Exploring the types and reasons of Internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS)

  • Authors:
  • Yavuz Akbulut;Serkan Şendağ;Gürkay Birinci;Kerem Kılıçer;Mehmet C Şahin;Hatice F Odabaşı

  • Affiliations:
  • Anadolu University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey;Anadolu University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey;Anadolu University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey;Anadolu University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey;Anadolu University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey;Anadolu University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey

  • Venue:
  • Computers & Education
  • Year:
  • 2008

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Internet contributes to the development of science and facilitates scientific demeanors while it also serves as a ground for academic misdemeanors. Recent studies indicate that Internet facilitates and spreads academic dishonesty. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the extent of involvement of Turkish university students in academic dishonesty practices facilitated through Internet (i.e. e-dishonesty) and to question the conditions which lead to e-dishonesty. Three hundred and forty nine education faculty students from the most populated state university in Turkey were administered two Likert-Scale questionnaires developed by the researchers. After the reliability and validity conditions were met, two exploratory factor analyses were conducted. The first one revealed the factors constituting common types of e-dishonesty among undergraduate students which were fraudulence, plagiarism, falsification, delinquency, and unauthorized help. The second factor analysis exhibited individual and contextual factors triggering e-dishonesty which were named as individual factors, institutional policies and peer pressure. Results of both analyses are discussed and suggestions for further research are provided.