment in United States
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 20

student population in the United States is comprised of students from China, India, Saudi Arabia,
and South Korea (Institute of International Education, 2016). Countries with developing
economies have reported an increased number of college-ready students that have saturated
university systems unable to expand to meet the needs of their population (Bound, Braga,
Khanna, & Turner, 2016). Meanwhile, the United States has a large and diverse system of higher
education, providing students the opportunity to study various fields that are attractive to
students around the world. International students thus increase the global competiveness of the
education system that is responsible for educating students in engineering, computer science, and
other key disciplines (Altbach, 2004). Colleges and universities in the United States are also
compelled to increase the enrollment of international students due to declining state and federal
funding. International students contributed an estimated $35 billion to the United States economy
in 2015 and approximately 75% of international students fund their education from sources
outside of the United States (Institute of International Education, 2016).
Despite the growing representation of international students studying in the U.S., they are
often academically and socially unprepared and unaware of policies and expectations at
American universities. The literature presents these factors as contributing to the
overrepresentation of academic misconduct violations among international students (Datig &
Russell, 2015; Hu & Lei, 2012; Shi, 2011; Stephens & Nicholson, 2008).
Language proficiency is one of the most formidable barriers to academic success among
international students (Hagedorn, Pei, & Yan, 2016). Students who are Non-Native English
Speakers (NNES), regardless of their previous academic accomplishments, are challenged when
attending an all-English institution. Though international students from non-English speaking
countries are provided standardized tests to evaluate their knowledge of the English language,
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 21

the tests do not adequately prepare students for the classroom environment (Rawlings & Sue,
2013). In addition to stressors related to language proficiency, some international students
struggle with a teaching style that incorporates collaboration and critical analysis as opposed to
reliance on textbooks or faculty lectures (Hagedorn et al., 2016; Shi, 2011). These stressors are
necessary to assess when identifying factors of academic misconduct related to the international
student population.
Importance of Academic Integrity
Colleges and universities are committed to providing educational opportunities and
conferring degrees to its students based on their realized academic success. Students are expected
to complete assignments that reflect their attained knowledge of the material presented. Cheating
leads to inflated, unearned grades that effectively misrepresent the individual’s knowledge and
may result in continued unethical behavior after graduation (Lin & Wen, 2007). Cheating is
considered to be comprised of both immoral and unethical behaviors, but the choice to cheat is
often focused on the individual student without recognition of how universities may affect a
student’s decision to cheat. (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2001). The natural orientation of colleges
and universities can be described as learning-oriented or result driven (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel,
2001). Similarly, students are either primarily motivated to increase their knowledge and mastery
of the covered material or by a desire to achieve high grades.
A learning-oriented institution achieves success when its students demonstrate growth in
knowledge and understanding. By contrast, a result-driven institution is concerned with metrics
including graduation rate and rankings. The acknowledgement that various forms of cheating
occur - and based on some studies, cheating is rampant – among students potentially impacts
both the perceived value of the student’s education and the degree granting institution
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 22

(Barnhardt, 2016). It is therefore important to look at factors that influence cheating from both
the lens of the institution and the individual student.
Cheating is defined as a student’s attempt to gain an unfair academic advantage and
includes behaviors such as plagiarism, fabricating information, and various forms of exam
misconduct. College students cheat in a variety of ways and for various reasons. Literature posits
that moral development is a primary factor to identify why students cheat (Bernardi et al., 2004;
Malinowski & Smith, 1985). Stephens and Nicholson (2008) indicated that students who cheat
overwhelmingly reported being cognizant that cheating is prohibited, yet a study conducted in
2001 reported that as much as 70% of college students acknowledged participating in a form of
cheating (McCabe et al., 2001). Other studies showed that international students were involved
in incidents of cheating at a disproportionately higher rate when compared to their domestic
peers (Diekhoff et al., 1999; Webb, 2006). Recent research addresses the overrepresentation of
international students’ involvement in plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct
(Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Click, 2012; Shi, 2011). While moral and ethical development
have been identified through the literature as a contributing factor to explain cheating behavior
(Kolb, Longest, & Singer, 2015; McCabe et al., 2001; Stephens & Nicholson, 2008), other
factors may also need to be explored to understand why international students are
disproportionately involved. Conveying the importance of academic integrity, gaining an
understanding of various prohibited behaviors that are collectively termed cheating, and
identifying factors that increase the propensity of students to cheat may help limit future
occurrences of academic misconduct.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 23

Consequences of Academic Misconduct
The imposed sanctions of academic dishonesty vary among institutions, but included are
the possibility of suspension and expulsion. These outcomes impact both the student’s ability to
continue studying at the institution, and also to remain in the country. International students who
are issued student visas are permitted to reside in the country while enrolled as a full-time
student at a college or university. Suspensions and expulsions separate the student from the
university requiring that students either transfer to another institution or risk deportation from the
U.S. within 15 calendar days. The issuance of another visa at the completion of the suspended
term must be granted by their home country and is not guaranteed. It is therefore possible that a
sanction intended to temporarily separate a student from the university may effectively dismiss
the international student from the American higher education system entirely.
The responsibility of ensuring that students are aware of academic expectations falls on
various university stakeholders. Institutions of higher education rely on faculty to provide clear
expectations via their course syllabus and encourage, if not require, that all alleged incidents of
academic misconduct be reported for review. Conduct administrators are charged with reviewing
reported incidents and issuing educational sanctions that reinforce institutional values and
prevent future violations. Students, regardless of culture or national heritage, rely on faculty and
administration to provide guidance regarding university expectations. Violations of policy, even
when unintentional, may result in consequences that prevent international students from
successfully completing their degree. Referrals, and the corresponding disciplinary process, are
intended to be educational rather than punitive and reinforce the implications that unethical
decisions may have on a student’s future career. However, sanctions imposed on international
students have significantly more impact than when compared to their domestic peers.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 24

Career Implications
Institutions of higher education are committed to providing students with an academic
experience that prepares them for their future. A study by Lawson (2004) recognized the
prevalence of academic misconduct occurring on college campuses and sought to answer if a
relationship between attitudes of unethical behavior in an academic setting carried over into
student’s professional careers. A sample of 237 students from three business schools in New
York participated in the study which asked them to respond to behaviors associated with
cheating. The students were asked if they engaged in a series of behaviors associated with
academic misconduct and if learning that others cheated would upset them. The data collected
was compared to gender, grade point average, class standing, and self-disclosed history of
academic dishonesty. The study’s findings concluded that students who previously engaged in
academic misconduct were more likely to participate in unethical behavior in their career when
compared to those in the study who did not self-report (Datig & Russell, 2015; Hu & Lei, 2012;
Shi, 2011; Stephens & Nicholson, 2008). The same students were also less inclined to report
being upset upon learning that others cheated. Though Lawson’s study focused on students
attending business schools, the same argument can be applied to medical students, law students,
and engineers.
Unclear or perceived minimal consequences also alluded to the normalization of cheating
an unethical behavior by the students involved in the study. Student participants in the study
stated that a risk versus reward analysis was conducted. The desire for good grades and the
appearance that minimal consequences would be imposed if caught were cited as reasons
individuals engaged in behavior that they defined as unethical (Lawson, 2004; Simkin &
McLeod, 2010). Lawson’s study (2004) emphasized the importance of addressing academic
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 25

misconduct early and consistently to develop a strong moral and ethical commitment in both
students and professionals.
Plagiarism Outside of Academia
In a college setting, plagiarism is most often attributed to students who suffer from
procrastination and ignorance to the rules of academic writing. However, plagiarism also impacts
professionals in fields including journalism, music, and politics to name a few.
In 2012, Fareed Zakaria, a journalist for Time magazine and CNN, was placed on
suspension after acknowledging that he included one paragraph of another author’s material
related to an article he published on gun control without attribution. The journalist was later
reinstated, though the respect he once commanded as a journalist may be forever tarnished
(Hussin & Ismail, 2013).
In March 2015, artists Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were determined by a jury to
have plagiarized their hit song “Blurred Lines” from Marvin Gaye. The artists were ordered to
pay $7.4 million to the estate of Marvin Gaye. Since the ruling, other notable artists including
Led Zeppelin have been reported for allegedly violating copyright laws (“Artists back Blurred
Lines plagiarism ruling appeal,” 2016).
In July 2016, Melania Trump delivered a speech on the first day of the Republican
National Convention that resembled a speech delivered by Michelle Obama in 2008. Despite the
similarities in content and style, as well as verbatim passages, the alleged plagiarism was initially
explained as “sheer coincidence” by the Trump campaign (Kellner, 2016, p. 47). The news did
not relent and a statement confirming the unintentional inclusion of plagiarized material was
provided to the media on the third day of the convention.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 26

Each of the aforementioned examples would almost certainly be considered an academic
violation of university policies. Plagiarism is not defined by the quantity of material that is used
without attribution, such as in the case of Fareed Zakaria. Nor is plagiarism limited to the written
word as illustrated by artists Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. Finally, plagiarism does not
require malicious intent on behalf of the perpetrator, such as the case of Melania Trump who
explained that any similarities between the speech she and Michelle Obama delivered was “sheer
coincidence” (Kellner, 2016, p. 47). Providing students, staff, and faculty with clearly defined
policies is an essential tool to reinforce institutional and academic expectations. Providing
students, staff, and faculty with clearly defined policies is an essential tool to reinforce
institutional and academic expectations.
Defining Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct, academic dishonesty, and cheating are terms that are used
interchangeably, but reference a variety of behaviors resulting in students receiving an unfair
academic advantage over others during an academic exercise (Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Kibler,
1993). Much of the existing literature focuses on plagiarism and exam misconduct, but other
forms of misconduct also require attention. Bisping, Patron, and Roskelley (2008) conducted a
study that reviewed 31 types of misconduct that can be categorized as exam misconduct,
cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, collaboration, and facilitating academic misconduct. The study
found that there is a negative correlation between a student’s understanding of permitted
behavior and their participation in academic misconduct (Bisping et al., 2008).
The various student behaviors that can be identified as academic misconduct can lead to
confusion and unintentional consequences. A review of the literature suggests that a clear,
generally accepted definition of academic misconduct does not exist, but rather students often
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 27

receive varied messages from faculty regarding what is and is not acceptable (Higbee & Thomas,
2000). Institutional policies do not account for all prohibited behaviors; rather, faculty are tasked
with determining if an incident should be reviewed as a violation of academic misconduct. The
list of behaviors provided by Bisping, Patron, and Roskelley (2008) provide a template to define
misconduct, though this list addresses only the most common violations:
Exam Misconduct
Copying from others, the use, or attempted use of prohibited resources such as cheat
sheets and technology, and failing to adhere to instructions provided during an exam are
examples of exam misconduct. Additionally, altering a graded exam prior to requesting a re-
grade for additional credit is included in the behaviors associated with exam misconduct.
Cheating
The submission of an assignment that was completed, either in part or in its entirety, by
someone else or attempting to deceive the instructor by submitting an assignment that did not
meet the requirements of the assignment.
Plagiarism
Submitting an assignment that was purchased or otherwise incorporates the words, ideas,
designs, or data without acknowledging the original source. Additionally, submitting an
assignment that was previously submitted for credit in another course, either in part or in whole,
is considered plagiarism.
Fabrication
Falsely identifying sources, the invention of information or citations, or the inclusion of
unreferenced sources in the works cited in an academic exercise.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 28

Unauthorized Collaboration
Working in groups when assignments are expected to be completed independently.
Facilitating Academic Misconduct
Assisting a student in gaining an unfair academic advantage or otherwise aiding in
conduct that is in violation of the institution’s academic integrity policy.
Despite being an incomplete list, clearly articulated expectations delivered to students and
faculty are more important than attempting to create an exhaustive list of prohibited behaviors
(McCabe et al., 2001).
Prevalence of Academic Misconduct
Studies show that the prevalence of academic misconduct is a concerning topic for higher
education and that it is not a new phenomenon. Bowers (1964) is credited with conducting the
first multi-campus study designed to determine how often students cheat. Bowers sampled 99
institutions and more than 5,000 college students and found that approximately half of the
student body engaged in at least one form of academic misconduct. Thirty years later, McCabe
and Trevino (1996) surveyed over 6,000 college students at 31 campuses to find that students
self-reported engaging in cheating behaviors more frequently when compared to the Bowers
study. Furthermore, the study also indicated that the behaviors classified as more egregious
behaviors (e.g., copying answers from another student’s exam, facilitating academic misconduct,
and using unauthorized materials to assist with an exam) had increased substantially (McCabe &
Trevino, 1996).
These are not the only studies that address the topic of academic misconduct in higher
education. However, they are among the only that survey students across multiple campuses. The
focus of both studies (Bowers, 1964 and McCabe & Trevino, 1996) address the prevalence of
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 29

academic misconduct by requesting that students self-report if they engaged in one or more
behaviors that are classified by the researchers as academic misconduct. Though it is important
to understand that cheating is not a new phenomenon and that the frequency of cheating is
increasing, neither study addresses the factors that influence the pervasiveness of academic
misconduct in higher education.
Factors Associated with Academic Misconduct
Researchers have attempted to identify contributing factors to academic misconduct to
assist colleges and universities in their attempts to prevent cheating from occurring. The factors
most often studied include a student’s age (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Lin & Wen, 2007;
McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Whitley, 1998), proficiency with the English language (Haitch, 2016;
Hayes & Introna, 2005), major of study (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; McCabe, 1997), and
cultural differences (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Haitch, 2016).
Class rank. Literature suggests that younger students, whether determined by age
(McCabe & Trevino, 1997), class rank (i.e., freshman, sophomore, etc.) (Lin & Wen, 2007), or
by the time spent at the university (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Whitley, 1998) are more likely
to cheat when compared to older students. This is largely attributed to an unrealistic assessment
of the time necessary to complete assignments in college. Additionally, some students lack a
clear understanding of academic expectations and subscribe to the belief that warnings will be
issued prior to any significant sanctions if they were to be caught (McCabe et al., 2001).
Language proficiency. Students who lack the ability to express ideas in their own words
or understand complex text are more inclined to engage in plagiarism and other forms of
academic misconduct (Haitch, 2016). When compared to other forms of cheating, plagiarism is
often referenced in two forms: intentional and unintentional, with language proficiency being a
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 30

major influence in explaining the violation (Divan, Bowman, & Seabourne, 2015; Hayes &
Introna, 2005). For students who are not native speakers, language proficiency increases stress
and anxiety along with a greater propensity for cheating on assignments and exams (Bertram
Gallant et al., 2015; Hayes & Introna, 2005). Students who are more proficient in English do not
have as much difficulty understanding and expressing ideas in their own words. Less proficient
students may rely on the words and sentence structure of the original author which may be
identified as plagiarism.
Field of study. Students expressed an increased likelihood of cheating when enrolled in
courses that have a demanding workload and have a heightened perceived competitive nature
(Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; McCabe, 1997). Additionally, students who major in fields that
relate directly to career choices (e.g., business and engineering) were more inclined to cheat,
possibly due to the competitiveness of the program or a more collegial approach that encourages
group work (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Carpenter, Harding, Finelli, Montgomery, & Passow,
2006).
Culture. Identifying differences in pedagogy related to cultural norms is essential to
understanding the growing problem of cheating. International students have been classified as an
at-risk population, in part due to the significant cultural differences that they encounter (Bertram
Gallant et al., 2015). Differing cultural attitudes and definitions of plagiarism and other
misconduct, for example, hinder their ability to successfully navigate the expectations of faculty
and institutional policies in the U.S. (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Diekhoff et al., 1999; Hayes &
Introna, 2005).
For example, students from collectivist cultures value assisting peers even at the risk of
violating the university’s stated policies (McCabe, Feghali, & Abdallah, 2008). Thus, faculty
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 31

who require students to complete assignments independently may be reporting these students for
violations of academic integrity more frequently. Additionally, students who are unfamiliar with
the rules of academic writing including the need to incorporate citations are more at-risk for
inadvertently cheating. Finally, research has also shown that cultures which adopt educational
standards similar to the U.S., but do not impose sanctions for violating the expectations, adds to
student difficulty in transitioning to the American higher education system.
Reducing Academic Misconduct
Existing literature has provided some suggestions for institutions of higher education to
assist their students in making decisions in line with the values and integrity of the institution.
The examples apply to all students, but may benefit students unfamiliar with the institutional
expectations, such as international students, at a greater level.
Institutional culture. Students are more likely to cheat if they perceive a lack of intrinsic
value in an assignment (Murdock, Hale, & Weber, 2001). Creating a culture that encourages
faculty to unambiguously explain the expectations, goals, and practical applications of exams
and assignments will increase the motivation for students to complete the work for the
educational value as opposed to merely for a good grade (Amsberry, 2009; Dick et al., 2002).
Clearly defining cheating. Ensuring that students and faculty understand both what is
expected and what constitutes cheating is also important (Carpenter et al., 2006). Several
researchers found that students did not understand the stated policies related to academic
dishonesty (Bisping et al., 2008; Dick et al., 2002). Though some behaviors are consistently
associated with cheating, such as looking at another’s exam, others are regularly misunderstood
to be acceptable such as submitting one paper to satisfy the requirements of multiple courses. In
addition to providing students with a list of prohibited behaviors, Amsberry (2009) concluded
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 32

that faculty should also provide examples of previously submitted assignments to illustrate what
a successful submission includes.
Consistent enforcement of policy. The perceived seriousness of cheating and the lack of
complacency among faculty to report incidents of misconduct are also described as necessary
elements to reduce cheating (Bowers, 1964; Dick et al., 2002; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). A
study consisting of 262 students enrolled in an introductory economics course attempted to
understand why students cheat (Bisping et al., 2008). The study’s findings indicated that students
must first know what constitutes cheating, but also must be convinced that they would likely get
caught and face serious consequences (Bisping et al., 2008).
Similar to their domestic peers, international students share a desire to excel academically
in an effort to compete for selective graduate programs and career opportunities. Unlike their
domestic peers however, international students report a fear of failure that may be negatively
attributed to their country and family reputation (Hayes & Introna, 2005). Though academic
dishonesty may be a moral dilemma (Datig & Russell, 2015; Malinowski & Smith, 1985;
Murdock et al., 2001; Stephens & Nicholson, 2008), other factors such as cultural disparities,
language proficiency, clearly defined university policies and expectations, and a general feeling
of isolation provide international students with additional challenges that may compromise their
ability to achieve academic success in the U.S. This paper will address each of these elements in
greater detail.
The Role of Cultural Transition
Cultural identity is influential to a students’ understanding and ability to navigate
institutional expectations regarding academic integrity (Amsberry, 2009; Song-Turner, 2008;
Wong, 2004). International students express differing viewpoints regarding the role of formal
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 33

education which, in part, is likely due to their cultural background. For instance, collectivist
cultures (e.g., Asia, Central America, and South America) value loyalty to peers over the rules
imposed by academic institutions (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015) and knowledge is considered to be
free and not belonging, or requiring attribution, to the originator of an idea (Robinson, 1992). This
contrasts with most institutional policies in the United States which require students to submit their
own, original work and to include appropriate attribution when referencing another’s words or
ideas to protect the intellectual property of the original author. Institutions set expectations
regarding academic dishonesty, but fail to identify the cultural differences that may oppose the
enacted policies. The institutions therefore require students to assimilate to a more individualistic
mindset that is more commonplace in the United States.
A study conducted by Song-Turner (2008) surveyed 68 postgraduate students at a
university in Australia to determine if international students were aware and knowledgeable of
“Western-defined plagiarism” (p. 41). In addition to a three-part survey, students were invited to
participate in a group discussion after the surveys were collected to help the researchers gain a
deeper understanding of the collected responses. Though responses from students varied, many
expressed that professors assumed students were aware of the expected format and citation
requirements for submitted assignments. Some international students who participated in Song-
Turner’s (2008) study expressed frustration with the variety of writing styles and expectations.
This resulted in some students from the study admitting to copying sections of text from other
students and online sources to ensure that the desired format was achieved, but maintained some
ignorance when presented that their conduct could be identified as plagiarism.
In addition to navigating the academic policies and expectations, international students are
often faced with other cultural hurdles that result in feelings of alienation and isolation. Wong
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 34

