Factors Influencing the Behavior of Students
SOCW 6210 - Human Behavior and the Social Environment II
Name
Walden University
2022
Factors Influencing the Behavior of Students
According to Dusenbery, David B. (2009), A number of factors influence student behavior
including the moral development of students, student-faculty interactions, and academic codes of
conduct. Previous investigations on classroom misconduct have focused on student
characteristics and perceptions. Relatively few studies have focused on faculty members’ views
of student misconduct and faculty responses to suspicions of wrongdoing. The current study
examines the types of academic misbehavior faculty members suspect occur in their class-rooms,
methods they use to deter such misconduct, and the factors that influence instructors’ decisions
to act on suspected inappropriate behavior. Academic dishonesty is a concern to many educators
in university classrooms. Faculty members indicate that they use a variety of measures to
improve student behavior.
However, some teachers did not act on suspected academic dishonesty due in part to their
anxiety about the process. Some students act ethically because they are worried about being
“caught” by faculty members. Others choose more ethical behavior be-cause they realize that
dishonesty harms them-selves, their instructors, and other students (Bennett, 2005).
Unfortunately, not all students choose to act ethically and this cause of great concern among
educators (Levy & Rakovski, 2006). In order to understand factors related to academic honesty,
this current study focuses on faculty members’ perceptions of student behavior, faculty reactions
to suspected misconduct, and faculty concerns about dealing with academic dishonesty.
Every day students face ethical questions and choices. Frequent concerns include whether or not
they should behave ethically during testing, participate in unauthorized group homework, and/or
plagiarize from the Internet (Szabo & Un-derwood, 2004). Many factors influence students’
decision making processes (Taylor, Paterson,Usick, Thordarson, & Smith, 2006). Variables
related to cognitive development and environment affect how they choose to behave (Bandura,
1991a).Teachers exerts significant influence in the classroom environment and thus influences
student behavior. Research by Pulversand Dierkhoff (1999) examined the relationship between
internal student variables, classroom environments, and academic dishonesty. Their findings
suggest that both internal and external factors influence the decision-making processes relating to
inappropriate behavior.
Dishonest students found their classes to be impersonal and less satisfying; they also felt that
they received less individual attention than more honest students. Pulvers and Dierkhoff
speculated that de-personalization reduced the students’ interest in pleasing the teachers. In
addition, students de-valued the course and this made it easier in such students’ minds to justify
their misconduct. This being a non-experimental study, it is impossible to conclude the existence
of a causal relationship. However, Pulver and Dierkhoff’s work suggests that there is a
connection between students’ un-ethical behavior and students’ perceptions of the classroom
environment Institutional honor codes are another environ-mental factor that plays a role in
academic honesty (McCabe, Butterfield & Trevino; 2003;McCabe & Pavela, 2004; McCabe,
Trevino, &Butterfield, 2001). Honor codes seem to affect students’ moral development through
increasing feelings of responsibility and accountability to themselves and others.
As a result, when collegiate honor codes are used, students act in amore appropriate manner and
are more likely to report other students for honor code violations (McCabe, Trevino, &
Butterfield, 2001). In addition to affecting students, honor codes also seem to affect faculty.
Teachers working in institutions with honor codes have “more positive attitudes towards their
schools’ academic integrity policies and are more willing to allow the system to take care of
monitoring and disciplinary activities” than those institutions without honor codes (McCabe,
Butterfield & Trevino,2003, p. 367). This effect on faculty members may also have an indirect
effect on student behavior. Students who have a greater fear of being caught and punished are
less likely to violate honor codes (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002)Internal and external
factors were related to academic dishonesty.
The external variables included pressure, probability of being caught, and aspects of professors’
behavior. Students reported that their propensity to acting a dishonest manner was related to
instructors’ leniency and the perceived probability of a faculty member’s acting on observed
misconduct. Interestingly, some students blamed the teachers for inappropriate behavior because
they felt that certain faculty allowed students opportunities to be dishonest and thus were
culpable for the students’ actions Ashworth, Bannister and Thorne’s (1997) re-search data
indicate that students are often un-certain regarding expected behavior. Many were not clear
about what plagiarism was or when to use citations. Thus, the lines between academically honest
and dishonest behavior were not clear to students. What teachers defined as dishonest was not
congruent with the students’ perceptions. Environmental factors such as the following are
significant: large classrooms; lack of communication with staff (resulting in feelings of
alienation); reliance on group learning (resulting in “facilitation” and justification of
inappropriate student behavior).A study performed by Simon, Carr, Mc Cul-lough, Morgan,
Oleson, and Reese (2003) also found an association between the environment and academic
honesty issues. Educators are concerned about academic integrity, particularly about how to
respond when inappropriate behavior was suspected in their class-rooms. Fortunately, actions to
improve student ethical behavior are effective (Taylor et al., 2006).McCabe and Pavela (1997)
have defined many activities that support higher levels of student integrity. Principle driven
interventions include: Realizing and affirming academic integrity as an institutional core value.
