Identifying Unethical Academic Behaviors
of Students Studying Food Service,
Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
Charles L. Calvert
Lynda Martin
Jeff Beck
Shin Yi Lin
ABSTRACTS. Cheating by students is a problem in academic institutions.
The purpose of this study was to assess how likely or unlikely senior
students studying: food service, hospitality, tourism and culinary arts
would participate in certain types of academic dishonesty behaviors.
Although the problem is well known, few studies have looked at students
perceptions of individual cheating behaviors. College senior students
studying food service, hospitality, tourism and culinary arts at three colleges
were contacted via their professors. Statistical analysis was done to
test for significant differences between gender and academic institute of
the survey population. Significant differences were found. Results of this
pilot study may help to better understand the cheating behaviors of food
service, hospitality, tourism and culinary arts students. Further research
Charles L. Calvert is Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Hospitality
Management, University of South Carolina-Beaufort.
Lynda Martin is Director and Professor, School of Human Sciences, Stephen
F. Austin State University.
Jeff Beck is Associate Professor, The School of Hospitality Business,
Michigan State University.
Shin Yi Lin, Assistant Professor, Chinese Culture University, 55 Hwa-Kang Road.
Address correspondence to: Charles L. Calvert, Department of Hospitality Management,
University of South Carolina-Beaufort, One University Boulevard,
Bluffton, SC 29909 (E-mail: calvert@uscb.edu).
Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, Vol. 6(1) 2008
Available online at http://jcst.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Academic cheating is a common problem in educational institutions.
College cheating is unethical and indicates a type of organizational
wrongdoing similar to misconduct in business organization (Burton &
Near 1995). Although both faculty and students identify unethical behaviors,
there are differences detected in the degree of perceived ethicalness.
An example behavior seen as strongly unethical is the ignoring of evidence
of cheating and/or insulting a student by faculty and/or students
(Morgan & Korschgen, 2001). Although many studies have looked at college
cheating, few studies have looked at the differences in unethical
classroom behaviors of food service and hospitality students.
McCabe and Trevino (1993) found that over 67% of students confessed
to cheating at least once. Similarly, Merritt's (2002) study found
that 59% of students admitted cheating on a test, and only 19% would
report a classmate who cheated. Research also recognized that situational
factor and opportunity to cheat are major predictors for cheating behavior
(Rawwas & Isakson, 2000).
In terms of academic performance, research indicates that self-concept
of students can be related to individual differences, such as gender. (Tong
& Yewchuk, 1996). In addition to gender, other factors that can impact
academic stress and may influence the academic self-concept of students
are: (1) high standards and goals, (2) pressure from parents and teachers,
(3) stress from living on a residential campus and (4) challenging
academic loads (Yadusky-Holahan & Holahan, 1983).
Academic honesty and ethics are a major concern in educational institutions.
The number of colleges and universities offering courses devoted
solely to journalism or communication ethics increased by 56% from
1984 to 1993 (Johnson, 2000). Moreover, business ethics has also
received great attention in the educational setting due to the realization in
the general public and the business community that unethical behavior is
a common problem in organizations. Current business problems include
32 JOURNAL OF CULINARY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
employee fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, bankruptcy fraud, and
money laundering (Silver & Valentine, 2000). Studies concerned with
individual attributes have associated student cheating with such factors as
a desire for better grades (Burton & Near, 1995), honor codes (McCabe,
1993), teacher response to cheating (Jendrek, 1989), punishments and
threats (Michaels & Miethe, 1989) and pressure (Moeck, 2002).
However, there are no clear ethical performance guidelines for students to
follow. In Leo (2002) research, 73% of the students said that when their
professors taught about ethical issues, the usual message was that uniform
standards of right and wrong depend on differences in individual values
and cultural diversity.
Although many schools offer an ethics course in the curriculum, the
impact of a course on ethics is difficult to measure due to the influence of
other factors during their education (Johnson, 2000). An unknown factor
for food service, hospitality, tourism and culinary arts students may
include the business ethics they experience while working during school
or while on co-op or internship. For these reasons, it is critical for educational
programs to teach and monitor professional ethics as well as academic
honesty.
Faculty and students display many different types of unethical behavior
in the classroom. Examples of unethical faculty behavior may include
using old lecture notes and/or not updating exams and assignments.
Student examples include cheating, classes, insulting classmates or the
professor. Classroom cheating can range from copying another student's
work, to theft of library materials (Moeck, 2002). In addition to human
activities, advances in technology have also raised new concerns in terns
of academic honesty and ethics.
Students need to have ethical behavior supported by their supervisors
in addition to ethics instruction in their educational programs. Teachers
need to establish and enforce ethical standards to be seen as professionals
and to guide students as they learn professional ethics.
Despite the moral impact and social implications of academic dishonesty,
there is very limited empirical research that focuses on the field of
food service and hospitality. Only a few studies have focused on students
in the applied professional fields. This project was a confirmatory
analysis that tried to identify which behavior subject has been recognized
as academic dishonesty for senior students in the field of food service
and hospitality. The purpose of this study was to assess how likely or
unlikely students were to participate in certain types of academic dishonesty
behaviors.
METHODS
Subjects
College senior students enrolled in food service, hospitality, tourism
and culinary arts programs at three colleges were contacted via their professors.
The Colleges are located in the South, the West and the Mid-West.
This pilot study used a convenience sample of 321 senior students from
these three Colleges.