(2004) surveyed 78 undergraduate Asian students and inquired about the classroom learning
experiences from their home countries. Many of the students surveyed expressed differences in
teaching and learning styles including shorter lecture periods and a faster paced style of teaching in
the U.S. This resulted in international students expressing difficulty in understanding material and
sharing that discussions were rushed. The study also shared that education in the U.S. required an
increased level of interaction and analysis on the part of the student, as opposed to a more passive
environment that some international students were accustomed to. The students in Wong’s study
(2004) also shared that memorization was a valued tool in their home country, but the application
of knowledge was preferred at the American institution in the study. The reluctance to ask for
assistance from professors, teaching assistants, or classmates (other than other international
students) is perhaps a by-product of the isolation described by international students and another
contributing factor to cheating (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Wong, 2004).
International students from collectivist cultures tend to use another’s exact words as a sign
of respect and, while students may understand the concept of plagiarism, different ideas of what
constitutes plagiarism exist. Datig and Russell (2015) further postulate that the repeating of
someone else’s words serves as a way to preserve information passed from one generation to
another in the form of stories, poems, and songs. The inclination to use another’s words extends to
exams where international students attempt to memorize course materials, lecture notes, and
supplemental texts. The ability to reply to exam questions with exact responses is the desired
outcome for many cultures and the variance in cultural expectations and exam preparedness may
help account for the propensity of reporting international students for cheating by professors
(Hayes & Introna, 2005). Studies have found that international students relied solely on the
textbook issued and the faculty member as the source of information reinforcing a belief that
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 35

only the faculty could have an opinion regarding the subject matter and it was the student’s
responsibility to recall the relevant material for exams and papers (Hayes & Introna, 2005;
Pennycook, 1996). These constructs differ significantly from the expectation that students
studying in the United States form their own opinions and cite sources used to strengthen their
argument (Hayes & Introna, 2005; Shi, 2011).
Bertram Gallant’s research team (2015) conducted a study at a large public, selective
research university with an undergraduate enrollment of approximately 23,000 students to seek a
greater understanding of the disparity between the percentage of students who self-reported as
engaging in cheating behaviors (29%) and those reported for cheating by others (2%). More than
2,400 students who were reported for cheating between 2008 and 2013 were evaluated to
determine risk factors associated with cheating behavior. The results of the study indicated that
international students were more than twice as likely to be reported for cheating when compared to
their domestic peers. While only comprising 8.3% of the student population, 15.1% of the reported
cheating incidents involved international students (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015). While there is a
dearth of research focusing on specific predictors related to cheating among international students,
Bertram Gallant et al., (2015) noted that students who are not accustomed to an institution’s
academic expectations have an increased vulnerability to being reported for cheating.
Bloch (2007) argued that students who are learning the language or the culture should not
be subjected to the same expectations as domestic students. He further argued that students who do
not embrace the fundamental principles that are implied by the Western ideals of plagiarism; that it
is akin to stealing one’s intellectual property (Bloch, 2007). International students expressed a need
to compete for grades among students who are more familiar with the cultural expectations and
more proficient with the English language. A study comprised of 537 online undergraduate
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 36

students sought to understand why international students cheat. The study’s findings demonstrated
that grades and competition were main factors to be considered (Heckler & Forde, 2015).
International students are expected to produce the same level of high-quality work in a language
that has not been mastered (Currie, 1998). The resulting pressure may lead students to engage in,
and even rationalize cheating as a necessity.
The literature indicates that current practices to prevent instances of cheating fail to address
one’s culture as a potential cause (indicator) for the violation. A student’s cultural background
provides the foundation of their educational background and understanding of institutional
expectations. It is imperative that institutions of higher education identify, acknowledge, and
support students of various cultural backgrounds while sharing the institutional expectations
related to academic integrity (Hayes & Introna, 2005; Song-Turner, 2008). A lack of support
may result in students feeling alienated and lead to an increase in cheating behaviors as opposed
to seeking assistance from faculty, TAs, and peers (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015), while gaining
an understanding of the various reasons why international students cheat will help institutions
provide interventions to reduce the occurrence of incidents.
The existing literature demonstrates that cheating behaviors are occurring on college
campuses more frequently now than three decades prior (Bowers, 1964; McCabe & Trevino,
1996, 1997). While the methods of cheating have changed significantly with new technology, the
motives for cheating have primarily stayed the same. Students may be unaware of the specific
behaviors that violate campus policies (Higbee & Thomas, 2000), students may not perceive the
violation to be serious or the course assignment to be valuable (Murdock et al., 2001), and
students may determine that getting caught is unlikely and that it would not result in serious
consequences (Bisping et al., 2008). Though cheating is not likely to be eradicated, the literature
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 37

provides ample suggestions to help understand why students cheat and how to mitigate the
incidents of unintentional violations of academic misconduct.
Acculturation and Academic Misconduct
Choices are often a reflection of one’s core values and beliefs. Acculturation, as defined
by Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) includes “those phenomena which result when
groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with
subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups” (p. 149). In other
words, acculturation is the process in which individuals learn and adapt to a new set of cultural
norms and can have a significant impact on how decisions are made. Acculturation has
implications for how international students at American universities adjust, learn, and make
decisions about academic work. Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki (1989) presented a
model to suggest how individuals acculturate to the dominant society comprised of four
components: assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Figure 2 displays how the
components of the model can be applied to international students transitioning to the higher
education system within the United States.
Assimilation
Assimilation is the surrendering of one’s cultural identity to adopt and integrate into the
dominant society. This can be accomplished by the merger of several identities that form a new
cultural background, as in the case of the ‘melting pot theory’ or by the adoption of a non-
dominant group by the existing society. Assimilation occurs when individuals do not value their
cultural identity to the extent that they value relationships with the dominant societal group.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 38

Figure 2. Academic acculturation model (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki, 1989).

Integration
Maintaining cultural traditions while making strides to adopt customs of the dominant
culture is a sign of integration. Individuals who successfully integrate into a social system
identify the worth of both cultures and look toward becoming an influential part of society.
Similarly, successful integration also requires the acceptance of the dominant culture to
recognize the value that sharing identities has.
Marginalization
Individuals who do not maintain either their traditional cultural values or the values of the
dominant group are marginalized. If imposed by the dominant society this is tantamount to
ethnocide, the purposeful removal of cultural values and traditions. Marginalized groups express
Previous Academic Expectations*
Strong
Identity
Integration Assimilation
Separation Marginalization
Strong Identity Weak Identity
Weak
Identity
U.S. Academic Expectations Academic Acculturation Model
*Implies previous academic expectations differs from U.S.
academic expectations
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 39

feelings of alienation and loss of identity often resulting in marginalized groups “striking out
against the larger society” (Berry et al., 1989, p. 188).
Separation
Marginalized groups that attempt to maintain their cultural heritage and traditions while
refusing to adopt the norms of a dominant society are viewed as separatists. Additionally,
dominant groups may segregate marginalized groups in an effort to maintain order and keep
marginalized groups “in their place” (Berry et al., 1989, p. 188). Groups that are separated or
segregated may be classified as ‘other,’ operating outside of the larger society and differ only by
which group (dominant or marginalized) influences the outcome. Regardless of whether the
group separates themselves from society or is forced into a chasm of ‘otherness,’ the members of
the group may feel as though they are visiting as opposed to belonging.
Several points can be drawn from understanding the role of acculturation in international
student’s academic transition to the United Stated. First, by choosing to study in a culture that is
different than their own, international students succumb to various pressures to adapt to the
dominant culture, both in cultural and behavioral instances (Berry et al., 1989). Related to
academic misconduct, international students are expected to abide by policies and procedures
that may be strikingly different than those with which they are accustomed to. As students from
various countries and cultural backgrounds increasingly choose to study in the United States,
cultural conflicts will also continue to occur. International students face immense pressure to
both retain their cultural identity and fit in with the dominant group of students in an effort to
belong with both their home and their home campus. An example can be found in the desire of
international students to do well academically. This is not dissimilar from most students
attending university, however international students (especially Asian international students) are
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 40

stereotyped as being more likely to engage in academic dishonesty by peers (Martin, Rao, &
Sloan, 2011; Sowden, 2005).
Martin, Rao, and Sloan (2011) studied 158 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled
in business courses to determine if plagiarism could be predicted based on ethnicity or cultural
heritage, if Asian students plagiarized more often than other students, and how acculturation (if
at all) impacts a student’s decision to submit plagiarized material. Their findings indicated that
neither the existing stereotype suggesting that Asian students plagiarize more often than other
cultural identities or the suggestion that plagiarism could be predicted by ethnic or cultural
background were substantiated. Further, the study demonstrated that a negative relationship
existed between instances of plagiarism and the length of time that an individual resides in the
country, while a positive relationship between those who strongly identified with their culture
occurred. McCabe and Trevino (1997) also found that older students were less likely to engage
in cheating behaviors.
Though the study conducted by Martin, Rao, and Sloan (2011) focused on international
students from Asian countries, it is reasonable to infer that all international students encounter
situations due to acculturation. Therefore, the willingness of an individual to adapt to the cultural
expectations, coupled with the time necessary to integrate may effectively reduce the likelihood
of international students choosing to plagiarize or otherwise engage in academic misconduct.
The commitment to adapt to the expectations of the University must be met with a readiness to
understand what the expectations are.
Student Conduct Administrators
Universities rely on student affairs professionals, specifically student conduct
administrators, to create and uphold policies which reinforce the values and expectations of the
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 41

institution. This helps ensure that students receive a premier education that fairly evaluates the
knowledge obtained by its students and promote a safe, welcoming environment. The
organizational structure as well as the name of the conduct office may vary based on the size,
mission, and values of the institution to best serve its students and faculty. According to the
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, 2015), student conduct
administrators are responsible for ensuring that a university’s policies and practices are
“substantively clear, procedurally sound, and fundamentally fair” while maintaining a
community-focused and learning-centered approach. Student conduct administrators respond to
reports alleging misconduct which, in the case of academic misconduct, are often submitted by
faculty. Typically, the behavior is either observed, such as during exams, or discovered upon
evaluation of an assignment such as in the case of detecting plagiarism on a submitted paper.
Student conduct administrators are charged by the institution to be the expert regarding
institutional policies, due process procedures, and the cultural influences that impact students’
decisions and understanding of the conduct code (Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education, 2015).
The student conduct profession was developed based on the need to establish and enforce
institutional polices. Prior to the landmark ruling of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education,
institutions were given a great deal of latitude regarding both the implementation of policies and
how they assigned outcomes (Gelber, 2014). The case of Dixon v. Alabama developed after
Black students were issued sanctions that imposed a separation from Alabama State College
(now Alabama State University) for participating in civil rights demonstrations. The students
involved were not provided information regarding the alleged violations until after sanctions had
been issued. The initial court decision supported the ability for the institution to issue sanctions
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 42

in accordance with its own policies. However upon appeal, the appellate court ruled that public
institutions must provide due process consisting minimally of notice and an opportunity for a
hearing before students could be expelled or suspended (Lee, 2014). The influential ruling from
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education is credited for ending in loco parentis and sparking
an increased legalistic approach to the student conduct system (Lee, 2014). Public universities
and their student conduct administrators must afford students the opportunity to be informed of
and present evidence contrary to any allegations of misconduct.
At its inception, faculty were responsible for determining if a violation of academic
integrity occurred, reviewing the allegation with the students involved, and determining
appropriate outcomes for the alleged violation (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008). Now, most student
conduct administrators are specialized and have obtained at least a master’s degree with related
professional experience. The first professional organization that centered on the professional
development and institutional needs related to student conduct was established in 1989 (“About
ASCA,” n.d.). The organization, originally named the Association for Student Judicial Affairs
(ASJA), changed its name in 2008 to the Association for Student Conduct Administrators
(ASCA) to reflect the intentional separation between the legal judicial system and the
administrative processes that occur in higher education. Though commonalties between the two
systems exist, educational administrative processes express the desire to be educational rather
than punitive in nature. Though this research focuses on violations of academic misconduct, it is
important to state that student conduct administrators are often responsible for adjudicating
incidents that are in violation of both university policy and state or federal laws. Further, though
most institutions do not require conduct administrators to possess a law degree, a fundamental
understanding of the legal obligations is recommended. ASCA provides conduct administrators
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 43

training in a collegial setting to better understand the legal climate and requirements, how to
conduct effective investigations and impart applicable sanctions, and ensure compliance with
federal and state mandates.
Faculty Role in Supporting Academic Integrity
Faculty have an integral role in supporting the mission of a university and reinforcing
policies that prohibit academic dishonesty. Universities set expectations and encourage faculty to
report all alleged incidents of academic misconduct. Studies suggest that underreporting of
incidents occurs and may be attributed in part to differing institutional policies that do not
require faculty to report incidents of alleged academic dishonesty (Beasley, 2016; Gynnild &
Gotschalk, 2008; Happel & Jennings, 2008; Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel, & Pope, 1991).
Additionally, underreporting by faculty may be due unclear definitions of what constitutes
academic misconduct (Beasley, 2016), concerns about the consequences that students will
encounter due to an allegation (Beasley, 2016), uncertainty if the violation occurred (Gynnild &
Gotschalk, 2008), and the perceived severity of the actions imposed on the student (Singhal,
1982).
Gynnild and Gotschalk (2008) conducted a study at a four-year, doctoral granting
university to understand the nature and prevalence of academic misconduct. The study compared
data received from a campus-wide survey administered in 2008 with reported incidents from
2001 to 2006. Though incidents of academic misconduct were determined to be a numerous,
40% of the faculty who responded to the assessment stated that they did not report suspected
cheating due to a lack of evidence. The same assessment survey concluded that approximately
40% of faculty stated that plagiarism occurred “often” or “very often” while only 16% of
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 44

students similarly identified the frequency of the occurrence (Gynnild & Gotschalk, 2008, p. 50).
The discrepancy reported by the two groups may be due to differing definitions of plagiarism.
Students rely on faculty to impart knowledge, but that is not restricted to information
pertaining to enrolled courses. Consistently addressing academic misconduct reinforces the
institutional values and ensures that students are aware of potential consequences. Faculty are
recommended to include a section on academic dishonesty in each course syllabus, and writing
courses should also include information that clearly defines plagiarism. Students should also be
informed that faculty will report all alleged violations of academic dishonesty along with the
sanctions that may be imposed by the university. Reporting incidents of academic misconduct do
not only reinforce university policies, but studies have shown that academic misconduct in
college may engage in similar behaviors in their career (Lawson, 2004). Fortunately, software
applications are available to assist faculty with identifying incidents of academic misconduct and
respond to student submissions quicker and with less objectivity.
Technology assistance. Correctly identifying plagiarism without the assistance of
computer applications can be a difficult and lengthy process. The pervasiveness of the Internet
may have increased the frequency of plagiarized submissions by students, but technology has
also produced applications to assist faculty with the task of detecting plagiarism. The
underreporting of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct may be impacted by a lack
of evidence (Gynnild & Gotschalk, 2008), however software designed to identify plagiarism
highlights text that matches sources available online, in print, and otherwise available in its
database (Zimerman, 2012). An originality report that calculates the percentage of borrowed text
is displayed and the faculty member is provided a tool that helps validate their assertion that
plagiarism may have occurred.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 45

Patchwriting or plagiarism. International students and novices to academic writing are
likely to rely on a technique referred to as patchwriting (Introna & Hayes, 2007), a term defined
by Howard (1992) as “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering
grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym substitutes” (p. 233). Despite the
given name, plagiarism detection software does not detect plagiarism, but rather it indicates a
percentage of text that is shared or copied between the submitted paper and other documents in
its database. Faculty relying on the analysis provided by the software application are more likely
to report non-native speakers who do not possess the skill to reframe the original author’s
message in manner that goes undetected by the software’s algorithm (Introna & Hayes, 2007).
Faculty as expert. The role of the faculty member cannot be overstated when evaluating
the originality of a submitted assignment. Bretag and Mahmud (2009) warned of the overreliance
of plagiarism detection software and indicate that the software operates on an algorithm that is
limited to the verbatim use of text. Submissions therefore can ‘beat’ the system by changing the
order in which words are structured in a sentence or the frequent use of synonyms (Introna &
Hayes, 2007). No software application is perfect and ultimately the responsibility of identifying
plagiarism is maintained by the faculty member. The use of software to assist with the
identification of plagiarism and the included similarity report that can be used as evidence may
increase the likelihood of faculty formally responding to incidents of alleged misconduct,
however the reliance of the software to determine plagiarism may result in over-reporting of
international students and underreporting of others.
Conclusion
Students and faculty often have conflicting opinions and definitions of what constitutes
academic dishonesty, especially regarding plagiarism. Multiple studies have shown that some
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 46

scenarios designated as cheating by faculty are not provided the same designation by students
(Gynnild & Gotschalk, 2008; Lawson, 2004). International students appear to be impacted to a
larger extent as demonstrated by their disproportional involvement in reported incidents of
academic misconduct. In addition to language barriers, international students also must adapt to
cultural norms and academic expectations that differ from their own traditions. It can be inferred
that students who are unaware that their actions are in violation of the expectations of their
faculty are more likely to be reported for a violation of academic misconduct. Additionally,
software applications intended to assist faculty in addressing plagiarism may lead to over-
reporting of plagiarism among international students. Gaining a better understanding of the
student population, providing resources that are culturally sensitive, and ensuring that all
students are provided an equitable opportunity to succeed are necessary for institutions of higher
education to compete in an increasingly diverse and competitive educational environment.
The next chapter will describe the methodology of the study. This includes the data
collection method, site selection, sampling method, data collection and analysis, as well as
limitations and delimitations of the study.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 47

Chapter Three: Methodology
Research suggests that a prevalence of academic dishonesty among college students
exists despite initiatives such as honor codes and student codes of conduct that reinforce
institutional values of integrity (McCabe et al., 2002). Various studies have attempted to explain
why students engage in academic dishonesty or fail to report peers who cheat, plagiarize, or
otherwise engage in academic cheating (Diekhoff et al., 1999; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009; Zhao,
Kuh, & Carini, 2005).
International students have been identified in the literature as an at-risk population,
indicating that they are more likely to engage in, or at least be reported for, incidents of academic
dishonesty (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Wong, 2004). The purpose of this study was to better
understand why international students are disproportionately involved in incidents of academic
integrity, specifically plagiarism. Gaining an understanding of influential factors that contribute
to cheating among international students will aid in the creation of effective interventions to
reduce cheating and reinforce institutional values of academic integrity.
The research questions guiding this study were:
1. Are international students disproportionately reported for academic misconduct, and
if so, why?
2. How does language proficiency impact international student involvement in academic
misconduct?
3. How, if at all, does the length of time students attend an institution influence their
involvement in academic misconduct?

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 48

Methodological Approach
Though it is possible to gain some understanding of the effectiveness or methods used to
address academic misconduct through surveys and other quantitative measures, a qualitative
study can provide greater explanation for how individuals respond to interview questions. The
words used to provide an answer are evaluated in a qualitative study just as numbers are
evaluated in a quantitative study (Merriam, 2009). When evaluating the intention of the study, it
is believed that a qualitative approach would provide a greater depth of information to evaluate
and provide suggested methods for future implementation.
As the research questions suggest, the purpose of the study was to understand how the
experiences of international students influence their decision to engage in academic misconduct.
The student’s feelings, beliefs, cultural background, and general understanding of institutional
policies were important for the study and could not be merely observed. The depth of
information provided using these techniques would not have been achieved through surveys;
therefore, purposeful interviews were implemented by the researcher (Merriam, 2009).
Interviews provided an opportunity for participants to offer detailed descriptions of their
thoughts, feelings, and experiences beyond what would be possible using alternative methods
(Merriam, 2009).
Maxwell (2013) noted that interviews are a powerful way to learn about instances that
cannot be observed, such as things that have already occurred. This study asked students, staff,
and faculty to reflect on their experiences which could not be observed, but could be validated by
exploring the shared experiences of the population at Westerhaven University.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 49

Site Selection
The setting for this study was a large, private, highly selective university in California. A
pseudonym was provided for the university and the participants to provide anonymity. The
institution selected for this study, referred to as Westerhaven University, boasts an undergraduate
international student population that comprises nearly 13% of the undergraduate student
population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Westerhaven’s mission includes the
charge to transform students into innovative professionals who will contribute responsibly to the
global community. Central to the mission for faculty and staff is the education of students
through a broad array of academic, professional, extracurricular, and athletic programs. Further,
according to the institution’s website, Westerhaven is a global leader attracting more
international students than any other American university (University website, 2018). The core
values of the institution include ethics, which are defined as setting the highest standards of
academic and professional behavior to encourage social responsibility. The large international
student population coupled with the institution’s stated mission and values contributed to why
this institution was selected as the site for this study.
Population and Sample
International students attending Westerhaven University were offered the opportunity to
complete a survey which asked students to reflect on their experience and understanding of
academic honesty. The instrument provided the researcher with a broad interpretation of how
international students at Westerhaven University interpreted academic policies along with their
perception of the pervasiveness of academic misconduct at the university. Students who
completed the assessment and met the criteria of the researcher were provided the opportunity to
participate in an individual interview with the researcher for further exploration. Invitations for
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 50

interviews were restricted to currently enrolled international students that did not transfer to
Westerhaven. The researcher invited international students of different genders and countries of
origin to participate in the study. Additionally, because existing literature suggests that students
at the beginning and end of their academic career are most likely to cheat, (Bertram Gallant et
al., 2015; McCabe et al., 2001), the researcher sought to engage with students early in their
academic career as well as those nearing the completion of their degree.
Interviews with staff and faculty were also conducted in an effort to understand why
academic misconduct among international students is prevalent from different perspectives.
Specifically, interviews with staff and faculty explored the perceptions they had with regard to
international student’s involvement in academic misconduct and why they believed that
international students were reported more frequently.
Purposive Sampling
Westerhaven’s Office of International Student Services sent email invitations on behalf
of the researcher to all undergraduate international students. The email included a description of
the study and a link to the survey tool. Participants that completed the survey, met the criteria,
and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were asked to provide their contact information to
the researcher. The researcher then emailed the students to request that they schedule an
appointment to participate in individual interviews. Interviews were conducted between 6pm and
10pm on weekdays and between 9am and 4pm on weekends and generally lasted between 45
minutes to one hour. The researcher requested that the participants identify locations for the
interview to occur. The locations varied, but all were in close proximity to the Westerhaven
campus.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 51

