Award Date

1-1-2006

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)

Department

Special Education

First Committee Member

Susan P. Miller

Number of Pages

205

Abstract

The purposes of this study were: (a) to investigate the perceptions of academic dishonesty among special education faculty and students particularly related to the subtleties or gray areas that surround issues of academic dishonesty, (b) to determine how to decrease incidences of academic dishonesty, and (c) to find potential solutions to the problem of academic dishonesty. The participants in this study were special education full-time and adjunct faculty and special education undergraduate and graduate students. Data were collected using the Faculty Perspectives Survey and the Student Perspectives Survey. These surveys measured opinions regarding what constitutes cheating in traditional and online courses, deterrents to cheating, and sanctions for cheating; There was a statistically significant difference among faculty and students with regard to what constitutes cheating in online environments. Students believed that collaborating on assignments and submitting the same paper twice was not cheating. Faculty believed these acts were cheating. There was a statistically significant difference among faculty and students with regard to what constitutes cheating in traditional environments. Students believed that submitting the same paper twice during the same and consecutive semesters was not cheating. Faculty believed it was cheating. There was no statistical significance among full-time and adjunct faculty with regard to what constitutes cheating in online or traditional classes. There was no statistical significance among undergraduate and graduate students with regard to what constitutes cheating in online and traditional classes, deterrents to cheating, and sanctions for cheating. There was a statistical difference among faculty and students with regard to deterrents to cheating. Students believed honor codes are deterrents to cheating in traditional classes. Faculty did not view honor codes as deterrents to cheating. There was no statistical significance between faculty and students with regard to sanctions for cheating.

Keywords

Academic; Academic Dishonesty; Cheating; Dishonesty; Educators; Investigating; Perceptions; Special; Special Educators

Controlled Subject

Special education

File Format

pdf

File Size

4546.56 KB

Degree Grantor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Language

English

Permissions

If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have the full text removed from Digital Scholarship@UNLV, please submit a request to digitalscholarship@unlv.edu and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.

Rights

IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Download


COinS