Instrument
The survey was developed from information gathered from previous
studies. A customized survey instrument was designed. The questions in
the study were based on the studies relative to academic dishonesty
research topics. There were 20 questions related to academic dishonesty
included on the survey instrument. The survey was administered to a convenience
sample of senior students studying food service, hospitality,
tourism and culinary arts the three colleges. Professors teaching seniors
distributed the surveys to students who were in class that day to ensure
only senior students were surveyed.
Limitations
The use of closed-ended questions limited responses in terms of revealing
additional findings that related to academic dishonesty issues. This
study used a convenience sample from the three selected colleges,
therefore, the generalizability to other populations depends on the degree
to which these populations are the same. Eligible undergraduate students
from these three universities who did not take senior capstone or dropped
specific these courses before the survey was given are considered missing
elements of the population frame. Students interest in specific career path
such as culinary, hotel, restaurant and tourism were not measured and
would be an areas for further research.
Data Analysis
As a result of the literature review, research questions were developed
to guide the formulation of the survey instrument. The purpose
of this study was to assess how likely or unlikely senior students
studying food service, hospitality, tourism and culinary arts were to
participate in certain types of academic dishonesty behaviors. Statistical
analysis was done using frequencies and cross-tabulations to test for
significant differences between gender and academic institute.
Although significant differences were found within the survey population,
the results of this may only be generalizable to colleges with the
same similar populations.
Results
There were 321 respondents. All were seniors, with 57.9% being
female, and 42.1% male. The academic honesty survey consisted of 20
questions (Table 1). These questions were measured on a 5-point scale
with 1 representing the most likely dishonesty behavior and 5 representing
the most unlikely dishonesty behavior.
In order to confirm the academic dishonesty behavior analysis,
fifty-one freshmen were selected from one of the colleges. The 51
freshmen were 52.9% female, and 45.1% male. The same survey
instrument was distributed to these 51 freshmen and these questions
(Table 3) were measured by a 5-point scale; where 1 represents most
likely dishonesty behavior and 5 represents most unlikely dishonesty
behavior. Based on the results, the first four most likely occurrences as
academic dishonesty behavior among freshmen were the same as
seniors.
When doing paired-tests
to compare these 20 dishonesty behavior between seniors and freshmen,
no significant differences were found. (Table 4) However, when comparing
means among these 20 academic dishonesty behaviors it was found that
senior participants had slightly higher mean scores than the freshmen participants
in 15 out of 20 questions. One explanation for this may be that
senior students have a slightly more conservative attitude toward academic
dishonesty behaviors based on their level of education.
When conducting cross-tabulation testing gender to senior participants,
the statistical results recognized significance in gender.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study confirmed that among senior students there are
different academic dishonesty behaviors relative to gender. The finding
also showed that the three different colleges shared very similar scores
with several academic dishonesty behaviors.
In this study there were five academic dishonesty behaviors constantly
reported as the most likely occurring behaviors among senior
students. The most likely academic dishonesty behaviors are: (1)
working in groups but using it as individual work, (2) asking exam
answers from a prior class, (3) writing up fictitious accounts for
assignments, (4) padding the bibliography, and (5) copying from a
cheat sheet. These rankings give educators insight about students'
attitudes toward academic dishonesty behavior. However, other factors
need further exploration. These factors may include the regional
location of the school; intended career choice after graduation such as
culinary, hotel, restaurant and tourism; work experience levels, and
whether or not the students were required to take an ethics course.
Moreover, with the cultural diversity of students in higher education
institutions today, the viewpoints pertaining to the causes of dishonesty
may need to be explored.
A future questionnaire could also look at other factors such as the number
of credit hours the student is taking, the student's work schedule, and
financial aid (scholarships) related to grades received.
Catvertetal 39
REFERENCES
Burton, B.K., & Near, J.P. (1995). Estimating the incidence of wrongdoing and whistle
blowing: results of a study using randomized response technique. Journal of Business
Ethics, 14(1), 17-30.
Jendrek, M. (1989). Faculty Reactions to Academic Dishonesty. Journal of College
Student Development, 30(1), 401-406.
Johnson, M. (2000). Preventing good people from making bad decisions. Quill, 88 (8),
76-P.80.
Leo, J. (2002). Professors who see no evil. U.S. News & World Report, Vol.133 (3). P.
I4-P.I6.
McCabe, D. & Trevino, L. (1993). Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other
Contextual Factors. Journal of Higher Education 64.
Menitt, J. (2002). You mean cheating is wrong? Business Week, (3811). 8.
Michaels, J. & Miethe, T. (1989) Applying Theories of Deviance to Academic Cheating.
Social Science Quarterly, 70(4), 870-875.
Moeck, P. G. (2002). Academic dishonesty: cheating among community college students.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 479-p.489.
Morgan, B. L. & Korschgen, A. J. (2001). The ethics of faculty behavior: Students' and
professors' view. College Student Journal, 35 (3), 418-p.424.
Rawwas, M. Y. & Isakson, H. R. (2000). Ethics of tomorrow's business managers.
Journal of Education for Business, 75 (6), 321-p.331.
Silver, L. S. & Valentine, S. R. (2000). College Students' perceptions of moral intensity in
sales situation. Journal of Education for Business, 75 (6), 309-p.315.
Tong, J., & Yewchuk, C. (1996). Self-concept and sex-role orientation in gifted high
school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 15-p.23.
Yadusky-Holanhan, M., & Holahan, W. (1983). The effect of academic stress upon the
anxiety and depression levels of gifted high school students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
27,42-P.46.