The researcher made deliberate attempts to obtain an equal distribution of gender among
the participants. Additionally, diversity among areas of study, country of origin, and year of
study were considered by the researcher. Student participation in the study was incentivized with
a $10 gift card to Amazon.com or Starbucks.
Administrators from the Office of Student Conduct and International Student Services
were also invited to participate in the study. Staff members were invited to complete a survey
which concluded with questions to obtain their interest in participating in an individual
interview. The researcher requested staff participation to provide a different perspective
regarding the experience of international students. A breadth of experience among participants
provided the researcher with a longitudinal perspective of the university culture. While some
participants were relatively new to the university, others had been continuously employed at
Westerhaven for more than ten years.
Additionally, the researcher specifically requested the participation of conduct officers.
Conduct officers were asked to provide information about conversations they had with
international students who were reported for academic misconduct. Topics of discussion
included:
1. How (and if) conversations with international students differed from those with
domestic students regarding alleged academic misconduct.
2. Why (and if) international students were perceived to be reported for academic
misconduct more frequently than domestic students at their institution.
3. What programs or interventions were provided to international students to inform
them of university policies and expectations related to academic integrity?
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 52

4. What consequences or sanctions were issued to students involved in violations of
academic misconduct?
5. Were international students issued the same outcomes as domestic students? Why or
why not?
Faculty members at Westerhaven were also invited to participate in the study. The
researcher identified three approaches to requesting the participation of faculty members. First,
the researcher requested the assistance of faculty residing in residence halls. Westerhaven
University has a Faculty-in-Residence program, and with the assistance of the Office of
Residential Life, faculty members received an email inviting them to participate in the study.
Secondly, the Office of Student Conduct provided the researcher with the email addresses of 50
faculty who reported an incident of academic misconduct to their office within a year. The
researcher emailed the faculty directly and requested that they complete the survey associated
with the study. Finally, emails sent to faculty requested that they forward the study’s invitation to
other colleagues who may be interested in participating. Faculty members were asked to provide
their perspective on the prevalence of academic misconduct, specifically focusing on
international students, and if they believed it to be a growing problem. Further, faculty were
asked about intentional interventions implemented to prevent cheating and what, if any,
additional suggestions they would recommend.
Privacy
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was passed in 1974 and
provided students and their family with certain rights related to educational records. These were
initially limited to the right to view, challenge the contents of, and allow for disclosure of
educational records that were previously considered confidential (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008).
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 53

FERPA has been amended several times since 1974 and currently prohibits the release of student
educational records which include, among others, student disciplinary records.
To prevent unintentional violations of student’s privacy, the researcher will begin faculty
and staff interviews with a reminder to maintain the confidentiality of their students. Faculty and
staff will be encouraged to share narratives related to their interactions with international
students, but will be asked to omit any personal identifiable information and use only
pseudonyms if referring to students by name.
Instrumentation
Integrity Survey
This study utilized a modified version of the McCabe Academic Integrity Survey
(McCabe, 2003). The survey included questions related to student’s awareness of university
policies and their participation (whether intentional or not) in various forms of academic
misconduct. The survey instrument was sent to all undergraduate international students attending
Westerhaven University to capture the perspectives of the campus community and identity
participants that met the criteria of the researcher. Data from the survey provided the researcher a
better understanding of participants’ knowledge related to institutional policy and the perceived
prevalence of academic misconduct. International students, faculty members, and staff
administrators from Westerhaven University were invited to complete a survey and those that
met the criteria of the researcher were provided the opportunity to further participate in a follow-
up interview with the researcher.
Interviews
Interviews with international students, university administrators, and faculty members
were conducted to explore how members of a highly selective college community addressed the
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 54

topic of academic misconduct. Interviews occurred in locations suggested by the participants.
Student participants often selected public and semi-private settings such as coffee shops and
library meeting rooms. In contrast, most faculty and staff participants offered their office as the
meeting location, but some interviews were conducted in public settings and via phone.
Though the interviews were largely guided by predetermined questions that were asked
of each participant, a semi-structured approach was used to allow for follow-up, probing, and
clarifying questions. The flexibility provided in a semi-structured interview protocol allows for
the researcher and participant to engage in a conversation that is not set by rigid rules and
parameters (Merriam, 2009). This method afforded the researcher the opportunity to ensure that
the context of the information being shared was understood.
Data Collection
Data was collected in multiple phases. First, students and faculty were invited to
complete a survey to provide information about the academic environment and prevalence of
cheating behaviors at Westerhaven University. The assessment was utilized to provide
descriptive statistics about how the topic of academic misconduct was interpreted and perceived
at Westerhaven. The assessment was also used to identify international students that met the
criteria and invited participants to schedule a follow-up interview with the researcher. After an
initial analysis of the survey responses, the interview protocol was reviewed and additional
questions added for further insight. Questions included in the interview protocol were evaluated
to ensure that they are helped answer the research questions guiding the study.
Survey Instrument
International students attending the university were invited to participate in a modified
version of the McCabe Academic Integrity Survey (M-AIS). The researcher requested that the
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 55

Office of International Student Services email international students an invitation to participate
in the study. The modified instrument asked international students to respond to questions
pertaining to their involvement in described behaviors (e.g., receiving unpermitted help on an
assignment), the frequency that they participated in the listed behaviors, and their perception of
the seriousness of the behavior. The instrument utilized a Likert scale and yes/no responses
allowing for straightforward analysis. A few open ended questions that provided participants the
opportunity to expand upon their answers were also included. The final set of questions included
in the instrument invited participants to indicate their willingness to schedule a follow-up
interview with the researcher.
Interviews
Interviews with students, staff, and faculty were conducted to learn about the
experiences, and perceived experiences, of international students from various viewpoints. The
researcher interviewed 18 students, nine who identified as male and nine who identified as
female. The researcher attempted to interview students at various points of their academic career.
Seven participants were identified as first year students, seven participants were identified as
second year students, and the remaining four participants were graduating seniors. Additionally,
the researcher sought to interview students from diverse countries of origin and foci of study.
Student participants represented 10 different countries of origin and a diverse set of majors.
Fewer staff and faculty members agreed to participate in follow-up interviews. The nine
interviews consisted of seven females and two males and ranged from three to 12 years of
experience at Westerhaven.
The interviews were scheduled for one hour to allow for a comprehensive discussion. A
semi-structured interviewing strategy was implemented to ensure that questions were posed
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 56

which helped answer the research questions, but also allowed for follow-up and clarifying
questions that were not previously considered, but necessary for depth and understanding.
All interviews were audio recorded (with the permission of the participants) and
transcribed by a third-party service. All participants were also provided the opportunity to
provide a pseudonym to protect their identity. The participant was referred to as their pseudonym
throughout the interviews. Audio recordings were stored on a password protected hard drive and
participants were informed that the recording would be destroyed upon completion of this
research study. Participants were also informed that the transcriptions would be retained by the
researcher and could be used for future studies. Any notes recorded related to the interviews
were stored in a locked file cabinet that was only accessible to the researcher.
Data Analysis
Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously and influenced one another. The
researcher identified themes that emerged during interviews and after reviewing the
corresponding transcripts, memos, and field notes (Merriam, 2009). This process of collection
and analysis helped ensure that the researcher limited the study to the questions relevant to
answering the guiding research questions. It further aided with the organization of the data and
identifying key themes that emerged. Reviewing the data prior to concluding interviews with
participants also provided the researcher with the opportunity to ask about topics of interest that
were presented by other participants (Merriam, 2009).
The information obtained from the interviews was analyzed using the constant
comparative method described by Corbin and Strauss (2008). Constant comparisons provided the
opportunity for the researcher to compare data sets in an effort to find similarities and differences
which resulted in themes that effectively provided a narrative of the findings (Corbin & Strauss,
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 57

2008). In addition to determining codes that signified key themes, the constant comparative
method resulted in the researcher identifying additional interview questions to better address the
research questions that guided the study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This method was beneficial to
help locate terms and themes that were shared among the participants and sort the descriptive
data that otherwise may have been overlooked (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, topics that the
researcher wished to explore further were identified prior to interviewing participants which
assisted with collecting, sorting, and analyzing the data. Interviews with students, staff, and
faculty were the primary method of triangulating and validating the data received.
Organizing Data
The interviews of each participant were audio recorded and submitted to a third-party
transcription service. Upon receipt of the transcription the researcher reviewed the audio
recording and read through the provided transcription to ensure accuracy of the transcription and
locate emerging themes. Notes were added to the transcriptions to depict aspects of the interview
that could not be obtained by the transcription such as the general impression of the participant
and areas that required further exploration in upcoming interviews (Creswell, 2014).
Upon reviewing and verifying the accuracy of the transcription, the researcher began the
coding process to determine the substantive areas that were described by the participant. Codes
are general themes that can be either predetermined based on a review of the literature, or
unanticipated which emerge through a review of the data (Creswell, 2014). The researcher
implemented a combination of emerging and predetermined codes throughout the interview and
document analysis process.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 58

Theoretical Framework
The theory of Acculturation was used to identify themes discovered through the data
analysis and related to the research questions. Acculturation is the process in which individuals
learn and adapt to a new set of cultural norms and can have a significant impact on how
decisions are made. Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki (1989) presented a model to suggest
how individuals acculturate to the dominant society comprised of four components: assimilation,
separation, integration, and marginalization. The researcher inquired about the experiences of
international students, their understanding of the University expectations, and if the expectations
were in conflict with the expectations from their country of origin. International students were
also asked to describe their journey and the obstacles they faced, if any, after deciding to study in
the United States.
Validity
Validity in qualitative research is sometimes viewed as a controversial topic. A
qualitative study is valid and reliable if it provides an accurate account of the participants
(Creswell, 2014). The researcher for this study conducted interviews with students, faculty, and
staff. The findings are representative of the truth described by the participants. The truth
provided by the interviews may not be a universal truth, but the researcher employed various
validity measures to ensure that the information captured is an accurate representation of the
participant’s narrative (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009). As suggested by Merriam (2009), the
researcher employed the practice of validating participants responses through member checking
to ensure that responses were accurately interpreted by the researcher.
Participants in this study included international students, faculty members who were
responsible for reporting incidents of academic dishonesty, and staff who have supported
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 59

international students through the conduct process. The different perspectives offered by the
sampled populations provided greater depth and understanding for the researcher to answer the
proposed research questions.
Member checking occurred both during interviews and upon reading transcriptions to
ensure that information provided by participants was interpreted accurately. The researcher
attempted to summarize information provided during interviews to ensure that content and
context were understood. This provided the participant the opportunity to either affirm the
perspective of the researcher or to correct it at the time of the interview. Additionally, it was
occasionally necessary to return to the participant for follow-up questions while reviewing the
themes derived from the analysis of interviews. The process of member checking helped to
improve the accuracy and validity of the information provided by the participants (Creswell,
2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009)
Role of Researcher
A qualitative researcher is aware of, and openly identifies biases that may impact the
research (Merriam, 2009). This researcher has more than ten years of experience in the field of
student conduct; therefore, they also have many opinions about why students engage in academic
misconduct. Although the researcher is not familiar with the international student population at
Westerhaven, the researcher has collaborated with International Student Services at other
institutions to help orient international students and explain the academic expectations. In some
cases, though not all, the expectations of the university are radically different from the student’s
experience prior to enrollment. These situations typically result in lengthy conversations and
situational examples to help illustrate acceptable and prohibited behaviors.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 60

The researcher intentionally selected Westerhaven as the site to conduct this study. First,
it was important to the researcher that they not conduct the study where they are also employed.
This was chosen to reduce concerns participants may have about sharing sensitive information
that would otherwise be protected by FERPA. Additionally, this allowed the researcher to be an
observer as participant (Merriam, 2009). All participants were informed of the nature of the
study with the understanding that the participants would be able to self-censor their responses. In
an effort to minimize researcher bias, several students, staff, and faculty were invited to
participate in the study. The sample population assisted the researcher in accurately depicting
themes and helped ensure that the information obtained was expressed by many and not just the
opinion of a few who may wish to either taint the results or elevate the efforts by students, staff,
or faculty at the site institution.
The primary data that was collected for this study was in the form of interviews.
Interview questions were open ended and utilized a semi-structured methodology to capture a
detailed narrative of each participant’s story. The audio recording of the interviews allowed the
researcher to engage fully in the conversation without the concern of missing key elements. The
semi-structured interview protocol further provided the researcher the opportunity to ask
additional probing, follow-up, and clarifying questions when necessary. Additionally, a survey
instrument that was designed by Dr. Donald McCabe (2003) was modified and implemented to
gain information about general perceptions at the university from a larger sample than could be
captured via interviews alone.
Conclusion
This chapter provided an outline of the approach the researcher utilized to conduct the
study. Faculty, staff, and international students at Westerhaven were invited to complete a survey
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 61

to provide the researcher with a better understanding of the perceptions of academic misconduct
at the university. Students who met the criteria of the study were afforded the opportunity to be
included in a follow-up interview facilitated by the researcher. Interviews with staff, and faculty
from the institution were also conducted to explore if and how their perceptions differed from
those of the student participants. In the next chapter, the data that emerged from the survey
responses and interviews with students, staff, and faculty at Westerhaven University will be
presented.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 62

Chapter Four: Analysis of Data
This study explored various factors that influence international student’s involvement in
academic misconduct and explore why they are disproportionately reported for violating
academic policies. This chapter provides data from interviews, which averaged 45 minutes in
length, with 18 students and nine faculty members that are affiliated with the university.
Additionally, the survey responses of 140 students and 46 staff or faculty participants were
assessed to help answer the research questions that guided the study:
1. Are international students disproportionately reported for academic misconduct, and
if so, why?
2. How does language proficiency impact international student involvement in academic
misconduct?
3. How, if at all, does the length of time students attend an institution influence their
involvement in academic misconduct?
Summary of Participants
An email invitation to participate in this study was sent by the Office of International
Services on behalf of the researcher to all undergraduate international students attending the
university. Though no limitations were established to restrict participants from completing the
survey, only students who identified as an undergraduate international student and who did not
transfer to the university were provided an opportunity to schedule an interview. One hundred
forty students completed the survey and 56 indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up
interview. Of those that met the requirements of the study, only nine declined to be contacted for
an interview.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 63

The researcher emailed invitations to the 56 students who agreed to be interviewed and
scheduled 22 interviews. Four interviews were cancelled due to scheduling conflicts or concerns
with being audio recorded. The 18 students who were interviewed provided the researcher with
pseudonyms to protect their identity. The students interviewed represented 10 countries, had an
even distribution of nine females and nine males, and varied in class standing.
Table 1 provides a profile of the students interviewed.

Table 1
Student Interview Participants
Name Gender Country of Origin Class

Adam

Male

Canada

Sophomore
Alex Male India Sophomore
Alexis Female France Senior
Anna Female Brazil Sophomore
Blake Male Brazil Sophomore
Eileen Female Italy Frosh
Fan Male China Frosh
Hannah Female India Senior
Helen Female Russia Frosh
Henry Male Taiwan Sophomore
Jackie Female Korea Senior
Julie Female China Frosh
Kristina Female China Sophomore
Leo Male France Senior
Mike Male Vietnam Frosh
Priyank Male India Frosh
Rachel Female China Frosh
Yidi Male India Sophomore

The researcher contacted faculty and staff at the university to request that they complete an
online survey. At the conclusion of the survey, staff and faculty were asked for their continued
support to participate in an individual interview.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 64

Staff members from the Office of Student Conduct were invited to complete the survey
and the researcher requested access to faculty who submitted reports of academic integrity. The
Office of Student Conduct provided the researcher with emails of 50 faculty members who had
reported incidents of academic misconduct which resulted in a purposive, convenient sample. An
email was sent by the researcher to the email addresses provided with a link to the survey and a
request that they both complete the survey and forward the invitation to their colleagues. Another
invitation was sent on behalf of the researcher by the Office of Residential Education to faculty
in residence. Westerhaven has 23 faculty in residence positions with members ranging in
disciplines of expertise. Faculty in residence live with students in residential colleges, including
one international residential college. Faculty in residence elect to regularly interact with students,
both in and out of the classroom. The researcher requested the participation of faculty in
residence to gain a better understanding of the perceived experiences that faculty attribute to
international students by those who interact with student both in and out of the classroom.
Using the various methods described, 46 faculty and staff at the university completed the
survey and nine agreed to participate in a follow-up interview. The nine interviews that followed
were comprised of two full-time staff members (Remy and Lisa), three faculty members who
also had administrative duties (Jack, Jared, and Olivia), and four full time faculty (Alexia, Jane,
Katherine, and Tracy).
Findings
The first research question that guided the study was to explore if and why international
students are disproportionately reported for academic misconduct.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 65

At the time that the researcher was conducting the study, Westerhaven had implemented
a new task force to address the disproportional number of international students involved in
academic misconduct. The researcher was invited to engage with campus partners, including the
Table 2

Faculty and Staff Interview Participants
Name Gender Role at University Years at University
Alexia Female Lecturer 3
Jack Male Associate Professor 8
Jane Female Lecturer 3
Jared Male Associate Professor 11
Katherine Female Assistant Professor 4
Lisa Female Student Conduct 12
Olivia Female Associate Dean 4
Remy Female Student Conduct 3
Tracy Female Assistant Professor 5

Vice President of Student Affairs, faculty from various academic departments, and the directors
of the Office of Student Conduct and the International Student Services. The charge issued to the
task force was similar to the first research question guiding this study. The task force was
implemented to reduce academic misconduct at Westerhaven and specifically, to prevent the
higher disproportional representation of international students involved in reported incidents of
cheating. The researcher did not anticipate the opportunity to contribute with campus partners in
this fashion, and therefore, it was not included in the proposal for the study. Nevertheless, the
information obtained during the meeting benefitted the study and provided an additional
narrative that was used as a comparison to some responses obtained during interviews.
The consensus from those in attendance was that international students were not only
disproportionately reported for academic misconduct in relation to their enrollment, but actually
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 66

comprised a true majority of the reported incidents of academic dishonesty. International
students attending Westerhaven comprise approximately 13% of the undergraduate population.
Therefore, if international students were involved in more than 13% of the reported academic
violations, they would be reported disproportionately higher in relation to their enrollment. The
staff and faculty who attended this meeting asserted that international students were involved in
more than 50% of the reported incidents. Some members of the meeting shared that they
believed the involvement of international students may be closer to 75% of reported cases.
The participant’s responses, both from the surveys collected and the interviews conducted
with the university community, provided a different perspective. First, an analysis of the survey
and the interview responses failed to provide consensus on this topic among faculty or students.
Figure 3 describes the findings from the survey responses. Though a small majority of students,
faculty, and staff responding to the survey indicated that international students are reported more
frequently for academic misconduct, fewer affirmed that international students engage in
cheating more often than domestic students. Figure 4 shows that 29% of student participants and
44% of faculty and staff responses agreed with the statement that international students cheat
more often than domestic students. Additionally, the explanations for why the discrepancy
between international and domestic students varied.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 67

Figure 3. Results from academic integrity survey. Perception of international students reported
for academic misconduct more frequently than domestic students.

Figure 4. Results from academic integrity survey. Perception of international student
involvement in academic misconduct in comparison to domestic students.

Four themes emerged from an analysis of the responses from the participants:
understanding policies and expectations, pressure to achieve academic success, emphasis of
academic integrity, and faculty involvement.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 68

Understanding Policies and Expectations
Participants were asked to share their perception of how well international students
attending Westerhaven understood the policies regarding academic misconduct. Students and
faculty who participated in interviews expressed concern, and in some cases, embarrassment,
regarding their limited ability to articulate the university’s policies related to academic
misconduct. The survey responses, as depicted in Figure 5, chronicled a difference in opinion
between international students and the university’s faculty and staff. Seventeen percent of the
survey responses from students resulted in international students reporting a low or very low
understanding of the academic policies, compared to 47% of the staff and faculty who were
asked the same question.

Figure 5. Results from academic integrity survey. International students’ perceived
understanding of academic misconduct.