Promoting a commitment to lifelong learning, Establishing the role of teachers as both guides
and mentors, Assisting students in understanding how the Internet can help and also hurt them,
Encouraging students to take responsibility for academic integrity, Providing assurance that
students know and understand expectations, Creating and using fair forms of assessment,
Decreasing the opportunities students have to be academically dishonest, Dealing with academic
dishonesty when it happens and Assisting with defining and supporting cam-pus-wide academic
standards for behavior. Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, (2005) also suggests that interventions can
be implemented that promote student development and honest behavior. Many actions relate to
creating an environment that fosters personal growth through caring and support.
Similar work by Noddings (2002, 2003) encourages educators to foster ethical behavior through
the development of a nurturing environment for students. In such a place, students can bond with
their role models, and develop ethical decision-making skills and behavior. To support
development, teachers need to be emotionally and physically available to their students
(Noddings, 2003). Fostering self-knowledge, meeting physical and emotional needs, and acting
in an ethical manner are other key issues that instructors must consider when building
environments that promote student growth and moral development (Noddings, 2002).Throughout
the reviewed literature, themes emerge regarding academic honesty and improving student
misbehavior.
A recurring premise is the role that environment plays in decision-making. One can conclude
that the setting does influence—and even facilitate--ethical and un-ethical behavior within a
college or university through the creation and maintenance of an academic integrity milieu.
Another theme is faculty uncertainty regarding best practices that promote moral behavior.
Several theories of moral development that can help educators understand their influence on
students have been widely studied (Chickering, Dalton & Stamm, 2006; Tisdell, 2003). The
Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Actionby Bandura (1991a) receives considerable
attention. This theory provides an understanding of the many interactions that affect students’
thought, the environment, and behavior. Bandura simplifies the complex concepts related to
student moral development into a three-part model. In defining this theory, Ban-dura (1991b)
explained that moral behavior is affected by both cognitive and environmental factors. Cognitive
aspects include intellectual and moral developmental level, reaction to situa-tions, and
commitment to social norms. According to Bandura, the main environmental variables in higher
education include social norms, codes of conduct, and modeling by others.
By social norms, Bandura refers to perceived acceptable behavior. These norms influence what
people feel they should or should not be doing. Codes of conduct also affect behavior by
providing a better understanding of social norms and expectations. Finally, modeling presents
people with visual cues regarding what is—or is not--acceptable behavior. Bandura’s research
indicates that providing people with opportunities to explore their own understanding and the
world around them enhances moral reasoning skills and intellectual abilities. Bandura’s model is
applicable to higher educational settings (Nadelson, 2006). In terms of behavior, student
cognitive factors include their level of moral reasoning and intelligence. These features influence
students’ environmental perceptions. As a result, students interpret right and wrong very
differently (Chickering et al, 1993Some see the world as very dichotomous with rules and
actions being either right or wrong, while others believe that context affects the situation and
decision-making. According to Bandura’s theory, social norms and students’ commitment to
them play a part in determining academic behavior.
The awareness of academic rules influences behavior. This can impact faculty members’
emphasis on expectations of classroom conduct and the consequences of not conforming to such
expectations. In addition, students’ desire to align themselves with the norms of an institution
will affect their behavior (Bandura, 1991b). Some students strongly desire to “fit in” while others
do not feel that adhering to social norms is important. The behaviors between the two groups will
differ considerably. Likewise, students’ affinity with their instructors plays a part in behavior
(Bandura, 1991b). If students feel close to their professors and believe that faculty members care
about them, they are more likely to want to please instructors and model the expected behaviors.
Bandura’s theory concludes that cognitive processes and the environment influence student
behavior. Therefore, changes in conduct are made by affecting students’ situations through codes
of conduct, college and classroom environments, and working to develop social norms that are
consistent with character development. The body of literature in the area of student conduct is
growing. However, Bandura’s theory and the above cited studies do not give a complete
understanding of how faculty can promote ethical behavior in classrooms. In addition,
knowledge is lacking regarding environmental factors that direct faculty actions in their class-
room activities. The current study will hopefully give further insights on these important
variables relating to academic integrity.
References
Jossey-Bass.Flint, A., Clegg, S., & MacDonald, R. (2006). Ex-ploring staff perceptions of
student plagiarism.Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40, 124-156.Kuh, G.,
Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating conditionsthat
matter. SF:
Jossey-Bass.Levy, E., & Rakovski, C. (2006). Academic dishonesty: A zero tolerance policy
professor and student registration choices. Research in Higher Educa-tion, 47, 735-754.
Longres, John F. (2000). Human behavior in the social environment, 3rd Edition. Itasca, IL:
Peacock. (ISBN: 0-87581-426-3).
Love, P., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate
students in a college of education. College Student Jour-nal, 32, 539-551.
Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. Yale University Press.
Power C, Hertzman C. Health, wellbeing and coping skills. In: Keating DP, Hertz-man C, eds.
Developmental health and the wealth of nations: social, biological, and edu-cational
dynamics. New York: Guilford Press, 1999:41–54.19.
Powers, J. D., Bowen, G. L., & Rose, R. A. (2005). Using social environment assets to identify
intervention strategies for promoting school success. Children & Schools, 27, 177–185
Pulvers, K. & Diekhoff, G. M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and
college eclassroom environment. Research in Higher Edu-cation, 40 (4), 487-499
Rotter, J. B. (1945). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice-Hall.
Yeung WJ, Linver MR, Brooks-Gunn J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s
development: parental investment and family processes. Child Dev; 73(6):1861–79.18.
