Identifying Unethical Academic Behaviors of Students Studying Food Service, Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts

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.