Though all interviewed participants indicated that they were aware policies were enacted
and enforced to various degrees, when asked to define academic misconduct, many struggled.
Anna is a second-year international student from Brazil who completed her high school
education in New Jersey. She said that international students are more likely to be reported for
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 69

academic misconduct because they are not as aware of the policies related to cheating and
plagiarism:
…if I came directly from Brazil here, likely I could have even gotten into any problems,
but as I came to high school I found out there that's really bad here. So, I don't know if
everyone is aware of that and I wasn't told a lot about that here at [the university].
Anna expressed frustration that students, especially international students, are not
adequately informed of the university policies. She stated, “some teachers just put it in their
syllabus. They don’t talk about it. They don’t provide examples. It is not sufficient.” Faculty at
the university also stated that the education they received about the academic misconduct
policies was deficient.
Educating faculty about academic misconduct is the responsibility of each academic
department. Some faculty participants offered praise for the orientation they were provided while
others indicated that it was lacking, if it existed at all. Alexia, a faculty member in the writing
program who also an international student when she studied in the United States, said that she
was satisfied with the orientation provided by her department:
They’re pretty good about orienting the new teachers even if you're coming in as a new
faculty member. I had to do a two-week orientation before the semester started and I'm
pretty sure we had an entire day just reviewing university regulations and academic
misconduct. It was very helpful.
Alternatively, when the researcher asked Jack how he was informed of the academic policies and
expectations he answered,
I wouldn't say I was informed. The way you're asking the question makes me think that
proactive communication occurred where, the university said, ‘OK, now that you're
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 70

working here, here's an orientation. We're going to spend some time on the policies on
this and so on.’ I think that was probably sort of lost in the fray.
Katherine, a tenure-track Assistant Professor who has been at the university for four years,
shared this about her orientation to the university: “…well, if I'm honest, when I came here, there
was really no, um, there was no teaching or there was no instruction or training when it came to
academic integrity.” In fact, several faculty conveyed that they learned about academic
misconduct by reviewing syllabi that had previously been used for the courses that they were
teaching. Olivia, who serves as both a faculty member and an administrator at the university,
expressed her concerns with faculty relying on previous course syllabi and explained how that
practice may contribute to unintentional cheating among international students. According to
Olivia, syllabi are required to contain information regarding academic integrity, and that the
language used to explain academic integrity is often passed down from one faculty member to
the next. “It’s really just boiler plate information that says uphold academic integrity. Don’t
plagiarize. Good luck to you. It doesn’t give any examples.” When asked if international students
were involved in academic misconduct more frequently than domestic students, she answered:
I think they are involved more. And I think that's a direct result of a lack of understanding
of what the umbrella of academic misconduct is and the consequences involved if you are
caught for academic misconduct. The students come here their first semester and they get
the technical boiler plate, no examples, no other discussion around it. What do we expect
but for them to fall back on things that they know? Right? So, there's a disconnect.
A need to understand university policies and expectations was expressed throughout the
interviews with faculty and students.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 71

Table 3

Do International Students Have a Different Understanding of Campus Policies Concerning
Student Cheating?

Student Response

Number of Responses (n)

Percentage of Responses (%)
Yes 53 46
No 63 54
Faculty/Staff Response
Yes 20 49
No 21 51

An emphasis was placed on newly admitted students, perhaps because of an assumption
that students later in their academic careers would have a deeper understanding of the stated
expectations However, Jackie, a graduating senior shared the following when asked to provide
her definition of academic misconduct:
That’s really hard, but I think like two things that I think of is plagiarism on a paper and
then cheating on a test. But that's so many grey, you know. I think plagiarism could be,
you paraphrase a sentence, but you did it so similarly that it's considered plagiarism. Or
you know, when you're cheating. It could be like, oh you check your phone by accident
and like you see the answer or like you see like, like a website that you pulled out before
then see the answer that you're supposed to memorize for the test.
Jackie was not alone in her struggle to provide an articulate definition for academic
misconduct, but she was able to identify the major components of the policy. She, along with the
other student participants, simplified academic misconduct to either plagiarism on a written
assignment or cheating on an exam. Although the university policy extends beyond these
constructs, both students and faculty addressed these areas as the most important to be explained
and understood. Further, Jackie and other students interviewed stressed the importance of intent
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 72

as if to say that unintentional cheating should not be categorized as such by the university. The
university’s Student Conduct Code does not include intent in its definition, but rather
summarizes academic dishonesty as “any act that gains or is intended to gain an unfair academic
advantage” (University website, 2018).
International students stated that they received limited education about how to
successfully avoid being reported for academic misconduct. Similarly, some faculty expressed a
reliance on past syllabi to learn about the expectations related to student’s academic integrity and
their role in reporting alleged violations. In addition to one’s education about policies,
participants also stressed that the competitiveness associated with attending a highly selective
university and the expectations to excel that are placed on the students also attributed to a culture
of cheating.
University Culture
The students, staff, and faculty interviewed for this study agreed that the competitive
environment at the university largely contributed to the perception that students engaged in
cheating behaviors. The participants stated that though the pressure to succeed was not limited to
international students, the pressure was heightened for international students. Tracy, a faculty
member in the School of Occupational Therapy, discussed the pressure that many of her
international students experience to remain enrolled at the university:
A lot of my [international] students are admitted on a probationary basis if they don't
meet a certain eligibility criteria to get admitted to the program. So, with that probation, I
think there is a pressure to make sure they get all A's or you know, lowest A-, or they're
literally going to be dismissed from the program. That pressure alone I think could be
almost unbearable.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 73

Mike, a first-year student from Vietnam, also shared how the pressure to succeed
academically, and specifically the pressure placed on students from family, could result in
students cheating:
A lot of international students, especially in East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and
those areas, their parents put a lot of pressure on them to have great academics standing
cause, like that's all that matters really. You need to have the grades or not doesn't matter.
And because of that, students feel more pressured to cheat because if they don't, they
might not get the grades their parents want. I feel like with that reasoning, yeah, it would
make sense that it's actually international students that have a higher propensity to cheat.
Jane, a lecturer in the Writing Program communicated a different philosophy. She
quickly and emphatically said that there was no difference between international and domestic
student engagement in academic misconduct. She elaborated by stating,
I think all students are the same no matter whether they're domestic or international.
Westerhaven is a pressure cooker. It's very grade driven. Um, there's always going to be
somebody who's a transfer student … somebody who's not doing well and getting bad
grades and they panic.
Blake, a second-year student from Brazil, also held the opinion that there was no
difference between international and domestic students and their propensity to cheat. Blake
stated that high expectations to succeed is a contributing factor to engaging in cheating, but in his
opinion, the pressure for domestic students is equal to that of international students:
I think there are international students who are here on a scholarship or have their parents
working very hard or something like that to keep them here because we, we obviously
pay a lot of money, especially with many of our countries not doing so well financially. I
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 74

can see international students being cornered, or not cornered, but feeling like they have
to cheat because they need a high grade because they have that expectation from their
parents or maybe even themselves though I feel like that's also matched by students in the
U.S. as well. So, I would say they're probably just as likely to cheat.
Lastly, Julie, a first-year student from China, reluctantly shared that international students
may be reported more often for academic misconduct:
I don't want to admit this, but I think this is kind of a stereotype that happens to a lot of
people. They think international students, especially Asian students, they studied better
than domestic students …. So, I don't know if they are reported more often because of
jealousy. Like if they studied better it is because we used illegal or unauthorized help and
that we get a better score.
Julie continued by explaining that international students face different pressures when
compared to domestic students:
Most of the international students who come here, their families have a huge expectation
on them and if they don't behave perform well in school, they will feel guilty to the
parents. So, if they’re not performing well, they will try to use cheating to boost their
grade.
The pressure to perform at selective universities is not limited to international students;
however they encounter stressors that are dissimilar from their domestic peers. In addition to the
high academic expectations that are self-afflicted by the student and pressures from family,
international students are viewed as representatives of their country, a position that is not
imposed on domestic students.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 75

Emphasis of Academic Integrity
Several participants indicated that international students may be influenced to refrain
from or participate in academic dishonesty by the messages they received regarding academic
misconduct. Priyank, a first-year student from India shared this perspective, “With international
students … that sort of cheating culture is prevalent in a lot of Indian cities. When kids come
here, it's hard to just ask them to get rid of something that they've grown up with.” Priyank stated
that his high school in India implemented written policies regarding academic misconduct that
were similar to the university. However, the enforcement was quite different:
There's this sort of culture of cheating and culture of, they call it Jugaad in India, the
literal translation is finesse. In India for, for example, that’s where I'm from, there's a lot
of wink, wink, nudge, nudge. You scratch my back, I scratch yours sort of mentality.
Priyank explained that although a written policy condemning cheating was instituted in
his home country, a contrary message was received by students due to the limited enforcement of
the written expectations. This sentiment was echoed by a survey participant who stated, “in my
country, Brazil, penalties for cheating are not taken as seriously by students as they are here in
the United States, so I have a feeling that academic misconduct then feels more serious here.”
Additionally, survey participants were provided an opportunity to reflect on how international
students may have a different understanding of university policies regarding cheating. One
student stated,
I think that there is quite a big discrepancy in general understanding of policies. I'm from
India, where the severity of plagiarism is definitely not as harsh as here. This makes
Indian students more lax about cheating. They think they can get away with it or they
think that it is not that big of a deal.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 76

Fan, a first-year student from China, also expressed how the severity from a previous
institution can impact a student’s actions in the future. “Chinese students perceive cheating and
plagiarism as relatively minor. It’s a cultural level, and it still does not satisfy the American
rules. So maybe they think, you know, plagiarism and cheating are not a big deal.”
Jackie provided a contrary response as she reflected on the four years she attended
Westerhaven. She stated that academic misconduct was emphasized by the faculty and the
university in general. She also said that academic misconduct does not occur frequently at the
university, although when it is discussed, international students are more frequently referenced as
those engaging in dishonest acts:
I heard people [talk about] international students copying and pasting answers and you
know, even professors would give examples of these sets of Chinese or Indian students
will do this. And I was like why does that matter? So, I think I've definitely heard stories
of more international students cheating than domestic students. But I haven't heard many
cases in general about academic misconduct.
Rachel, a first-year student from China, also shared that she heard more instances of
international students cheating, “when I was touring schools or just like talking to my high
school, like the teacher, they did say that they encountered more international students who
broke these kinds of rules more than domestic students.” Rachel continued and provided her
opinion to explain the discrepancy:
I know there were some like domestic students who did cheat and like they never got
caught and I feel like it's a lot of the times when you break rules. It's not because other
people aren't doing it, it's because they just never got caught. So, I feel like maybe
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 77

international students, they weren't as familiar with the environment and so they couldn't
get away with it as easily.
Alex, a first-year student from India, had a different perspective. He stated domestic and
international students were not perceived differently at the university. He further explained,
It's just that academic integrity is really strong here. At [Westerhaven] in general. It's the
same for every person and no one is viewed differently. That's what I think. I just
sometimes think that at least back home, like academic integrity wasn't as big a thing as it
is here. It's just a lot more here and it's emphasized more. It's put on the syllabus.
Alexia, a lecturer in the Writing Program also stated that international students are held to
the same academic standards as domestic students. She said that the messages international
students receive to prepare them for education serve as a warning and imposes fear that may
contribute to increased cheating behavior:
I think international students are also often told in their home country, ‘well when you go
in America you have to make sure that, you know, there are these sort of standards and
make sure that you don’t break them’ and then they come here and then they’re like
constantly worried that they’re not up to par basically.
When alleged cheating is discussed with international students, Alexia shared that a typical
response is “oh no, I did the thing I’m not supposed to do and that I was really trying to avoid.”
International students attending the university reported being warned about the
expectations of academic integrity in the U.S. Many students expressed that the expectations
differed from their previous institutions and that sufficient examples of academic misconduct,
especially with regard to plagiarism, were not provided.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 78

Faculty Involvement
Lastly, faculty are encouraged to submit reports of alleged academic misconduct to the
Office of Student Conduct. Lisa has 12 years of experience in the student conduct office at
Westerhaven and said that despite the university’s insistence that faculty report all incidents of
academic misconduct, it is widely known that many incidents are adjudicated informally by
faculty rather than initiating the formal conduct process. Lisa further explained that
underreporting is generally due to the perception by faculty “that it's a lot of work” and “it takes
a lot of time.” Though the informal process is more efficient, Lisa stated that faculty are
encouraged to report all incidents to their office “to ensure that students are treated fairly and
provided a consistent definition of what is considered cheating at the university.”
Olivia acknowledged that as a faculty member she should report more instances of
cheating and that formal reports submitted to the university were rare.
I might talk to the student. I always get the director of the program’s insight and then we
kind of copper a plan together. The few times where I’ve had to report officially, it was
egregious, and it was persistent. So, these were just my very personalized parameters for
how to report, for why to report, but in other cases where I think maybe a different
professor would have reported it, I maybe did a little bit of different homework and tried
to be somewhat more empathetic.
Katherine has been teaching in the Engineering program for four years and also stated
that cheating is often under reported. “I’ve had many cases of plagiarism in my class and I
haven’t gone through the formal process of reporting it.” Though grade reductions and other
outcomes are imposed, Katherine shared a reluctance to initiate the formal process in part,
because submitting reports of cheating is difficult. “From the faculty standpoint, I think that it’s
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 79

sometimes just laziness and it’s hard to deal with. It’s not fun to fail a student. It’s easier just to
look the other way and pass them through.”
Though incidents of academic misconduct are generally under reported, Lisa stated that
international students may appear to be over represented because some schools at the university
are more inclined to formally report incidents. Lisa explained,
schools that tend to have a higher percentage of international students in their student
population report incidents more often. [Engineering] would be one school that I am
thinking of. So, I haven't run the numbers, but I don't know whether it's just our
perception that international students are doing more of it because the schools with the
higher numbers [of international students] are sending us cases.
Lisa expressed that international students were reported for academic misconduct at a
higher rate when compared to domestic students, but the frequency of the overrepresentation
could not be assessed. Lisa explained that the software Westerhaven utilized to process incidents
of academic misconduct was not configured to identify international students. Lisa expressed a
reliance on anecdotal evidence and stated that she believed more cases involving international
students were reported to the office. Lisa’s statements supported the findings of Beasley (2016),
who indicated that international students were more likely to be perceived to engage in, and
subsequently be reported for academic misconduct.
A deficient understanding of policies, a competitive culture that encourages perfection,
contradicting messages about the importance and enforcement of academic dishonesty, and a
conduct process that is not consistently employed are among some of the reasons why
international students are disproportionately reported for academic misconduct at the university.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 80

Language Proficiency
The next research question that guided the study aimed to understand how proficiency
with English may impact international student involvement in academic misconduct. Students,
staff, and faculty were asked to reflect on their own experiences to help identify if a relationship
between language proficiency and academic misconduct existed. Some participants questioned if
a relationship between language proficiency and academic misconduct was present, and others
indicated that it was a major contributing factor. Though the responses varied, the following
themes were present throughout the interview and survey responses: academic preparedness,
reporting bias, and the use of language proficiency to excuse behavior.
Academic Preparation
Students, staff, and faculty all explained that academic misconduct can occur in both
intentional and unintentional forms. The latter, many expressed, was often due to a lack of
preparedness, which includes proficiency with English. Alexia thought about her students from
the past three years and summarized her perception of international student’s self-efficacy with
regard to language:
They're often very concerned about the kind of prep that they've received in their home
countries in terms of like, you know, “is my English good enough? Is my writing good
enough?” I think that to me is more of an indicator for potential plagiarism, a limited
ability to express your ideas in English adequately can lead to patchwork plagiarism and
unintentional forms of plagiarism.
Although student participant Alexis completed one term in her political science program,
she also said that international students who are less prepared engage in forms of academic
dishonesty more often:
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 81

When you feel less comfortable and for example you have an essay and you kind of think
of what you want to say, but just cannot put it to words or making it sound like academic
English for essays. I think the attraction of going into the Internet and maybe copy and
pasting a little bit or paraphrasing a little bit too much is greater because you feel like you
don't have the ability to convey your ideas through words.
Kristina, a second-year student from China, expanded on the difficulties international
students face regarding proficiency with English slightly differently. She indicated that less
proficient students are less likely to understand, and therefore embrace, the university’s
expectations regarding academic integrity. She shared that because the policies are written like a
legal document, “a lot of people, especially international students who are not proficient in
English, don't know how to read the policies, or how to interpret it them” and that they “don't
read through all the documents that are signed and the wording of their academic integrity
policies, they're really specific. For people who are less proficient in English, they probably don't
understand what it really means.”
Although language is an essential element of being able to successfully navigate the
academic landscape, faculty participants also added that the expectations of what students
produce can vary dramatically. Katherine, a faculty member, explained that different writing
assignments can be more or less difficult based on a student’s prior education experience.
I think the culture in the United States, this is me speculating, but the culture of the
United States is, you have to be creative, you have to create your own content. And we're
taught from a very early age what plagiarism is and how to cite and that kind of thing.
My class, it's a lot of writing and it's a lot of forming an opinion, and that's a very
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 82

uncomfortable space for a lot of these students to be in because, a lot of them come in
and they have honestly no grasp of the English language.
Katherine further stated that though the university requires international students to
complete and submit their scores for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), in her
experience “there's usually a large separation between the TOEFL score and the actual speaking
and writing competency.”
The university recognizes the importance language and the impact that it can have on
one’s understanding. They have made a conscience effort to provide books and other sources for
students that capture their native language. Olivia explained,
I always think about accessibility, inclusion, and diversity. So, in so far as we have
purchasing power and our collections and resources, we try to make them as diverse as
possible in a whole bunch of different ways, including the places where we're getting the
materials that we're using. We do a lot of buying of books in different languages, like the
same books that they're going to use in the classroom that they should be reading in
English to sort of have that mirror in a language that they may be more comfortable with
or literacy that they're stronger in.
Though English proficiency can be a hurdle for international students, Alexia stated that
students who enroll in writing courses at the university often face additional obstacles:
They don't just have to learn or relearn how to speak English well and write in English.
They have to restructure how they think about a topic because the expectations are
different. The way that you present your argument is different. The way you engage with
sources is different and I feel like that to me is always the biggest struggle for them that
they think they just need to focus on the language, but then there's all this other stuff
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 83

attached to language that then they’re not as aware of when they're coming here and then
they're like, oh shit.
Are Reports of Academic Misconduct Biased?
Of the nine faculty and staff who participated in the study, seven (82%) acknowledged a
relationship between students’ English proficiency and being reported for academic misconduct.
Similarly, 11 of the 17 (65%) student participants stated that a relationship between English
proficiency and reported incidents of cheating was present. The students acknowledged that
international students were reported for academic misconduct more frequently, but also stated
that domestic students may be better at avoiding detection as opposed to assuming that they are
not as actively involved in cheating behaviors. For instance, Eileen conveyed that it is easier for
faculty to identify plagiarized submissions by less proficient speakers. She explained,
If you are less proficient with the language, you appear sloppier and if you appear
sloppier and, not even sloppier but like that you know less what you're talking about, then
faculty can have that general impression and then they're more prone to believing that the
student needed external input to get to the answer instead of the person that talks in
English perfectly who seems like he knows what he's doing. So, language proficiency
doesn’t necessarily impact whether someone is more likely to cheat. It may have an
impact on people believing if you cheated or not though.
This was exemplified when Jared, an Associate Professor with the Writing Center who
has been at the university for 11 years was asked to describe the amount of evidence needed to
report an incident of academic. He said,
…you would need to see clear signs of um, just sort of gross sloppiness on the student's
part. Like it's, you know, it's all over the place and the paper or big, big chunks of text. It
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 84

shouldn't be just a small thing or a couple of things. It would need to be a substantial
portion of the essay that show signs of plagiarism to move forward with it.
Lisa provided insight from the perspective of what is reported to the Office of Student
Conduct and said that “plagiarism I think is reported across the board because it's easy to detect.
Faculty members run work through [software like] Turn-it-in or Moss and submit reports that
have significant similarities.” Despite the higher likelihood of being reported for cheating,
several international students indicated greater comfort with submitting written assignments as
opposed to completing in class exams or oral presentations. Julie explained,
I feel more comfortable when I write essays cause I can use dictionaries or with Internet I
can check with the vocabularies that I'm not familiar with and the vocabularies that I
think that can be used to better express my ideas also.
Student participant Julie said that despite being fluent in English, it continues to be “one
of the biggest challenges because although I can speak English fluently, I’m still not as fluent as
my mother language. So, I find it hard to find an accurate way to express my ideas.” Fan also
expressed his preference for written assignments:
When you write a paper you have more time to respond. There's a deadline and you can
always change your writing at any time before the deadline but, when you're talking to
people face to face, I have very limited time to respond to others. So, I think writing a
paper makes me more comfortable.
Fan also acknowledged that his discomfort with speaking in English may lead faculty to
suspect him for cheating. “Most Chinese students, even if their reading level and listening are
perfect, their spoken English is super vague. But if they write well, [faculty] may think that they
got extra help.”
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 85

Rachel added that students who are non-native English speakers have “a harder time
understanding things in class and so they're more likely to maybe look for other ways that can
boost their grades, even in ways aren't exactly allowed.” Henry, a second-year student from
Taiwan, provided additional insight. He stated that because he isn’t “proficient in writing, I
would not be able to do as well.” When asked to elaborate he said,
Let's say I have an idea and my domestic friend has the same idea. He can probably write
it in like two pages, but I can probably only explain it one paragraph and I don't know
how to like really say the same thing but in different kind of matters.
Henry divulged that because he is not as proficient in the language, he would either have
to “submit a paper that fails to fulfill the page requirement or copy text from other sources to
help meet the criteria.” Either way, he said, his grade would be negatively impacted.
Is Language an Excuse?
There was no consensus among the participants regarding if and how language
proficiency impacted international student’s involvement in academic misconduct. Faculty were
more inclined to believe there was a connection. However, Jared, who is both a faculty member
and administrator in the writing program at Westerhaven, emphatically reported the contrary.
When asked to share if a connection between language proficiency and academic misconduct
existed, he promptly answered,
I don't think that it does. Oftentimes academic integrity issues came at the end of the
semester and it's because the students were getting desperate. It’s the end of the semester,
they’re running out of time, and so they’re like, ‘I need to finish this, so here I'll go cut
and paste out of this web source.’
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 86

Leo, a senior from France studying Political Science, agreed with Jared’s opinion. “I
don’t think it plays that big of a role, but then again, I don’t really know anyone that is really,
really struggling with English.” Leo acknowledged that he has friends that have some difficulty
with English, but indicated that their proficiency would not cause them to cheat. Instead, he
stated, cheating is often caused from “the desire to do well. The pressure to do well. And that
you're not always willing to put in the work that's necessary, but you still want the outcome.”
Some students said that language is simply an excuse students use if they are caught
cheating. Mike, for example stated that he thinks there is a connection, but not in the way one
would expect, “I feel like there is perhaps a slight like correlation, but in the opposite way. I
think the more proficient you are, the more likely you are to possibly cheat.” Mike said,
…the way I see it, English language proficiency comes with an understanding of Western
culture in general. Those that are proficient know how to cheat, those that aren’t use
language as an excuse. Ultimately, it comes down to a cultural difference though, not a
proficiency with language.
Priyank’s response to the question was in agreement with both Leo and Mike:
I would say culture does have an impact, but English proficiency, no. Mostly because the
students who come here, English proficiency is pretty high. English is taught in schools
since pretty much the first grade. Their accents are different, but just purely English
proficiency? I would say international students, at least from India, are pretty close to, if
not at par with domestic students.
English proficiency may contribute to answering the question of why students engage in
academic misconduct, either intentionally or otherwise. Though many of the students who
participated in the interviews expressed various levels of comfort with English, some even
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 87

saying that they were as comfortable with English as their native language, faculty often referred
to language proficiency as a major factor. Faculty further expressed that students who have
difficulty with the language tend to engage in plagiarism and patch writing strategies. The
interviews from this study suggested that most international students at Westerhaven expressed
self-doubt regarding their language proficiency and ability to perform at the same level as their
domestic peers.
This research question asked participants to reflect on how language proficiency impacts
a student’s involvement in academic misconduct. Student participants limited their responses to
incidents that were reported to the university, but faculty also included instances in which a
formal report was not issued. Because of this disparity, it is important to denote the factors
faculty consider prior to submitting a formal report. Faculty participants said that the more
egregious the violation, the more likely a report would be submitted. Further, because of the use
of software tools like Turnitin.com and Moss, plagiarism was reported more often than other
alleged violations. Remy, a staff member in student conduct, considered the incidents she has
reviewed:
I would say [faculty members], at least from what I've seen in the reports, seem to have
pretty good instincts. They're not going to report somebody if they're not sure. I think if
in the process of reporting, a faculty member is not truly sure they're not going to submit
the form, so the ones you do go through our reporting process often, sort of meet their
own internal personal threshold of, ‘is this reportable?’
Jared, a professor with 11 years of experience at Westerhaven expanded on the threshold
he uses to determine if incidents are reported to student conduct:
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 88

[I] would need to see a clear sign of just sort of gross sloppiness on the student's part.
Like it's, you know, it's all over the place and the paper or big, big chunks of text. It
shouldn't be just a small thing or a couple of things. It would need to be a substantial
portion of the essay that show signs of plagiarism to move forward with it.
This supports the finding that students who are less proficient in English are more likely
to be reported for academic misconduct, but not necessarily be more inclined to intentionally
engage in cheating behaviors.
Length of Time at University
The final research question of the study aimed to understand how, if at all, the length of
time students attended an institution influenced their involvement in academic misconduct.
Throughout the study, participants offered various factors that correspond to why international
students are reported for cheating. The researcher asked faculty to think about the students that
were more frequently reported for academic misconduct. Tracy, an Assistant Professor at
Westerhaven, responded by saying, “my students who've been accused of cheating in my class
are not the ones who have been in the U.S. very long.” Additionally, there was general
agreement from faculty participants that students earlier in their academic careers were more
likely to engage in cheating behaviors. Jared explained,
I think the longer you're part of this community, the more opportunities you have for
exposure to people talking about [academic misconduct] to perhaps having a friend who
got in trouble for doing this, to maybe having the teacher explain it to you in a different
way. So yeah, I do think that the longer you are here, the more, the more you know about
it.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 89

Transitioning to the University
Kristina, a first-year student from China, spoke about an experience from her first
semester at the university.
When I came to the U.S. everything is new. … I had been warned by some of the
students that I know here, and they told me that academic integrity is a huge thing in the
U.S. So, I already expect that. I learned how to do a quotation in high school and then
when I came to the university, I thought I know what it is, and I thought I know more
than most of the international students. But I didn't know about [academic integrity]. I
would say I don't have really a clear definition because people keep changing my
definition every day.
Kristina explained that she initially believed academic misconduct was limited to the use of
proper citations. She said that she was confused when she learned that collaborating with peers
was also considered a violation of university policies.
Apparently for the coding assignment we cannot work with our peers … However, when
you go to the TA session, which is like a classroom with like maybe 100 students there,
they all work together and the TA helps you. That's OK. But in private, if you just ask a
friend to come over to help you, that is not allowed. I was not aware of it and apparently,
I got into trouble with it.
Kristina stated that when she first arrived at Westerhaven, the policies were confusing. When
asked to expand on the first few months she attended Westerhaven she said,
…transition was hard. You're using a language you are not comfortable using. And if
you're not comfortable using the language it is pretty hard for you to make friends here.
And if you're not making friends here, you feel isolated. Also the education here … it's
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 90

totally different from the education that we have at home. All those things, factor
together, they are not like one plus one equals two because they multiply.
Now in her second semester, Kristina said that her conversations with faculty and other
students helped her gain clarity of the expectations. “I will say that the longer I stay here, the
more interaction I have with society or with domestic people, the deeper of my understanding of
their academic integrity will be.”
Olivia described a similar experience involving a first semester student from India. As a
librarian, Olivia said that she has many students that ask her for assistance with the rules for
writing, but she referred to one student as the “poster child for academic misconduct.” She
explained that the student was referred to the Office of Student Conduct for “one, unintentional
improper citation that happened throughout the whole paper.” The incident resulted in the
student failing the course, which was the recommendation of the faculty member.
This was her first semester, freshman year. First year, first semester, taking any classes in
the United States. She is from India. She did all of her schooling in India. She never come
to the U.S. before. At the end of it all I was like, “so do you know what you did wrong?”
And she was like, “kind of.” She said, “kind of.” This was her first semester. So, I was
thinking like, OK. Then someone sat her down and someone said, “here's your paper.
This is what plagiarism is. This is exactly specifically what you did wrong.” You know
what they didn't do? That!
Continuing Students
A more robust understanding of academic integrity expectations was shared among
students who had completed more than one year at the university. Similarly, students who
studied in the United States prior to enrolling at the university better articulated the university’s
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 91

expectations when compared to newly admitted students. Importantly, as Henry said, simply
obtaining a greater understanding of the policies and expectations does not equate to fewer
instances of cheating.
Henry, a second-year student from Taiwan, disclosed that his understanding of the
university expectations has grown from when her first arrived. He defined academic integrity as
“using work that is not your own, that you didn’t really digest, but you use it as your own. It’s
academic misconduct because you’re using other people’s work.” Henry articulated that although
he is more knowledgeable about the policy, he does not subscribe to it. “I didn’t grow up here.
That’s the difference, where you grew up really shapes a lot of my personality.” Henry said,
I know it's considered wrong in the public view, but I don't think it's wrong. I think
everything we learn is somebody's ideas, so I don't really see the point of trying to cite it.
In Taiwan, they will not be caught. We don't have Turnitin.com or anything like that.
And I think how language is sort of a little bit different if we tried to switch the words
and everything, I don't think it's really possible to get caught. But in English it's still
possible to get caught.
Another second-year student, Adam, spoke about how his understanding of academic
integrity expanded from when he first arrived. “Now it's more like doing something to get a
better grade that doesn't accurately reflect your how well you understand the course material.”
Adam said that when he first arrived at the university, he thought that cheating was limited to
“submitting work that isn’t your own, by going online and stealing ideas.” Now he says that
academic integrity is enforced to “ensure you have learned the material.”
Priyank, a first-year student from India, revealed that his transition to the university was
made easier because of his family. He said that when in India he would copy regularly copy from
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 92

textbooks without asking if it was allowed. He said that when he was 14 years old, his dad was
living in the U.S. “So, I asked him about it. He's like, yeah, that's plagiarism. You can't do that.”
Priyank also has a brother who studies in the U.S. and he reiterated that “submitting copied text
is plagiarism. You can’t do that.” Priyank’s family helped him with his transition, but he said
that without them he “wouldn’t have known that what was encouraged in India was prohibited in
the U.S.” Priyank also said, “…time obviously helps. I would say that students who have been in
this system for longer, maybe sophomores or juniors in, in the case of undergraduates, that would
probably help transition them to a different standard of academic misconduct.”
Preparing for Graduation
Although only four graduating seniors participating in the interviews, their responses
indicated that they had a comfortable understanding of the policies regarding academic integrity.
All of the participants stated that their definitions of cheating changed from when they first
enrolled.
Alexis, who is from France, is a senior studying Political Science. When asked to
consider if her understanding of academic misconduct changed over time, she said “it’s gotten
broader. I thought it would be narrower and clearer as we got older and more mature.” Alexis
said that when she first arrived at the university, she thought cheating was confined to “copying
and pasting, or not citing sources well, or classical cheating of looking over your neighbor's
exam. But now I know it is more, so I guess I was deceived in how cheating is defined at
university.”
Leo, also a graduating senior from France, said that prior to coming to the university, his
teachers would often excuse cheating. “For example, if you're, I don't know, taking a math test in
France and you asked a neighbor for the answer and they whisper it to you. They were like, come
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 93

on, stop it.” Leo said that when he first arrived he didn’t realize how differently academic
misconduct would be enforced. “You would know you're doing something that's wrong, but I
didn’t think that you would be called out for it. In the U.S. it’s more severely punished.”
Jackie, a graduating senior from Korea, provided insight on her experience. Jackie
attended high school in New Jersey and she said that because of her high school experience, she
was more prepared than some of the other international students attending the university.
I feel like I grew up with a more American background. So sometimes it was hard for me
to connect with the Korean students as well. Because I'd gone to high school here I was
able to connect with the domestic students just because we share the same sense of humor
and understand the same cultural references.
Jackie also explained that she was afraid of having to return to Korea. “I wanted to
assimilate as much as I could. So, I would only out hang out with non-Korean students. That's
why I don't have an accent. Because I spoke English even when I couldn't.” She said that her fear
of being deported prevented her from engaging in scenarios that could be considered cheating,
but she also acknowledged only having a broad understanding of what constituted academic
misconduct. Defining it is “really hard, but two things that I think of is plagiarism on a paper and
then cheating on a test.”
Student participants who had either attended the university longer or had attended high
school in the United States expressed a deeper understanding of university policies when
compared to traditional, first year international students. Though it is unclear if a connection
between the length of time a student a student is enrolled at a university and their proclivity to
cheat can be found, a student’s enculturation seems to be a factor. As Henry stated, “I didn’t
grow up here. That’s the difference, where you grew up really shapes [you].” As opposed to
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 94

Jackie, who not only attended the university for three and a half years, but also attended high
school in the United States prior to that. She expressed a desire to assimilate, and because of that,
would not consider risking the opportunity to study and live in the United States. Similarly,
Helen, a first-year student from Russia said, “I want to be an American. I'm going to be
perceived as an American and I have the standard that I have to be more of an American than
everybody else.” Helen studied in England before attending the university. She further indicated
that in Russia, cheating is prevalent, but “I don't believe in academic misconduct anymore. It’s
viewed differently at home and I have had opportunities to redefine it for myself to suit me in my
current environment in comparison to other environments that I’ve been in.”
Conclusion
This chapter provided a summary of the participant’s responses, either via individual
interviews or completed surveys. The narratives addressed the importance of clearly defined
policies, a need for additional cultural awareness and sensitivity, a consistent structure to report
incidents, and an expression of immense pressure that plagues students at Westerhaven.
Generally, the findings presented in this chapter addressed a need for additional support
to assist international students achieve success. Participants agreed that all university constituents
(students, staff, and faculty) should increase their knowledge and understanding of the policies,
expectations, and university consequences for academic dishonesty. Additionally, adding
examples of academic dishonesty that are relevant to the course as opposed to relying on ‘boiler
plate’ language that is included in most syllabi was also recommended. Being aware of a
student’s proficiency, or lack thereof, with English may provide Westerhaven with an
opportunity to reinforce campus resources.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 95

The following chapter will review the findings from this study, discuss implications for
practice, and recommendations for future studies.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 96

Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to understand why international students were
disproportionally reported for incidents of academic dishonesty in relation to their enrollment.
The study specifically focused on exploring the experiences of staff, faculty, and international
students at Westerhaven University to better understand the factors that contributed to the
overrepresentation of international students. Analyzing the narratives of the various participants
and their backgrounds provided insight to the campus culture that could not have otherwise been
understood.
This study is significant because it explores how academic misconduct is defined and
perceived by the various participants. Existing literature on academic misconduct focuses on
policies that reinforce academic honesty and suggestions to reduce prohibited behavior. This
study sought to understand the lived experiences of faculty who report incidents of academic
dishonesty, staff that support students alleged of violating policy, and the international students
attending the university.
The findings revealed that faculty are afforded discretion and that many incidents in
violation of university policy are not reported. Staff participants provided some reasons why
faculty may not report alleged cheating. These included the time and energy necessary to submit
reports, the concern for the student’s academic career and the potential impact a report of
academic misconduct would have on their future, the amount of evidence required to submit a
formal report, and potentially negative course evaluations that may curtail efforts at obtaining
tenure. Most interesting to the researcher was how some faculty acknowledged the benefit of
submitting formal reports, yet relied on the norms established by their academic department.
Faculty described inconsistencies regarding their individual onboarding to the university and
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 97

how their own orientation impacted the likelihood of reporting incident. Some participants
explained that their orientation consisted merely of a campus tour and explanation of benefits,
while others participated in extensive trainings that provided new faculty the opportunity to
discuss important issues such as reinforcing academic integrity. Parallel experiences can be
drawn between the descriptions faculty provided regarding their orientation to the university and
the scenarios international students described when adapting to the academic culture at
Westerhaven. The more knowledgeable faculty were of the expectations and the likelihood that
the expectations would be enforced by their colleagues, the more inclined they would be to
submit incidents to the university.
Staff identified deficiencies related to educating and supporting students in line with the
academic mission and university policies regarding academic honesty. Lisa from the student
conduct office expressed frustration that faculty, despite several requests to the contrary,
continue to refuse to report incidents of academic misconduct and demonstrate a preference to
adjudicate incidents informally. She explained that the practice of informal adjudication was not
fair to the alleged student, their peers, or the university. Lisa stated that students approached by
their faculty are more inclined to acknowledge responsibility, even if the allegation is inaccurate.
Further, the student may not realize what they did wrong or be provided appropriate resources to
prevent similar behavior from reoccurring. Finally, in the event of a serial cheater, informal
adjudication does not allow the university to take appropriate measures to ensure that the
integrity and value of the degree from the university is reinforced.
Finally, international students expressed that their understanding and willingness to
conform to university policies is, in part, based on their previous academic experience and how
connected they are to the institution. Students explained that those with a strong allegiance to the
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 98

university would be concerned about the impending consequences imposed if they engaged in
academic misconduct. In comparison, students who stated that they were less connected to the
university articulated confidence and an ability to “talk their way out of the situation.” Eileen is a
first-year student studying business. She is attending Westerhaven because of the career
opportunities that the degree presents, though she explained being an international student comes
with hardships:
As an international, I'm very, very disadvantaged when it comes to finding jobs and
finding internships because of the Visa problem and the fact that I have to work and like
stay at school at least one year before actually having the opportunity to get an internship.
Eileen explained that she is enjoying studying in the United States, but she expressed a lack of
connection to the university and her peers.
If I'm completely honest, sometimes [American students] are a little bit … below the
surface. They kind of do things because they're taught to do things and taught to believe
things but not because they actually thought through them and developed something of
their own. Like for example, the, the American dream. I hate the American dream …
Why do you strive for the American dream? Because everybody tells you and tells you
to.
Additionally, a relationship between a student’s prior academic experience and their
understanding of academic integrity was depicted via the participant’s responses. Students who
attended International Baccalaureate schools or studied in the United States prior to attending
Westerhaven indicated that the academic transition was not difficult. This was in contrast to
students who were unfamiliar with the policies and expectations related to academic integrity in
the U.S. In addition to navigating a new country and language, those students were also
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 99

inundated with new academic expectations where failure to conform resulted in consequences
that could include deportation.
Finally, of note was the desire international students at Westerhaven expressed to
participate in this study. Of the 65 participants who completed the survey and met the criteria to
participate in interviews, 56 (86%) expressed a willingness to be interviewed. This is compared
to 29 of the 46 (63%) staff and faculty responses who indicated interest in participating in the
study. When asked, students conveyed a range of responses to explain their interest. Common
responses included: “I was interested in the study,” “I think that this impacts international
students,” and other responses expressed that the topic of study was important. Kristina shared,
“someone is finally starting to care about it, starting to care about our school and cheating, and
us … if we can speak and voice our opinions, I feel this group will no longer be marginalized.”
This study aimed to be the voice of students, staff, and faculty at Westerhaven and this
chapter examines the findings from the study related to the conceptual framework of
acculturation, provides practical suggestions for implementation of practice, and
recommendations for future research topics.
Discussion of Findings
Acculturation, which has implications for how individuals adjust, learn, and make
decisions, served as the study’s conceptual framework. The participants of this study explained
how their enculturation to the university impacted their understanding and practice regarding
academic norms at Westerhaven.
Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki (1989) developed a model to describe how
individuals acculturate to the dominant society; this model is comprised of four components:
assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Figure 2 is a visual depiction of their
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 100

model and is applied to answer the research questions guiding this study from the participant’s
perspectives.

Figure 2. Academic acculturation model (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki, 1989).
Assimilation
Assimilation is described as the surrendering of one’s cultural identity to adopt and
integrate into the dominant society. Assimilation occurs when individuals do not value their
cultural identity to the extent that they value relationships with the dominant societal group
(Berry et al., 1989)
Some participants in the study expressed a desire to embrace the academic and societal
norms that are dominant at Westerhaven and adopt them as their own. Helen, a first-year student
originally from Russia, shared that she is determined be perceived as an American. “Obviously
being Russian is part of my identity, but that being my core identity? I want to be an American.”
Previous Academic Expectations*
Strong
Identity
Integration Assimilation
Separation Marginalization
Strong Identity Weak Identity
Weak
Identity
U.S. Academic Expectations Academic Acculturation Model
*Implies previous academic expectations differs from U.S.
academic expectations
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 101

When asked about academic dishonesty she stated, “I don’t believe in academic misconduct
anymore.” In Russia, she explained, academic dishonesty is prevalent and is not deemed as a
serious offense. “I have had so many opportunities to redefine [academic integrity] for myself, I
eventually came to a definition that would suit me in my current environment in comparison to
the environments that I’ve been in before.”
Helen explained that it was necessary for her to understand and incorporate
Westerhaven’s definitions of academic integrity to ensure that she did not suffer unintended
consequences. Similarly, Jackie, a graduating senior at Westerhaven, expressed her fear of being
removed from the institution. Jackie left Korea to attend high school in the U.S. She said that
studying in the U.S. prior to attending Westerhaven eased her transition and strengthened her
commitment to living in U.S.
Jackie said that she never considered cheating while attending Westerhaven and
attributed that decision largely to being an international student. “Even if I was a domestic
[student] I probably would not cheat. But the international student factor definitely plays a huge
role because I really feel passionate about staying here.” She explained that the consequences for
international students can include deportation, and because she was planning to remain in the
U.S. after graduation, the risk was too great.
In addition to the academic expectations, Jackie reflected on her transition to
Westerhaven and her desire to fit in. Although she was aware of the difficulties international
students faced, because she attended high school in the U.S., she said that she could “pass” as an
American, which eased her transition.
A lot of Korean students would hang out with each other, but I didn't want to do that
because I really liked it here and I didn't want to go back to Korea. So, I wanted to kind
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 102

of assimilate as much as I could. So, I would only out hang out with non-Korean
students.
Both Helen and Jackie stated that they valued the opportunity to study at Westerhaven
and wanted to continue living in the U.S. after graduation. They both abandoned the systems of
education that they grew up with to further their goal of being identified as American.
Some faculty participants also explained how they assimilated to the culture at
Westerhaven. Katherine, a tenure track faculty member in the Engineering school at
Westerhaven, thought about her early experiences at Westerhaven. “When I came here, there was
really no teaching, there was no instruction or training when it came to academic integrity.” She
stated that she relied on examples of course syllabi to help her structure her own, and when it
came to reporting incidents of academic dishonesty, she too relied on the precedent set by her
colleagues.
I've had many cases of plagiarism in my class and I haven't gone through the formal
process of reporting it. I might give the student a zero on the assignment, I might tell
them to do it over again. Sometimes just having that meeting in an office is a pretty
traumatic experience for them, but I should probably be reporting it more.
Students, staff, and faculty are asked to successfully navigate both implicit and explicit
expectations. At times, these expectations can be in conflict with one another. Existing literature
suggests that the cultural background of students, staff, and faculty be incorporated, understood,
and supported by the institution (Hayes & Introna, 2005; Song-Turner, 2008). Helen, Jackie, and
Katherine demonstrated a desire to embrace the academic expectations at Westerhaven while
relinquishing previously held values and beliefs. They relied on peers and colleagues who were
familiar with the university culture to guide them and ultimately chose to forsake the knowledge
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 103

that they obtained from similar experiences at other institutions. Based on their responses, Helen
and Jackie’s enculturation was a fundamental reason why neither of them considered engaging in
practices identified as academic misconduct. Additionally, Katherine’s reliance on tradition
resulted in the continuation of practices in conflict with her own principles. These participants all
explained how they assimilated to the academic culture of Westerhaven.
Integration
Maintaining cultural traditions while making strides to adopt customs of the dominant
culture is a sign of integration (Berry et al., 1989). Several participants in this study
acknowledged the differences in expectations at Westerhaven when compared to their previous
institutions. Some refused or were unable to express which system of education was preferred.
Anna, Kristina, and Fan explained that their previous institutions did not adequately
prepare them to study in the U.S. Anna, a first-year student from Brazil, stated that the
assignments she submitted in Brazil would have been considered cheating at Westerhaven.
Similarly, Kristina and Fan, both students from China, stated that their previous institutions had
written policies regarding academic misconduct, but they were not enforced as diligently as they
are at Westerhaven.
Students attempting to navigate their academic experience may initially rely on the
expectations from their previous institution. Differing cultural attitudes and definitions of
academic misconduct help reinforce the perception that international students engage in
academic misconduct more frequently than their domestic peers (Bertram Gallant, Binkin, &
Donohue, 2015; Dick et al., 2002; Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara, & Yasukawa, 1999; Hayes &
Introna, 2005). Kristina shared that her understanding of the policies at Westerhaven is
constantly evolving. She acknowledged that ultimately she is responsible for submitting
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 104

assignments in accordance with the professor’s rules, but when she first arrived at Westerhaven
she thought that the same rules applied to all courses. Because she was allowed to collaborate in
some courses, she assumed she would be able to continue the practice in others. “I think I know
what the professor asks for in this course. But if you asked me to define it for another. I’ll be
like, ‘I don’t know.’”
Anna, Kristina, and Fan all stated that their definitions of academic integrity have grown
to incorporate the expectations at Westerhaven. They were all reluctant to indicate which of the
policies, those at Westerhaven or those from their previous academic institutions, were more
favorable. Anna stated her desire to participate in the study was to articulate how much her
knowledge of the topic had changed. “When I came from Brazil here I had a really different
opinion of what was ok … I used to copy everything out of the Internet for papers and all.” After
a classmate got suspended, Anna declared that she was much more careful of what she submitted
so as to avoid unintended consequences. Similarly, Fan recognized the differences in the policies
at Westerhaven and his previous experiences in China without indicating his preference.
“Plagiarism is not bad in China but since I am in the U.S., I guess I have to play by the American
rules.” Anna, Kristina, and Fan expressed a desire to retain their cultural identity and to fit in
with their peers at Westerhaven. The theory of Acculturation helps understand the experiences of
these students and the difficulties they encountered transitioning to Westerhaven.
Marginalization
Individuals who do not maintain either their traditional cultural values or the values of the
dominant group are considered to be marginalized (Berry et al., 1989). None of the participants
in this study expressed a loss of identity that characterized them into this category. Based on the
definition provided by Berry et al. (1989), marginalization is tantamount to the purposeful
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 105

removal of cultural values and traditions. Many of the participants in the study expressed
knowledge of differing cultural norms and expectations. Jack, a faculty member in the School of
Education with 11 years of experience, acknowledged that Westerhaven faculty take for granted
that students attending the institution have knowledge about the academic rules and expectations.
Further, Jack stated that international and domestic students at the institution are held to the same
standards, but they are not provided the tools or orientation to appropriately “enculturate around
the values, beliefs, and practices when it comes to academic integrity.” Although Jack and other
participants in the study stated that Westerhaven could do more to assist with international
student’s transition to the university’s academic expectations, participants acknowledged that the
university implemented intentional interventions to prevent feelings of marginalization.
Separation
Some participants of the study shared an unwillingness to adapt to the university’s
expectations. In contrast to the researcher’s presumption, the participants expressed knowledge
of the policies and expectations, but did not value them. Individuals who attempt to maintain
their cultural heritage and traditions while refusing to adopt the norms of a dominant society are
viewed as separatists in this model (Berry et al., 1989).
Henry, a second-year student from Taiwan stated that “cheating is wrong, I know it's
considered wrong in the public view, but I don't think it's wrong.” He continued to explain that
forms of cheating occur regularly, both in and outside of academia, and as long as you are not
found to be responsible for violating the rules, then it should be tolerated. Henry’s values were
not a product of a lack of understanding. “I understand the expectations, I don't really agree with
it, but you don't necessarily need to agree with it. Just need to do it,” Henry said.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 106

The findings from this study also indicated that some faculty are reluctant, if not
unwilling, to adapt to the expectations of the university. Lisa, a staff member in the student
conduct office, stated that incidents of academic misconduct at Westerhaven are underreported
by faculty. She provided numerous reasons that faculty are reluctant to formally report incidents
of academic misconduct: “it’s too much work, it takes too much time, the process is
cumbersome, they fear retaliation, and [some faculty] prefer to address the matter internally.”
Lisa said that faculty are informed of the policies, procedures, and expectations, but for the
aforementioned reasons, incidents that are recommended by the university to be submitted often
go unreported. Faculty conveyed a reluctance to report incidents of academic misconduct while
maintaining a strong desire to uphold the values of academic integrity. This conflict is not so
dissimilar from the international student that understands, but does not agree with the act of
cheating.
Cheating is often viewed as a product of immoral and unethical behaviors (Bernardi et
al., 2004; Datig & Russell, 2015; Hu & Lei, 2012; Shi, 2011; Stephens & Nicholson, 2008);
however it is also important to recognize the impact that institutions may impose on a student’s
decision to engage in academic misconduct (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2001). One student
participant who completed the survey, but wished to remain anonymous stated, “I have never had
a Professor show or give examples as to what is a proper citation. They just say, ‘look online,’
but that doesn’t help.” Another participant said “I don’t have much of any idea of what the
policies are. People who have not grown up in the American educational system have a rougher
understanding of the rules due to the lack of exposure to them.” When students are not provided
a sufficient understanding of what comprises academic misconduct, are subject to inconsistent
reporting mechanisms by faculty, and generally receive mixed messages regarding what is
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 107

tolerated and prohibited, they are more likely to rely on their prior knowledge than adapt to the
ambiguous expectations provided by the university.
Summary
Student participants discussed their transition to Westerhaven University and were asked
to describe both similarities and differences they encountered, specifically with regard to
academic expectations. The Acculturation Model is not one in which a subject must follow a
one-way linear path. It is anticipated that students will navigate between different phases of the
model as they proceed in their academic career. Therefore, the researcher intentionally avoided
placing participants in phases of the model, but rather allowed the narratives provided by the
participants to explain their connection to Westerhaven in comparison to the academic
expectations they encountered previous to enrolling at the university. The researcher identified
the most likely phase of the model described by the interview responses. Participants who were
beginning, continuing, and completing their studies at Westerhaven were selected intentionally,
anticipating that students would transition between phases of the model over time and could be
influenced by various sociological factors. This flexibility is an essential component of the model
of acculturation; the model reflects the different processes of acculturation experienced by
participants at different phases of their college education. The participants of this study offered a
snapshot of how they regarded the academic expectations of Westerhaven University and their
most recent previous institution.
The Integration phase of the model described students who expressed a strong affiliation
to the academic values of both their previous and current institutions. Participants who
articulated a strong connection to the academic expectations at Westerhaven consistently
provided responses that demonstrated a reluctance to willingly or knowingly engage in cheating
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 108

behaviors. Adam, Blake, Helen, Jackie, and Kristina, all indicated that the U.S. is not where they
consider home, but that they would prefer to remain in the U.S. after graduation. Kristina, a first-
year student from China expressed that she was excited to participate in this study because
“someone is finally starting to care about it, starting to care about our school and cheating, and
us.” Kristina stated that she was fearful of talking to peers because she did not trust their answers
and she thought that if she talked to faculty, she may admit to doing something that was against
the rules. Blake, who said that he considers both the U.S. and Brazil as his home countries,
explained some of the challenges that he experienced as an international student.
It's really hard to be an international student. It's really hard to leave your family behind
everything you know, to come to a different place because your country can't offer you
the education that the U.S. can. I feel a connection to all the other international students
at this school because of this.
Embracing a supportive environment that encourages students to seek assistance from
faculty, TAs, and peers will aid in a student’s integration into the academic culture (Bertram
Gallant et al., 2015).
Implications for Practice
Through interviews and survey responses, the participants of this study provided
recommendations to better serve the international student population at Westerhaven University.
Nearly all the participants shared an interest in the study and expressed value in pursuing a better
understanding of the topic. Three recommendations emerged from the participants regardless of
their role or affiliation with the university. These included providing clear definitions of the
expected and prohibited behaviors, increasing the understanding and sensitivity to cultural
differences, and establishing consistent practices of enforcing policies.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 109

1. Defining Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct must be clearly defined for all members of the university
community. Students, staff, and faculty at Westerhaven expressed frustration with the lack of
clarity and understanding regarding academic integrity. Faculty who were newer to the
university expressed empathy and acknowledged that instances of academic misconduct may be
occurring due to a lack of knowledge, as opposed to a malicious intent to cheat. One faculty
participant provided the following explanation of why international students may have a different
understanding of campus policies:
Often international students (and domestic students as well) have a difficult time making
sense of the language that’s used on the syllabi distributed by the professor. The
boilerplate ‘Academic Integrity’ language at [Westerhaven] doesn’t explain how to avoid
plagiarism or cheating and instead focuses on the consequences of such actions.
Although this response may also be tied to one’s language proficiency, similar comments
were provided by students who indicated they were nearly as comfortable with English as they
were with their native language. One graduating senior provided the following insight, “there are
different standards for plagiarism and cheating in every country, and when professors assume
that all students are American, they don’t cover those policies as well as they should.” Similarly,
a first-year international student expressed, “I would like to see professors actually explaining
the academic integrity section of the syllabus instead of just skipping over it assuming everybody
knows it and understands.”
The reliance of language provided in course syllabi to define academic misconduct fails
to provide students with a clear explanation of the expected academic work (Higbee & Thomas,
2000). This is further complicated by the fact that some courses prohibit collaboration while
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 110

others encourage it. The responses collected suggest a need to define academic misconduct with
consistent language and applicable examples that are also culturally sensitive for all members at
the university. Alexia, a faculty member in the Writing Program, said that it’s “like playing a
game in which the rules are constantly changing to make it so [the students] can never win.”
International students are often adjusting to the variety of ways faculty define academic
misconduct for their course. The addition of relevant examples to course syllabi would aid
student’s understanding of their professor’s expectations and likely reduce the instances of
unintentional academic misconduct.
2. Cultural Sensitivity
Faculty and staff should include examples and scenarios that are understandable to
students from diverse backgrounds when preparing course syllabi and orientation
programs. Cultural differences and a need for increased cultural awareness was another
common theme that was expressed by the participants of this study. Responses included an
understanding of differing academic expectations, perceived (and realized) language barriers,
and the use of references that are unique to Western culture. Julie, a second-year student from
Taiwan, explained that among the challenges of studying in a new country, the most difficult was
understanding the cultural commentaries. Not dismissing the academic challenges, Julie
recounted a situation she experienced during a math exam. A question on the exam asked, “how
many innings there are for a basketball [sic] game?” She understood the question was not
intended to be challenging, however she stated that she was embarrassed and because she did not
know the answer to the question, she found it difficult to proceed with the remainder of the
exam.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 111

Hannah also described her initial experiences at Westerhaven as tiring and demanding.
Now a graduating senior, Hannah said that most international students “are modest compared to
Americans. People here are obviously more outlandish, they're more gregarious. They tend to be
more outspoken. And that was somewhat of an adjustment for me.” She further explained that in
the classroom, faculty often overlooked international students. “If you want to voice your
opinion. If you want to be in the discussion. You need to be more outspoken.”
On the contrary, Jackie, a graduating senior from Korea who attended high school in the
U.S., identifies as American and acknowledges that she grew up with similar experiences as
domestic students. A product of the environment, Jackie was immersed in the same pop culture
references and common vernacular that her domestic peers were accustomed to. Although she
identified as Korean, she had a difficult time connecting with other Korean students attending
Westerhaven beyond a shared language and taste for food. She explained that Korean students
attending Westerhaven are “standoffish and they don’t mingle very well.” She further explained
that she felt that she “grew up with more of an American background” which made connecting
with other Korean students difficult.
Programs that are designed to assist students, staff, and faculty transition to the university
must intentionally incorporate examples that are sensitive to the diverse population. A lack of
cultural awareness and sensitivity can hinder the successful navigation of university policies
among international students (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; Diekhoff et al., 1999; Hayes &
Introna, 2005). Furthermore, international students that embrace the competitive culture of the
university and understand the policies that encompass academic misconduct are more likely to
find academic success (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015; McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 112

3. Consistent Enforcement of Policies
Policies related to academic misconduct must be consistently administered and
enforced by faculty and staff. Students, staff and faculty participants in this study expressed
and understanding that the university insist on faculty to report any incident of academic
misconduct. Faculty expressed that they are provided a great deal of latitude regarding the
amount of evidence required prior to submitting reports of alleged academic violations.
Furthermore, of the incidents that are submitted, they are consulted regarding the recommended
outcomes that should imposed on the student. This results in inconsistencies stemming from
faculty ignoring cheating or resolving matters informally, academic departments being more or
less inclined to report academic integrity to the university, and the variety of outcomes that are
imposed as a result of the faculty suggestions.
Student participants voiced a desire for faculty to more actively enforce the academic
expectations. Complacency among faculty to report alleged incidents was viewed as an invitation
by students to cheat and as a requirement for other faculty to refrain from reporting.
Faculty expressed a number of obstacles that prevent them from submitting reports to the
administration at Westerhaven. These included the effort required to submit a report, the amount
of time needed to resolve a reported incident, the severity and intentionality of the alleged
violation, the potential punitive damage they may be victim to via poor course evaluations, and
the responsibilities that occur after submitting an incident.
The researcher recommends implementing a system that simplifies the reporting
mechanism to encourage faculty to report incidents more consistently and in a timely manner.
This would also benefit conduct administrators who would be provided the opportunity to collect
required information to respond to situations in an efficient manner. Additionally, some faculty
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 113

recommended being removed from the conduct process after reporting the incident. Removing
responsibilities from faculty who are uncomfortable and possibly unfamiliar with student
conduct practices may encourage increased reporting of academic misconduct and help ensure
that a more consistent, fair, and unbiased resolution is imposed on students.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was designed to understand factors that contributed to international students
being reported for academic misconduct at a higher disproportionate rate than domestic students
in relation to their enrollment at Westerhaven. Participants of the study provided insight into
additional, related topics that are recommended for future research.
Population Sample
This study requested the participation of international students, staff, and faculty
affiliated with Westerhaven. Future research projects may also include the narratives of domestic
students to explore if any differences between those populations are presented. Additionally,
responses from this study indicated that some academic departments are more inclined to report
alleged violations than others. Future research studies might explore if a variance exists between
academic departments at an institution, and why.
Institutional Support
The findings from this study support the implementation of culturally sensitive and
inclusive orientation programs, providing examples of prohibited conduct when defining
academic dishonesty, and enforcing academic misconduct consistently. A case study comparison
between institutions that embrace the recommended findings and those that do not is also
recommended for future research.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 114

Longitudinal Study
This study interviewed several student participants at various points of their academic
career. As a result, the researcher was limited to a glimpse of how the participants viewed and
valued academic expectations at the time of the interview. A longitudinal study that engaged
with students throughout their academic career would provide insight into how and why students
transition through different phases of the Acculturation Model.
Financial Resources
Finally, many participants in the study expressed that a student’s socioeconomic status
may be related to their propensity to cheat. Alexia, a faculty participant explained that students
who cheat are “robbing themselves of their own learning.” She further stated, “if you’re the kind
of student who just wants a degree, if you have a lot of money to buy your papers, you’re
probably not going to care.” Ten participants voiced the idea that socioeconomic status may
contribute to a student’s decision to cheat. In addition to the concept that wealthier students
possess the resources to purchase original papers or hire others to take exams for them, and that
wealthier students are less concerned with potential consequences, students on the other end of
the spectrum may also be exposed to additional pressures that encourage cheating. Fan explained
that international students rarely qualify for scholarships or other aid at Westerhaven. “Students
who have their parents working very hard to keep them here, I can see students being cornered
and feeling like they have to cheat because they have that expectation from their parents.”
Further exploration to understand if a relationship between socioeconomic status and a student’s
decision to engage in academic misconduct would be beneficial.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 115

Conclusion
Participants in this study addressed the need to further explore the experiences of
international students and why they are over reported for academic misconduct in relation to
their enrollment. The findings from this study were obtained upon analyzing the responses of
participants who were willing to share their opinions via individual interviews and those that
submitted answers to anonymous surveys. Although not all participants agreed with the stated
premise that international students are over reported for academic misconduct, each participant
provided explanations for why the premise could be true.
The experiences of international students are in some profound ways dissimilar from their
domestic peers. This is further compounded among students who are unfamiliar with the
academic system in the United States and those that identify as less proficient with the English
language. As colleges and universities continue to enroll international students seeking
admission to their institutions, it is clear that additional support is needed to ensure the student’s
success. As Jack a faculty member with 11 years of experience said, we need to “give our
students enough tools and orientation to [know] what is plagiarism. There wasn't any real
enculturation around what are the values, beliefs and practices when it comes to academic
integrity at [this] institution.” Implementing processes that embrace a student’s background and
assist in their enculturation to the academic community may have a profound impact on their
successful integration to the university’s academic expectations.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 116

References
About ASCA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2017, from
http://www.theasca.org/content.asp?contentid=23
Altbach, P. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top
destination for foreign students? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(2), 18–
25.
Amsberry, D. (2009). Deconstructing plagiarism: International students and textual borrowing
practices. The Reference Librarian, 51(1), 31–44.
Artists back Blurred Lines plagiarism ruling appeal. (2016, September 1). [Text]. Retrieved July
16, 2017, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/blurred-lines-plagiarism-verdict-
stifles-creativity-artists-say/7806342
Barnhardt, B. (2016). The “Epidemic” of cheating depends on its definition: A critique of
inferring the moral quality of “cheating in any form.” Ethics & Behavior, 26(4), 330–343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1026595
Beasley, E. M. (2016). Comparing the demographics of students reported for academic
dishonesty to those of the overall student population. Ethics & Behavior, 26(1), 45–62.
Bernardi, R. A., Metzger, R. L., Bruno, R. G. S., Hoogkamp, M. A. W., Reyes, L. E., &
Barnaby, G. H. (2004). Examining the decision process of students’ cheating behavior:
An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 397–414.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in
plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38(2), 185–206.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 117

Bertram Gallant, T., Binkin, N., & Donohue, M. (2015). Students at risk for being reported for
cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-
015-9235-5
Bisping, T. O., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling academic dishonesty: The role of
student perceptions and misconduct type. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(1), 4–
21.
Bloch, J. (2007). Plagiarism across cultures: Is there a difference? Indonesian JELT, 3(2), 1–13.
Bound, J., Braga, B., Khanna, G., & Turner, S. (2016). A passage to america: University funding
and international students. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college.
Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic
detection and academic judgement. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice,
6(1), 6.
Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., Montgomery, S. M., & Passow, H. J. (2006).
Engineering students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards cheating. Journal of
Engineering Education, 95(3), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2006.tb00891.x
Choudaha, R., & Chang, L. (2012). Trends in international student mobility. World Education
News & Reviews, 25(2).
Click, A. (2012). Issues of plagiarism and academic integrity for second-language students.
MELA Notes, 44–53.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research 3e.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 118

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (Ed.). (2015). CAS professional
standards for higher education (Ninth edition). Washington, DC: Council for the
Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1–18.
Datig, I., & Russell, B. (2015). “The fruits of intellectual labor”: International student views of
intellectual property. College & Research Libraries, 76(6), 811–830.
Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C. (2002).
Addressing student cheating: Definitions and solutions (Vol. 35, pp. 172–184). ACM.
Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999). College cheating in
Japan and the United States. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 343–353.
Divan, A., Bowman, M., & Seabourne, A. (2015). Reducing unintentional plagiarism amongst
international students in the biological sciences: An embedded academic writing
development programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(3), 358–378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.858674
Gelber, S. (2014). Expulsion litigation and the limits of in loco parentis, 1860-1960. Teachers
College Record, 116(12), n12.
Gynnild, V., & Gotschalk, P. (2008). Promoting academic integrity at a Midwestern University:
Critical review and current challenges. International Journal for Educational Integrity,
4(2).
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 119

Hagedorn, L. S., Pei, S., & Yan, L. (2016). International Students’ Struggles: Community
College to the Rescue. In International Education at Community Colleges (pp. 57–74).
Springer.
Haitch, R. (2016). Stealing or sharing? Cross-cultural issues of plagiarism in an open-source era:
Stealing or sharing? Teaching Theology & Religion, 19(3), 264–275.
https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12337
Happel, S. K., & Jennings, M. M. (2008). An economic analysis of academic dishonesty and its
deterrence in higher education. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 25(2), 183–214.
Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism
gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231.
Heckler, N. C., & Forde, D. R. (2015). The role of cultural values in plagiarism in higher
education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(1), 61–75.
Higbee, J. L., & Thomas, P. V. (2000). Preventing academic dishonesty. Research and Teaching
in Developmental Education, 17(1), 63–66.
Howard, R. M. (1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–245.
Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2012). Investigating Chinese university students’ knowledge of and attitudes
toward plagiarism from an integrated perspective. Language Learning, 62(3), 813–850.
Hughes, J. M. C., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Understanding academic misconduct. The Canadian
Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 49.
Hussin, H., & Ismail, M. (2013). Plagiarism: More than meets the eye. Advances in Language
and Literary Studies, 4(2), 148–151.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 120

Institute of International Education. (2016). International Students by Institutional Type,
2015/16. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from
http://www.iie.org/opendoors
Introna, L., & Hayes, N. (2007). International students and plagiarism detection systems:
Detecting plagiarism, copying, or learning. Student Plagiarism in an Online World:
Problems and Solutions, 108–123.
Kellner, D. (2016). The Republican National Convention and the Faces of Authoritarian
Populism. In American Nightmare (pp. 45–57). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-788-7_8
Kibler, W. L. (1993). Academic Dishonesty. NASPA Journal, 30(4), 252–267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.11072323
Kolb, K. H., Longest, K., & Singer, A. (2015). Choosing not to cheat: A framework to assess
students’ rationales for abiding by academic integrity policies. Georgia Educational
Researcher, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2015.090109
Lancaster, J. M., & Waryold, D. M. (Eds.). (2008). Student conduct practice: the complete guide
for student affairs professionals (1st ed). Sterling, Va: Stylus Pub.
Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in
the" real world"? Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.
Lee, P. (2014). The case of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education: From civil rights to
students’ rights and back again. Teachers College Record, 116(12), 1.
Lin, C.-H. S., & Wen, L.-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education—a nationwide
study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54(1), 85–97.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 121

Malinowski, C. I., & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An investigation
prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4),
1016–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.1016
Martin, D., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. (2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and plagiarism: A criterion
study of unethical academic conduct. Human Organization, 70(1), 88–96.
https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.70.1.nl775v2u633678k6
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (3rd ed). Thousand
Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-
0046-y
McCabe, D. L. (2003). Academic Integrity Rutgers University Student Survey. Retrieved July
29, 2017, from https://honesty.rutgers.edu/rutgers.asp
McCabe, D. L., Feghali, T., & Abdallah, H. (2008). Academic Dishonesty in the Middle East:
Individual and Contextual Factors. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 451–467.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25704574
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college longitudinal
trends and recent developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(1), 28–
33.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic
dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A
decade of research. Ethics &Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 122

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual
influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code
settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early
adolescents: Academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
26(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1046
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=purdue&s=all&fv=110680+110662+24378009+
243780&cp=1&sl=110662+110680+243780
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-
language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism.
TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141
Rawlings, M., & Sue, E. (2013). Preparedness of Chinese students for American culture and
communicating in English. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 29–40.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330
Rettinger, D. A., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating.
Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 293–313.
Robinson, J. (1992). International students and American university culture: Adjustment issues.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 123

Shi, L. (2011). Common knowledge, learning, and citation practices in university writing.
Research in the Teaching of English, 308–334.
Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business
Ethics, 94(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x
Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in students’ dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51(3), 775–780.
Song-Turner, H. (2008). Plagiarism: Academic dishonesty or “blind spot” of multicultural
education? Australian Universities’ Review, The, 50(2), 39.
Sowden, C. (2005). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher education
abroad. ELT Journal, 59(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci042
Stephens, J. M., & Nicholson, H. (2008). Cases of incongruity: Exploring the divide between
adolescents’ beliefs and behavior related to academic dishonesty. Educational Studies,
34(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690802257127
Tabachnick, B. G., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Pope, K. S. (1991). Ethics of teaching: Beliefs and
behaviors of psychologists as educators. American Psychologist, 46(5), 506.
Traniello, J. F. A., & Bakker, T. C. M. (2016). Intellectual theft: pitfalls and consequences of
plagiarism. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 70(11), 1789–1791.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2207-y
Webb, H. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty and the international student: Are international
students different from domestic students?
Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review.
Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274.
Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic integrity as an institutional issue. Ethics &
Behavior, 11(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_9
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 124

Wong, J. K.-K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or
contextually based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154–166.
Zhao, C.-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and
American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher
Education, 209–231.
Zimerman, M. (2012). Plagiarism and international students in academic libraries. New Library
World, 113(5/6), 290–299.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 125

Appendix A
Institutional Review Board Info Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Ed.D. in Educational Leadership
404 Waite Phillips Hall

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Academic Dishonesty Among International Students: A Case Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Jacques Zalma under the
supervision of Dr. Tracy Tambascia at the University of Southern California because you are an
international student, staff, or faculty member at Westerhaven University. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study aims to better understand why international students are disproportionally reported
for incidents of academic misconduct, especially with regard to plagiarism. The findings from this
study may be used by student and academic affairs professionals to better promote academic
integrity at their institution with diverse student populations.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an in-‐person audiotaped
interview. These interviews typically will last between 30 and 45 minutes. You will not be required
to answer any question you do not want to, can choose to discontinue the interview at any time,
and will not be audio recorded without your express permission. If at any time during the
interview you wish to discontinue the audio recording but continue the interview, the recording
will be stopped. If you choose not to be recorded, the interviewer will take detailed notes and
may capture some of your direct quotes if possible.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will be provided a $10 gift card to Starbucks or Amazon.com as gratitude for your
participation.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 126

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. This file will
specifically be password protected, in addition to being in a password-‐protected folder. Your
responses will be transcribed by an external third-‐party, but no identifying information will be
provided to this third party. Only the primary investigator will have access to the key that codes
your pseudonym to your identity.

At the completion of the study, all audio recordings will be destroyed, though transcripts will be
maintained on a password-‐protected computer. Some information may be contained in a Google
Drive which is password protected. The data may be used for future research studies.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Jacques
Zalma, Principal Investigator, by e-‐mail at zalma@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-‐0702, (213) 821-‐
5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 127

Appendix B
Invitation to Complete Student Academic Misconduct Survey

Dear Student,

My name is Jacques Zalma and I am conducting research as a part of my doctoral dissertation
under the direction of Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia (tpoon@usc.edu) in the Educational
Leadership program at the University of Southern California. I would like to invite you to
participate in a research study to better understand why international students are
disproportionally reported for incidents of academic misconduct, especially with regard to
plagiarism.

You are receiving this survey because you have been identified as an international student
attending Westerhaven University. For the purposes of this research, international students are
defined as students that require the issuance of a student or exchange visa (F-1 or J-1) to live
and study in the United States.

If you choose to participate, your contribution will involve responding to an electronic
questionnaire via the link provided below. The survey contains 30 questions and should take
about 10 minutes to complete.

At the conclusion of the survey, you may be invited to participate in a follow---‐‑up interview
with me to discuss the themes of this research in more depth. You will not be compensated for
completing the survey, but you will be provided a gift card to Starbucks or Amazon.com (your
choice) as a token of gratitude upon completion of an individual interview.

Your involvement in this study is voluntary (you may choose not to participate) and your
responses will be kept confidential (The Office of International Students, Student Conduct,
and other departments at Westerhaven University will not have access to the survey and/or
interview responses).

Survey Link: https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5jBDqvNPi4p1DwN

The study has received approval through the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board. If you have any questions, would like more information, or to obtain a copy
of the final dissertation, please email me at zalma@usc.edu.

Sincerely,

Jacques M. Zalma
Ed.D. Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 128

Appendix C
Invitation to Complete Faculty/Staff Academic Misconduct Survey

Dear Faculty/Staff Member,

My name is Jacques Zalma and I am conducting research as a part of my doctoral dissertation
under the direction of Dr. Tracy Tambascia in the Educational Leadership program at the
University of Southern California. I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to
better understand why international students are disproportionally reported for incidents of
academic misconduct, especially with regard to plagiarism.

You are receiving this survey as a faculty or staff member at Westerhaven Univeristy. While you
are encouraged to complete the survey, I am also asking that you share this survey
invitation with other faculty and staff members, especially, but not limited to those that
have experience with incidents of academic misconduct at Westerhaven. This snowball
sample will allow me to collect a robust sample of responses from faculty who have experience
with incidents of academic misconduct.

If you elect to participate, your contribution will involve responding to an electronic
questionnaire via the link provided below. The survey contains 30 questions and should take
about 10 minutes to complete. Your involvement in this study is voluntary, you may choose not
to participate. You will not be compensated for completing the online survey, however if you
agree to participate in an individual interview with me, you will be provided a gift card to
Starbucks or Amazon.com upon completion of the interview. Your participation in this research
study (both survey responses and interview) will be confidential and both you and the institution
will be provided a pseudonym to further protect your identity.

Survey Link: https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_blz8LDIHquuyWvH

The study has received approval through the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board. If you have any questions, would like more information, or to obtain a copy of
the final dissertation, please email me at zalma@usc.edu.

Sincerely,

Jacques M. Zalma
Ed.D. Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 129

Appendix D
Student Academic Misconduct Survey

International Student Survey

Survey Flow
Standard: Introduction (1 Question)
Standard: Demographics (5 Questions)
Block: Academic Environment (3 Questions)
Standard: Informed of Policy (2 Questions)
Standard: Perception of Academic Integrity (3 Questions)
Standard: Specific Behaviors (4 Questions)
Standard: Exam Cheating (2 Questions)
Standard: Reporting Incidents of Cheating (3 Questions)
Standard: Continued Participation in Research Study (6 Questions)
Standard: Free Response (4 Questions)
Standard: Conclusion (1 Question)
Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 130

Start of Block: Introduction

Q1 Dear student,

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey which will aid me in my research as a part of my
doctoral dissertation under the direction of Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia (tpoon@usc.edu) in the
Educational Leadership program at the University of Southern California.

This study seeks to better understand why international students are disproportionally reported
for academic misconduct. Your involvement in this study is voluntary (you may choose not to
participate), your responses will be kept confidential (The Office of International Students,
Student Conduct, and other departments at Westerhaven University do not have access to the
survey responses), and you will not be compensated for completing the survey.

At the conclusion of the survey, you may be invited to participate in a follow-up interview with
me to discuss the themes of this research in more depth. If you are selected, you will be provided
a gift card to Starbucks or Amazon.com (your choice) as a token of gratitude upon completion of
the interview.

Thank you for your assistance. Your participation will be a valuable addition to the research and
could lead to a greater understanding of how colleges and universities can better support
academic integrity among international students.

Please feel free to contact me at zalma@usc.edu if you would like more information regarding
this study.

Jacques M. Zalma
Ed.D. Candidate
USC Rossier School of Education

End of Block: Introduction

Start of Block: Demographics

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 131

Q2 How many years have you attended Westerhaven?
o Less than a full academic year (1)
o More than one year but less than two (2)
o More than two years but less than three (3)
o More than three years (4)

Q3 Please indicate if you are a graduate or undergraduate student.
o Undergraduate Student (1)
o Graduate Student (2)

Q4 Please select the month AND year you intend to graduate.
Month Year

2017
(1)
2018
(2)
2019
(3)
2020
(4)
2021
(5)
2022
(6)
After
2022
(7)
Month
& Year
(1)
▼
January
(1) ...
December
(12)
o o o o o o o

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 132

Q5 Please select your gender identity.
o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Transgender (3)
o Other (4)
o Prefer not to disclose (5)

Q6 Please select your cumulative grade point average.
o 3.50 - 4.00 (1)
o 2.50 - 3.49 (2)
o 1.50 - 2.49 (3)
o 0.50 - 1.49 (4)
o 0.00 - .049 (5)

End of Block: Demographics

Start of Block: Academic Environment

Q7 Please tell me about the academic environment at Westerhaven University.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 133

How would you rate:

Very Low
(1)
Low (2) Medium (3) High (4)
Very High
(5)
The severity of
penalties for
cheating at
Westerhaven (1)
o o o o o
The average
DOMESTIC
student's
understanding of
campus policies
concerning student
cheating (2)
o o o o o
The average
INTERNATIONAL
student's
understanding of
campus policies
concerning student
cheating (3)
o o o o o
Faculty's
understanding of
campus policies
concerning student
cheating (4)
o o o o o
The effectiveness of
campus policies
concerning student
cheating (5)
o o o o o

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 134

Q8 Do you believe that international students have a different understanding of campus policies
concerning student cheating?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Display This Question:
If Q8 = Yes

Q9 Please explain:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Academic Environment

Start of Block: Informed of Policy

Q10 Have you been informed about the academic integrity or cheating policies at Westerhaven?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Block If Q10 = No

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 135

Q11 Please indicate if and to what extent you have learned about academic integrity or cheating
policies at Westerhaven from the following options?
Not at all (1)
Learned a little
(2)
Learned some
(3)
Learned a lot (4)
First-year
orientation
program (1)
o o o o
Campus website
(2)
o o o o
Student
handbook (3)
o o o o
Program
counselor,
residential
advisor, or
faculty advisor
(4)
o o o o
Other students
(5)
o o o o
Faculty (e.g.,
discussed in
class, course
syllabus, or
course outlines)
(6)
o o o o
Teaching
Assistant (7)
o o o o
Dean or other
administrator (8)
o o o o

End of Block: Informed of Policy

Start of Block: Perception of Academic Integrity

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 136

Q12 In the past year, how often, on average, did your instructors discuss policies concerning
Never (1)
Very
Seldom
(2)
Seldom/Sometimes
(3)
Often (4)
Very
Often (5)
Plagiarism (1)
o o o o o
Guidelines on group
work or collaboration
(2)
o o o o o
Proper
citation/referencing
of written sources (3)
o o o o o
Proper
citation/referencing
of Internet sources
(4)
o o o o o
Falsifying/fabricating
course lab data (5)
o o o o o
Falsifying/fabricating
research data (6)
o o o o o

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 137

Q13 In the past year, how often, on average, do you think the following occurred at Westerhaven
Never (1)
Sometimes
(2)
Seldom/Sometimes
(3)
Often (4)
Very Often
(5)
Plagiarism on
written
assignments
(1)
o o o o o
Inappropriately
sharing work
in group
assignment (2)
o o o o o
Cheating
during tests or
examinations
(3)
o o o o o

Q14 In the past year, how often, if ever, have you seen another student cheat during a test or
examination at Westerhaven?
o Never (1)
o Once (2)
o A few times (3)
o Several times (4)
o Many times (5)

End of Block: Perception of Academic Integrity

Start of Block: Specific Behaviors

Q15 Please answer both columns for each statement below:

How often have YOU engaged in
the following behaviors at
Westerhaven
How serious do YOU think each described
behavior is
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 138

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
Fabricating or
falsifying a
bibliography/works
cited (1)
o o o o o o o o
Working on an
assignment with
others when the
instructor asked for
individual work (2)
o o o o o o o o
Getting questions or
answers from
someone who has
already taken an
exam (3)
o o o o o o o o
In a course requiring
computer work,
copying another
student's
program/assignment
rather than writing
your own (4)
o o o o o o o o

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 139

Q16 Please answer both columns for each statement below:

How often have YOU engaged in
the following behaviors at
Westerhaven
How serious do YOU think each described
behavior is

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 140

Helping
someone
else cheat
on a
test/exam
(1)
o o o o o o o o
Fabricating
or
falsifying
lab data (2)
o o o o o o o o
Copying
from
another
student
during a
test or
exam
WITH their
knowledge
(3)
o o o o o o o o
Copying
from
another
student
during a
test or
exam
WITHOUT
their
knowledge
(4)
o o o o o o o o
Using
digital
technology
(such as
text
messaging)
to get
unpermitted
help from
someone
during a
text or
exam (5)
o o o o o o o o
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 141

Page Break

Q17 Please answer both columns for each statement below.

How often have YOU engaged
in the following behaviors at
Westerhaven
How serious do YOU think each described
behavior is

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 142

Paraphrasing
or copying a
few
sentences
from a
source
(electronic
or print)
without
citing the
source in the
submitted
paper (1)
o o o o o o o o
Submitting a
paper
purchased or
obtained
from a
website and
submitted as
original
work (2)
o o o o o o o o
Copying
material
almost word
for word,
from any
written
source and
turning it in
as original
work (3)
o o o o o o o o
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 143

Turning in a
paper
copied, at
least in part,
from another
student's
paper,
whether or
not the
student is
currently
taking the
same course
(4)
o o o o o o o o

Page Break

Q18 Please answer both columns for each statement below.

How often have YOU engaged
in the following behaviors at
Westerhaven
How serious do YOU think each described
behavior is

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 144

Using
unpermitted
handwritten
notes (or
cheat sheets)
during a test
or exam (1)
o o o o o o o o
Using
unauthorized
electronic
notes (stored
on phone or
other
device)
during a test
or exam (2)
o o o o o o o o
Using an
electronic
device as an
authorized
aid during a
test or exam
(3)
o o o o o o o o
Using a false
or forged
excuse to
obtain an
extension on
a due date or
delay taking
an exam (4)
o o o o o o o o
Turning in
work done
by someone
else (5)
o o o o o o o o
Cheating on
a test or
exam in any
other way
(6)
o o o o o o o o

End of Block: Specific Behaviors
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 145

Start of Block: Exam Cheating

Q19 Have you ever taken an online test or exam at Westerhaven?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Block If Q19 = No

Q20 Check all that apply:
▢ Collaborated with others during an online test or exam when not permitted (1)
▢ Used notes or books on a closed book online test or exam (2)
▢ Received unauthorized help from someone on an online test or exam (3)
▢ Looked up information on the Internet when not permitted (4)

End of Block: Exam Cheating

Start of Block: Reporting Incidents of Cheating

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 146

Q21 How likely is it that

Very Unlikely
(1)
Unlikely (2) Likely (3) Very Likely (4)
YOU would
report an
incident of
cheating that you
observed (1)
o o o o
the TYPICAL
STUDENT at
Westerhaven
would report
another student
for cheating (2)
o o o o
the TYPICAL
STUDENT
would report a
close friend for
cheating (3)
o o o o

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 147

Q22 How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Agree (3)
Strongly Agree
(4)
Cheating is a
serious problem
at Westerhaven
(1)
o o o o
International
students cheat
more often than
domestic
students (2)
o o o o
International
students are
accused of
cheating more
often than
domestic
students (3)
o o o o
The
investigation of
suspected
incidents of
cheating is fair
and impartial at
Westerhaven (4)
o o o o
Students should
be held
responsible for
monitoring the
academic
integrity of other
students (5)
o o o o
Faculty members
are vigilant in
discovering and
reporting
suspected cases
of academic
dishonesty (6)
o o o o

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 148

Q23 If you had cheated in a course and the following individuals knew about it, how strongly
would they disapprove?

Very Strongly
(1)
Fairly Strongly
(2)
Not Very
Strongly (3)
Not at all (4)
A close friend
(1)
o o o o
A peer in your
course or major
(2)
o o o o
Your parents (3)
o o o o
Your faculty (4)
o o o o

End of Block: Reporting Incidents of Cheating

Start of Block: Continued Participation in Research Study

Q24 Are you an international student?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Q25 Did you transfer to Westerhaven?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 149

Q33 Is English your native language?
o Yes (4)
o No (5)

Q34 Please indicate your proficiency with English when reading, writing, and speaking.

Very
Good/Fluent
(1)
Good (2)
Competent
(3)
Limited (4)
Very Limited
(5)
Reading (1)
o o o o o
Writing (2)
o o o o o
Speaking (3)
o o o o o

Display This Question:
If Q3 = Undergraduate Student
And Q25 = No
And Q24 = Yes

Q26 Would you be willing to participate in a follow up interview? A gift card to Starbucks or
Amazon.com will be provided to you upon completion of the interview.
o Yes (29)
o No (31)
o Maybe (30)

Display This Question:
If Q26 != No

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 150

Q27 Please enter your preferred name and the best way to contact you (phone or email) so that
the researcher may contact you. Submitting your contact information does not require you to
participate in follow-up interviews.
o Preferred Name (1) ________________________________________________
o Email (2) ________________________________________________
o Phone Number (3) ________________________________________________

End of Block: Continued Participation in Research Study

Start of Block: Free Response

Q28 What specific changes would you like to see your school take in support of academic
integrity?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q29 What role should students have to support academic integrity at Westerhaven?
________________________________________________________________

Q30 What role should faculty and/or university administrators have to support academic integrity
at Westerhaven?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 151

________________________________________________________________

Q31 Please use this space for any comments you care to make, or if there is anything else that
you would like to share regarding the topic of cheating.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Free Response

Start of Block: Conclusion

Q32 Thank you for participating in this survey and adding to my research. Please feel free to
contact me at zalma@usc.edu if you have any questions.

End of Block: Conclusion

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 152

Appendix E
Faculty Academic Misconduct Survey

Faculty/Staff Survey

Survey Flow
Standard: Introduction (1 Question)
Standard: Demographics (9 Questions)
Standard: Informed of Policy (5 Questions)
Standard: Perception of Academic Integrity (8 Questions)
Standard: Specific Behaviors (5 Questions)
Standard: Exam Cheating (2 Questions)
Standard: Reporting Incidents of Cheating (3 Questions)
Standard: Continued Participation in Research Study (2 Questions)
Standard: Free Response (3 Questions)
Standard: Conclusion (1 Question)
Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 153

Start of Block: Introduction

Q1 Dear Faculty/Staff Member,

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey which will aid me in my research as a part of my
doctoral dissertation. This study seeks to explore and understand why international students are
disproportionally reported for academic misconduct. Your involvement in this study is voluntary
(you may choose not to participate), your responses will be kept confidential, and you will not be
compensated for completing the survey.

At the conclusion of the survey, you may be invited to participate in a follow-up interview with
me to discuss the themes of this research in more depth. If you are selected, and complete an
interview with me, you will be provided a gift card to Starbucks or Amazon.com (your choice) as
a token of my gratitude.

Thank you for your assistance. Your participation will be a valuable addition to the research and
could lead to a greater understanding of how colleges and universities can better support
academic integrity among international students.

Please feel free to contact me at zalma@usc.edu if you would like more information regarding
this study.

Jacques M. Zalma
Ed.D. Candidate
USC Rossier School of Education

End of Block: Introduction

Start of Block: Demographics

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 154

Q2 Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven.
o Faculty (1)
o Staff (2)
o Other (3)

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Faculty

Q3 What is your academic rank?
o Assistant Professor (1)
o Associate Professor (2)
o Full Professor (3)
o Instructor (4)
o Other (5)

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Faculty

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 155

Q4 In which of the following areas is your primary teaching responsibility?
o Arts (1)
o Business (2)
o Communications/Journalism (3)
o Engineering (4)
o Humanities (5)
o Math or Science (6)
o Nursing/Health Professions (7)
o Social Sciences (8)
o Interdisciplinary (9)
o Other (10)

Display This Question:
If In which of the following areas is your primary teaching responsibility? = Other

Q5 Please indicate your primary teaching area
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Faculty

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 156

Q6 How many years of experience do you have as a faculty member?
o Less than 5 years (1)
o 5-9 years (2)
o 10-14 years (3)
o 15-19 years (4)
o 20 or more years (5)

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Staff

Q7 How many years of experience do you have as a university administrator?
o Less than 5 years (1)
o 5-9 years (2)
o 10-14 years (3)
o 15-19 years (4)
o 20 or more years (5)

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Other

Q8 What is your primary role at the University?
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Other

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 157

Q9 How many years of experience do you have working at a university?
o Less than 5 years (1)
o 5-9 years (2)
o 10-14 years (3)
o 15-19 years (4)
o 20 or more years (5)

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 158

Q10 Please select your gender identity.
o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Transgender (3)
o Other (4)
o Prefer not to disclose (5)

End of Block: Demographics

Start of Block: Informed of Policy

Q11 Please tell me about the academic environment at Westerhaven University.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 159

Q15 Please indicate the primary sources from which you have learned about the academic
integrity policies at Westerhaven. (Check all that apply)
▢ Faculty/Staff orientation program (1)
▢ Campus website (2)
▢ Student handbook (3)
▢ Faculty/Staff handbook (4)
▢ Students (5)
▢ Other faculty/university administrators (6)
▢ Publicized results of student conduct hearings (7)
▢ Dean or other administrator (8)
▢ University catalog (9)
▢ I have never been informed about campus policies concerning student cheating (11)
▢ Other (10)

Display This Question:
If Please indicate the primary sources from which you have learned about the academic
integrity poli... = Other

Q16 What other sources have provided you knowledge regarding the academic integrity policies
at Westerhaven?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 160

Q13 Do international students have a different understanding of campus policies concerning
student cheating?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Display This Question:
If Do international students have a different understanding of campus policies concerning
student ch... = Yes

Q14 Please elaborate
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Informed of Policy

Start of Block: Perception of Academic Integrity

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 161

Q17 How would you rate:

Very
Low (1)
Low (2)
Medium
(3)
High (4)
Very
High (5)
Do Not
Know (6)
The severity of
penalties for
cheating at
Westerhaven (1)
o o o o o o
The average
DOMESTIC
student's
understanding of
University policies
concerning cheating
(2)
o o o o o o
The average
INTERNATIONAL
student's
understanding of
University policies
concerning cheating
(3)
o o o o o o
The average
faculty's
understanding of
University policies
concerning cheating
(4)
o o o o o o
The effectiveness of
University policies
concerning cheating
(5)
o o o o o o

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 162

Q18 When, if at all, do you discuss with students university policies concerning
Never (1) Rarely (2)
Seldom/Sometimes
(3)
Often (4)
Very
Often (5)
Plagiarism (1)
o o o o o
Guidelines on group
work or collaboration
(2)
o o o o o
Proper
citation/referencing
of written sources (3)
o o o o o
Proper
citation/referencing
of Internet sources
(4)
o o o o o
Falsifying/fabricating
course lab data (5)
o o o o o
Falsifying/fabricating
research data (6)
o o o o o

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 163

Q19 In the past year, how often, on average, do you think the following occured at Westerhaven?
Never (1)
Sometimes
(2)
Seldom/Sometimes
(3)
Often (4)
Very Often
(5)
Plagiarism on
written
assignments
(1)
o o o o o
Inappropriately
sharing work
in group
assignment (2)
o o o o o
Cheating
during tests or
examinations
(3)
o o o o o

Q20 In the past year, how often, if ever, have you witnessed a student cheat during a test or
examination at Westerhaven?
o Never (1)
o Once (2)
o A few times (3)
o Several times (4)
o Many times (5)

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 164

Display This Question:
If Please indicate your primary role at Westerhaven. = Faculty

Q21 If you were convinced, even after discussion with the student, that a student had cheated,
what would be your most likely reaction?

Issue
Warning
(1)
Lower
Student's
Grade
(2)
Fail
Test/Assignment
(3)
Issue
Failing
Grade
for
Course
(4)
Require
Retake
Test/Redo
Assignment
(5)
Report
Student to
Student
Conduct
(6)
No
Action
Taken
(8)
Other
(7)
Homework
Assignment
(8)
o o o o o o o o
Quiz (2)
o o o o o o o o
Midterm (3)
o o o o o o o o
Final Exam
(5)
o o o o o o o o
Research
Paper (6)
o o o o o o o o
Lab Report
(7)
o o o o o o o o

Q22 Have you ever referred a suspected case of cheating to your Department Chair, a Dean,
STUDENT CONDUCT, or other administrator at Westerhaven?
o Yes (17)
o No (18)

Display This Question:
If Have you ever referred a suspected case of cheating to your Department Chair, a Dean,
STUDENT CONDUCT, or o... = Yes

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 165

Q23 How satisfied were you with the way the case(s) was resolved?
o Very satisfied (12)
o Satisfied (13)
o Unsatisfied (14)
o Very Unsatisfied (15)

Display This Question:
If How satisfied were you with the way the case(s) was resolved? = Unsatisfied
Or How satisfied were you with the way the case(s) was resolved? = Very Unsatisfied

Q24 Please explain how this could have been resolved better.

DO NOT include any identifiable information (including the student's name) about the incident.
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Perception of Academic Integrity

Start of Block: Specific Behaviors

Q25 Students have different views on what constitutes cheating and what is acceptable behavior.
I would like to ask you some questions about specific behaviors that some students might
consider cheating. Please mark one response in each column for each row.
In the LEFT column please mark how often, if ever, you have observed or become aware of a
student in your class engaging in any of the following behaviors during the last three years. If a
question does not apply to any of your courses, please check the 'Not Relevant' column. For
example, if you do not use tests/exams, you would check 'Not Relevant' for questions related to
tests/exams. In the RIGHT column please mark how serious you think each type of behavior is.

Q26 Please answer both columns for each statement below:

How often have you observed or
become aware of students
How serious do you think each described
behavior is
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 166

engaging in the following
behaviors at Westerhaven

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
Fabricating or
falsifying a
bibliography/works
cited (1)
o o o o o o o o
Working on an
assignment with
others when the
instructor asked for
individual work (2)
o o o o o o o o
Getting questions or
answers from
someone who has
already taken an
exam (3)
o o o o o o o o
In a course
requiring computer
work, copying
another student's
program/assignment
rather than writing
your own (4)
o o o o o o o o

Page Break

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 167

Q27 Please answer both columns for each statement below:

How often have you observed or
become aware of students
engaging in the following
behaviors at Westerhaven
How serious do you think each described
behavior is

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 168

Helping
someone
else cheat
on a
test/exam
(1)
o o o o o o o o
Fabricating
or
falsifying
lab data (2)
o o o o o o o o
Copying
from
another
student
during a
test or
exam
WITH their
knowledge
(3)
o o o o o o o o
Copying
from
another
student
during a
test or
exam
WITHOUT
their
knowledge
(4)
o o o o o o o o
Using
digital
technology
(such as
text
messaging)
to get
unpermitted
help from
someone
during a
text or
exam (5)
o o o o o o o o
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 169

Page Break

8 Please answer both columns for each statement below.

How often have you observed or
become aware of students
engaging in the following
behaviors at Westerhaven
How serious do you think each described
behavior is

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 170

Paraphrasing
or copying a
few
sentences
from a
source
(electronic
or print)
without
citing the
source in the
submitted
paper (1)
o o o o o o o o
Submitting a
paper
purchased or
obtained
from a
website and
submitted as
original
work (2)
o o o o o o o o
Copying
material
almost word
for word,
from any
written
source and
turning it in
as original
work (3)
o o o o o o o o
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 171

Turning in a
paper
copied, at
least in part,
from another
student's
paper,
whether or
not the
student is
currently
taking the
same course
(4)
o o o o o o o o

Page Break

Q29 Please answer both columns for each statement below.

How often have you observed or
become aware of students
engaging in the following
behaviors at Westerhaven
How serious do you think each described
behavior is

Never
(1)
Once
(2)
More
Than
Once
(3)
Not
Relevant
(4)
Not
Cheating
(1)
Trivial
Cheating
(2)
Moderate
Cheating
(3)
Serious
Cheating
(4)
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 172

Using
unpermitted
handwritten
notes (or
cheat sheets)
during a test
or exam (1)
o o o o o o o o
Using
unauthorized
electronic
notes (stored
on phone or
other
device)
during a test
or exam (2)
o o o o o o o o
Using an
electronic
device as an
unauthorized
aid during a
test or exam
(3)
o o o o o o o o
Using a false
or forged
excuse to
obtain an
extension on
a due date or
delay taking
an exam (4)
o o o o o o o o
Turning in
work done
by someone
else (5)
o o o o o o o o
Cheating on
a test or
exam in any
other way
(6)
o o o o o o o o

End of Block: Specific Behaviors
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 173

Start of Block: Exam Cheating

Q30 Have you ever administered an online test or exam at Westerhaven?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Block If Have you ever administered an online test or exam at Westerhaven? =
No

Q31 Have you ever observed or become aware of students engaging in any of the following
behaviors? (Check all that apply)
▢ Collaborated with others during an online test or exam when not permitted (1)
▢ Used notes or books on a closed book online test or exam (2)
▢ Received unauthorized help from someone on an online test or exam (3)
▢ Looked up information on the Internet when not permitted (4)

End of Block: Exam Cheating

Start of Block: Reporting Incidents of Cheating

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 174

Q32 How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Agree (3)
Strongly Agree
(4)
Cheating is a
serious problem
at Westerhaven
(1)
o o o o
International
students cheat
more often than
domestic
students (2)
o o o o
International
students are
accused of
cheating more
often than
domestic
students (3)
o o o o
The
investigation of
suspected
incidents of
cheating is fair
and impartial at
Westerhaven (4)
o o o o
Students should
be held
responsible for
monitoring the
academic
integrity of other
students (5)
o o o o
Faculty members
are vigilant in
discovering and
reporting
suspected cases
of academic
dishonesty (6)
o o o o

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 175

Q33 What safeguards do you employ (or suggest faculty utilize) to reduce cheating in courses at
Westerhaven? (Check all that apply)
▢ Use the Internet, or software applications such as Turnitin.com to detect or confirm
plagiarism (1)
▢ Provide information about cheating/plagiarism on course outline or assignment sheet. (2)
▢ Change exams regularly. (3)
▢ Hand out different versions of an exam. (4)
▢ Discuss views on the importance of honesty and academic integrity with my students. (5)
▢ Remind students periodically about their obligations under our University's academic
integrity policy. (6)
▢ Closely monitor students taking a test/exam. (7)
▢ None. I do not use any special safeguards in my courses. (8)
▢ Other (9)

Display This Question:
If What safeguards do you employ (or suggest faculty utilize) to reduce cheating in courses
at Westerhaven?... = Other

Q34 Please describe other interventions used to reduce cheating in courses at Westerhaven.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Reporting Incidents of Cheating
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 176

Start of Block: Continued Participation in Research Study

Q35 Would you be willing to participate in a follow up interview? A gift card to Starbucks or
Amazon.com will be provided to you as thanks upon completion of the interview.
o Yes (29)
o No (31)
o Maybe (30)

Display This Question:
If Would you be willing to participate in a follow up interview? A gift card to Starbucks or
Amazon.... != No

Q36 Please enter your preferred name and the best way to contact you (phone or email) so that
the researcher may contact you. Submitting your contact information does not require you to
participate in follow-up interviews.
o Preferred Name (1) ________________________________________________
o Email (2) ________________________________________________
o Phone Number (3) ________________________________________________

End of Block: Continued Participation in Research Study

Start of Block: Free Response

Q37 What specific changes would you like to see your school take in support of academic
integrity?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 177

Q38 What role should faculty and/or university administrators have to support academic integrity
at Westerhaven?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q39 Please use this space for any comments you care to make, or if there is anything else that
you would like to share regarding the topic of cheating.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Free Response

Start of Block: Conclusion

Q40 Thank you for participating in this survey and adding to my research. Please feel free to
contact me at zalma@usc.edu if you have any questions.

End of Block: Conclusion

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 178

Appendix F
Student Interview Protocol
I would like to thank you for agreeing to speak with me today. As a reminder, the purpose of this
interview is to help me gain a better awareness with regard to your understanding of academic
dishonesty such as cheating and plagiarism. I have asked to speak with you because as an
international student, I believe that you come to this university with a unique perspective that I
would like to better understand.
I would like to ask your permission to audio record our conversation. The audio
recording will help me recall the specifics of our discussion and serve solely as a guide to my
memory. The recording will not be shared with anyone. Additionally, I will be certain to
anonymize both your name and the name of the institution to protect your identity. If you are ok
with me recording our interview, I would like to place the recorder in between us so that if you
ever want to stop the recording you only have to press this button. Is that ok with you?
I have prepared a few questions ahead of time and anticipate that our interview will be
between 45 minutes and an hour. Before we get started with my questions, do you have any
questions that you would like to ask me?
Interview Questions
Demographics
1. How long have you attended Westerhaven University?
2. When did you first come to the United States for an extended stay, not just to visit.
3. When did you learn to speak English?
4. What languages do you speak?
a. How often and with whom do you speak each language?
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 179

5. How would you describe your comfortability with the English language?
6. Does your comfortability with English change based on the context? For example, when
writing an English paper versus speaking with friends at dinner? Which is more
comfortable?
Acculturation
7. How do you like attending Westerhaven University?
a. What do you like about it?
b. What do you wish were different about Westerhaven?
8. What challenges have you encountered studying in the United States that are related
specifically to your choice to study abroad?
a. How have you coped with those challenges?
9. Have you sought assistance to adjust to studying in the United States?
a. Where did you seek support (e.g., family, friends, clubs, campus offices, etc.)?
b. What support, if any, was provided?
10. Is there anything that you wish you had known about the University, California, or the
U.S., prior to attending Westerhaven?
Academic Perceptions
11. Do you think that international students are perceived to be an at-risk population with
regard to academic misconduct? Why or why not?
12. Some students have shared with me various definitions of academic misconduct. Can you
share with me how you define academic misconduct?
13. How did you come to your definition of academic misconduct?
14. Has your definition changed from when you first enrolled at Westerhaven University?
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 180

15. If we were to assume that some students cheat, what do you think prevents students from
cheating at Westerhaven?
16. What are potential consequences if a student is responsible for cheating at Westerhaven?
17. How do the consequences you mentioned (if at all) influence your decision to cheat?
Conclusion
Thank you for taking the time today to meet with me. The information you shared has
been very helpful for my study. If, after reviewing the audio recording, I find that I have
additional questions would it be ok with you if I contact you and request a follow up meeting?
Before we conclude our conversation, I would like to ask if there is anything else that you would
like to share with me or if there are any questions that I failed to ask which you think I should
include in future interviews. Thank you again for your participation and assistance with this
study.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 181

Appendix G
Staff and Faculty Interview Protocol
I would like to thank you for agreeing to speak with me today. As a reminder, the purpose of this
interview is to help me gain a better awareness of your understanding of academic dishonesty
such as cheating and plagiarism. I have asked to speak with you because of your experience
working with international students and your knowledge of the campus culture. I believe that you
can provide me with a unique perspective that I would like to better understand.
I would like to ask your permission to audio record our conversation. The audio
recording will help me recall the specifics of our discussion and serve solely as a guide to my
memory. The recording will not be shared with anyone. Additionally, I will be certain to
anonymize both your name and the name of the institution to protect your identity. If you are ok
with me recording our interview, I would like to place the recorder in between us so that if you
ever want to stop the recording you only have to press this button. Is that ok with you?
I have prepared a few questions ahead of time and anticipate that our interview will be
between 45 minutes and an hour. Before we get started with my questions, do you have any
questions that you would like to ask me?
Interview Questions
1. Would you describe the role you have/have had with regard to supporting international
students understand academic misconduct at the university?
2. How does the university convey its expectations with regard to academic misconduct
specifically to international students?
3. How does the university provide support to international students regarding academic
misconduct?
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 182

4. Are international students involved in academic misconduct more frequently than domestic
students at Westerhaven? Why do you think that is?
5. How (if at all) does academic misconduct correlate with language proficiency?
6. Are conversations with international students different from those with domestic students
regarding alleged academic misconduct? How?
7. Reflecting on your experience, can you share how international students perceive
university policies related to academic dishonesty?
8. What factors, in your opinion, lead some international students to cheat?
9. How, if at all, do these factors differ from those of domestic students?
10. What consequences or sanctions are issued to students involved in violations of academic
misconduct?
11. Are international students issued the same outcomes as domestic students? Why or why
not?
12. If we were to assume that some students (both international and domestic) cheat, what do
you think prevents students from cheating at the university?
13. Is there anything that you would like to share with me regarding your experience working
with international students and academic misconduct?
Conclusion
Thank you for taking the time today to meet with me today. The information you shared
has been very helpful for my study. If, after reviewing the audio recording, I find that I have
additional questions would it be ok with you if I contact you and request a follow up meeting?
Before we conclude our conversation, I would like to ask if there is anything else that you would
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 183

like to share with me or if there are any questions that I failed to ask which you think I should
include in future interviews. Thank you again for your assistance with this study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Academic misconduct among college students continues to trouble institutions of higher education and international students are involved in a disproportionate amount of academic misconduct relative to their enrollment. This study examined how the experiences of international students influence their decision to participate in academic misconduct. The conceptual framework of Acculturation was used to help understand the narratives of students, staff, and faculty participants. Data from this study found that there is a relationship between a student’s connectedness to the university and the courses that they are enrolled in, and their involvement in academic misconduct. Students who expressed a connection to the university or indicated that the courses they were taking had practical implications on their future career stated that they were less likely to engage in academic misconduct. ❧ Recommendations for practice include the need for academic misconduct to be clearly defined, for faculty to be cognizant of cultural differences and the need to include relevant examples and scenarios on course syllabi, and for policies to be consistently enforced. It is recommended that faculty and university administrators presume that students do not fully understand the concept of academic misconduct nor how to effectively avoid it. Including language and examples that embrace diverse cultural backgrounds on course syllabi may prevent unintentional acts of cheating. Additionally, it is recommended that universities implement systems that encourage reporting of academic misconduct early to prevent systemic issues from occurring.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

PDF

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

The impact of academic support services on Division I student-athletes' college degree completion

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior

PDF

Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system

PDF

An academic and professional preparatory curriculum design and supplemental academic advisement tool: self-regulation, ethics, and communication for engineering graduate students

PDF

Art school abridged: exploring the inferior completion rates of art colleges

PDF

Understanding the influences on academic performance of African American students in Black Greek letter organizations

PDF

(In)visiblity in numbers: Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander college students and their perspectives on Asian American Pacific Islander culture centers

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

College major decision making of autistic students

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Career development of Black male revenue generating student-athletes within an environment of anti-Black racism

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors

PDF

Transfer students from California community colleges: a narrative approach to understanding the social capital and institutional factors that lead to a timely transfer to a public, four-year univ...

Asset Metadata

Creator Zalma, Jacques Michael (author)

Core Title Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/27/2018

Defense Date 04/30/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic dishonesty,academic integrity,acculturation,cheating,Higher education,International,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee chair), Green, Alan (committee member), Howlett, Byron Ellis, Jr. (committee member)

Creator Email jacques.zalma@gmail.com,zalma@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-37752

Unique identifier UC11671815

Identifier etd-ZalmaJacqu-6547.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-37752 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZalmaJacqu-6547.pdf

Dmrecord 37752

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zalma, Jacques Michael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA