Description
NURS-FPX6103 Create a 12-20 slide teaching PowerPoint presentation on a legal or ethical issue pertinent to nurse educators.
As nurses we are all, no doubt, very aware of the myriad of legal and ethical issues in any health care setting. We are familiar with licensing for health care professionals, perhaps carry our own malpractice insurance, and have been cautioned by our employing institutions to always follow policy and procedures.
Nursing education is no different; there are specific legal and ethical issues that are of concern to nurse educators. Some of the specific areas of which nurses working in education need to be well aware include the following:
Faculty rights and responsibilities.
Student rights.
Clinical evaluation of students.
Academic dishonesty.
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
In addition, it is also important to understand the responsibility of faculty regarding information about students. This is important for both academic faculty and for clinical faculty supervising students in clinical areas.
As in clinical practice, documentation of concerns and issues that arise in educational settings can be very important.
As you prepare to complete this assessment, you may want to think about other related issues to deepen your understanding or broaden your viewpoint. You are encouraged to consider the questions below and discuss them with a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend, or a member of your professional community.
Note that these questions are for your own development and exploration and do not need to be completed or submitted as part of your assessment.
How does the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) impact the work of a professor in a university-based nursing program?
How would you handle plagiarism in the nursing classroom?
In this assessment, you will create a PowerPoint presentation that you could use to teach a group about a legal or ethical issue related to nursing or nursing education. To do so, you will select a case from the Nursing Education Legal and Ethical Scenarios | Transcript media piece to be your focus.
Review the case and take time to reflect on the change that needs to occur and the group that you will be addressing.
Research what the group needs to know to improve the legal or ethical situation that has occurred.
Use a minimum of seven references, a minimum of five of which should come from peer- reviewed sources and all should be within the last five years.
Nursing Education Legal and Ethical Scenario:
ETHICS IN STAFF EDUCATION
As the nurse educator responsible for orienting new staff on four medical/surgical units, you have a group of nurses that you depend on to precept new hires. Marcy is a new RN who is a recent graduate of a local BSN program; she has been hired as a staff nurse on a cardiology unit. She advised HR and her nurse manager when she was hired that she has a hearing deficit and has a special amplified stethoscope that she uses. She also shared this with you and with her precepting nurse, Jason. You note that in orientation classes she is attentive, engages in class activities, and relates well to the others in her class. When you meet with Marcy and Jason to review orientation progress, her skills check list is more than halfway completed. Jason compliments Marcy on her patient education skills with CHF patients and their families. You ask if either has any concerns about how the orientation is going. Marcy shakes her head no, but Jason encourages her to discuss a concern. Marcy tells you that there are several nurses on the unit that have asked about her stethoscope and have made negative comments about her abilities to work in cardiology. Marcy says this has happened several times. Jason states he did not hear it because he was on the phone or out of the nurse’s station; however, Marcy told him about it later. You are concerned because you recognize this as horizontal violence or bullying and a potential violation of the Americans for Disabilities Act. You tell Marcy and Jason that you will discuss it with the nurse manager.
After talking with the nurse manager, who agrees this is a serious issue, a plan is devised. The nurse manager will follow-up with her assistant manager and both will be alert for any further incidents with any staff. You will do a presentation on horizontal violence or bullying that will be presented to all nurses over the next month with a discussion session.
References-
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.
As you conduct research, synthesize information that will be needed to evoke a change in the situation.
Create a 12–20 slide PowerPoint presentation that you would use to teach about the legal or ethical situation and to create change related to that situation.
Note: You must include 2–4 context slides. These are additional slides that provide contextual information for this assessment. Follow the guidelines for the two types of slides below.
Presentation Slides
For your 12–20 slide presentation:
Choose an appropriate theme and style.
Include an introductory slide that identifies the problem and your role.
Use slides to convey the important information and understandings to the group.
Provide a summary slide that reiterates the important points of the presentation.
Also provide a slide that offers resources for the group after the teaching/learning experience.
Include a slide with any references used in preparing the PowerPoint.
Use the speaker’s notes feature to provide any additional information that you would include in the presentation. This should include any cultural sensitivity aspects and how the content is expected to make a change regarding the issue being addressed.
Context Slides
For the 2–4 contextual slides (which are not considered part of the actual presentation but rather should contain information that you as a presenter would need to consider in your preparation and presentation):
Discuss any specific cultural and/or diversity aspects of the presentation that could be significant in the learning process. Include references and sources used to inform this.
Analyze how the presentation may result in a significant change in the identified environment. Cite any relevant sources.
Develop specific plans for how you might stay informed about the legal or ethical issue that was your focus. What resources could you use to learn about changes or developments that would impact your work?
Create a professional-looking PowerPoint presentation, using speaker notes throughout.
Length: 12–20 slides for teaching presentation plus 2–4 additional contextual slides.
Use correct APA format for all citations and references; include a reference page.
All references must be within the last 5 years
Writing should be free of grammatical errors.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the course competencies through the following assessment scoring guide criteria:
Competency 4: Apply knowledge of legal and ethical issues relevant to higher education and nursing education.
Describe a legal or ethical issue that requires changes in staff, faculty, or student behaviors.
Synthesize resource information needed to evoke a change in the described situation.
Competency 5: Articulate how nurse educators serve as change agents and leaders to help advance nursing education and nursing practice.
Create a teaching presentation on a legal or ethical issue designed to evoke change in staff, faculty, or a student group.
Identify culturally sensitive issues and how they should be addressed in the change process.
Competency 7: Establish a plan for pursuing continuous improvement in the nurse educator role.
Develop specific plans for continuous learning about a legal or ethical issue impacting nurse educators.
Competency 8: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with the expectations of a nursing education professional.
Design a PowerPoint presentation consistent with current professional standards that demonstrates correct grammar, usage, and mechanics in addition to following APA standards.
References
Barton, A. J. (2019). Enhancing your professional presence on social media. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(3), 127–128.
Klocko, M. N. (2014). Academic dishonesty in schools of nursing: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(3), 121–125.
Obeidat, R., & Norcio, A. (2019). Nurses’ attitudes toward implementing disruptive change: Does change management matter? Journal of Informatics Nursing, 4(3), 14–20.
Smedley, A., Crawford, T., & Cloete, L. (2020). An evaluation of an extended intervention to reduce plagiarism in bachelor of nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 41(2), 106–108.
Gilliard, K. W. (2020). Students’ privacy rights: Where HIPAA and FERPA intersect. APTA Magazine, 12(8), 10–15.
Hlavac, G. C., & Easterly, E. J. (2015). FERPA primer: The basics and beyond. NACE. http://www.naceweb.org/public/ferpa0808.htm
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Academic Dishonesty in Schools of Nursing:
A Literature Review
Marilyn N. Klocko, MSN, RN, CNE
ABSTRACT
Academic dishonesty in schools of nursing is surprisingly common. The following literature review defines academic dishonesty, describes the scope of the problem, and
sheds light on factors that affect student behaviors that
lead to academic dishonesty in schools of nursing. Finally,
barriers to and best practices for solutions to the problem
will be reviewed as they appear within the literature. [J Nurs
Educ. 2014;53(3):121-125.]
Received: June 26, 2013
Accepted: November 6, 2013
Posted Online: February 5, 2014
Ms. Klocko is Faculty, Brookhaven College School of Nursing, Farmers
Branch, Texas.
The author has disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial
or otherwise.
Address correspondence to Marilyn N. Klocko, MSN, RN, CNE, Faculty,
Brookhaven College School of Nursing, 3939 Valley View Lane, X1020,
Farmers Branch, TX 75244; e-mail: [email protected].
doi:10.3928/01484834-20140205-01
Journal of Nursing Education • Vol. 53, No. 3, 2014
A
cademic integrity may be defined as “the pursuit of
knowledge, understanding and truth in an honest manner” (Gaberson, 1997, p. 14). Conversely, academic
dishonesty may be defined as engagement in practices that intentionally represent the work of another as one’s own (Gaberson, 1997; Jeffreys & Stier, 1995; Kenny, 2007). Dishonest
classroom behaviors can include copying or giving answers in a
testing situation, divulging a test’s contents to another student,
using technology to access test banks, using the Internet to recall or store information that may be on a test, or plagiarism
(Arhin, 2009; Harper, 2006; Kenny, 2007; McCabe, 2009).
Supon (2008) described one student’s method of recording
answers to an examination on an iPod® and simply running an
earpiece through a hooded shirt that fed data to the student in
audio form. Other ingenious modalities used to cheat involve
writing answers on almost anything that can be placed on a
desk, including food wrappers, water bottles, hat brims, tissues,
or pens, or on any body part or appendage such as bandages or
casts (Supon, 2008). Coughing and tapping have also been used
as codes to transmit information between students in a testing
environment (Supon, 2008).
With the increased availability and popularity of online
courses in higher education, novel modalities for cheating are
more difficult to detect than within the traditional classroom.
Young (2013) described one group of students who used
Google™ Docs, a Web-based word processor, to cheat on an
essay examination. Each student researched and answered a
predetermined section of the test and shared the answer with
the others via Google Docs, accessed by a concealed secondary computer (Young, 2013). The professor did not discover the
group effort. Plagiarism is more tempting and prevalent than
ever before, as the ability to buy a custom-written paper online
or to “copy and paste” the ideas of another without citation has
been made ultra-accessible in today’s high-tech world (Harper,
2006; Kenny, 2007; McCabe, 2009; Tanner, 2004; Young,
2013).
In nursing education, dishonest behaviors can occur in the
classroom, virtual classroom, and clinical arenas. Clinical
cheating behaviors are especially disturbing because they can
translate into harmful patient outcomes (Baxter & Boblin, 2007;
121
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
Gaberson, 1997; Jeffreys & Stier, 1995). Hilbert (1985, 1987)
described a significant correlation between unethical classroom
and clinical behaviors and further demonstrated that a student’s
belief that a behavior was unethical was not a deterrent to engaging in the behavior. Examples of unethical clinical behaviors
include falsification of patient data, such as vital signs or assessments, alteration of charts, or failure to report a mistake such
as a medication error (Baxter & Boblin, 2007; Hilbert, 1987).
Bailey (1990) and Balik, Sharon, Kelisheck, and Tabak (2010)
reported that among faculty and administrators in schools of
nursing, 86% of respondents perceived academic fraud to be an
indicator of future unethical professional behavior.
trast, Aiken (1991) reported that male students were found to
cheat more than female students. Within all majors, students
with lower grade point averages (GPAs) and students engaged
in collegiate sports were more likely to engage in classroom
cheating behaviors (McCabe et al., 2001). However, Hilbert
(1987) and McCabe and Trevino (1997) found that the occurrence of unethical behaviors was unrelated to age, sex, ethnic
background or GPA. Finally, McCrink (2010) found no significant difference among cultural groups with regard to frequency
of self-reported engagement in behaviors of academic misconduct.
FACTORS AFFECTING BEHAVIORS
SCOPE AND INCIDENCE
Academic dishonesty is historically well documented. In
a 1964 study, Bowers found that 75% of students on college
and university campuses engaged in one or more incidences
of academic dishonesty. In the years since that study, McCabe,
Trevino, and Butterfield (2001) described a continuing trend in
academic dishonesty in higher education within all disciplines.
McCabe (2009) found that there was not a significant difference between the frequency of cheating behaviors in nursing
programs, compared with other disciplines. In fact, cheating in
schools of nursing is prevalent and well documented in the literature. In that study by McCabe (2009), which polled 2,000
nursing students, data revealed that approximately 50% of both
graduate and undergraduate nursing students had engaged in at
least one form of classroom cheating behavior. More than three
quarters of respondents in a study of nursing students by Brown
(2002) stated that they had witnessed cheating behaviors in the
classroom, whereas one quarter had, themselves, admitted to
cheating. A study by McCrink (2010) revealed that 21.5% of
nursing students admitted to engaging in academic misconduct, including cheating on examinations and plagiarism. In a
study of nursing students conducted by Hilbert (1985, 1987),
19% of respondents reported engaging in clinical misconduct
in the form of falsification of patient records, whereas up to
23% of the same sample engaged in some form of classroom
cheating. In a survey study of administrators and faculty, Bailey (1990) found that 38% thought cheating was a significant
problem in the baccalaureate nursing degree program in which
they worked.
DEMOGRAPHIC
The literature is scarce regarding a correlation between
student demographic characteristics and prevalence of cheating behaviors. The available evidence is inconsistent, and few
sources provide data that are exclusive to nursing. McCabe et
al. (2001) found that among students in higher education within
all disciplines, younger students cheated more than those older,
freshman and sophomore students cheated more than juniors
and seniors, and students in larger classes or on larger campuses
had higher occurrences of cheating. Within similar majors, one
study found gender differences to be insignificant with regard
to engagement in cheating behaviors (Hilbert, 1987; McCabe,
2009; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; McCabe et al., 2001). In con122
Many factors may influence a student’s decision to cheat.
Although McCabe et al. (2001) found individual factors to be
less significant than contextual factors in a student’s decision to
cheat, both may play a role. Individual factors consist of personality traits, whereas contextual factors encompass environmental influences. Complicating the picture of what factors affect
student behaviors, student and faculty attitudes and perceptions
of what constitutes academic dishonesty are often incongruent
(Arhin, 2009). Ignorance on the part of the student regarding
what exactly constitutes cheating often leads to unknowing engagement in academically dishonest behaviors (Arhin, 2009).
Contextual Factors
Categorized as contextual factors, some of the motives students recognized for engaging in cheating behaviors included
parental pressures to obtain good grades, pressure to get a good
job, unclear definitions of what constituted dishonest behaviors,
quantity and significance of assignments, inadequate proctoring
of examinations, inconsistent enforcement of academic fraud
policy, perceived severity of penalties for cheating, and personal experiences with role models (Balik et al., 2010; Gaberson,
1997; Hilbert, 1987; McCabe et al., 2001). Gaberson (1997)
cited competition with classmates, emphasis on perfection, and
impaired or stalled moral development as other factors that may
influence a student’s decision to cheat. Baxter and Boblin (2007)
merged the theories of Kohlberg (1981), Gilligan (1982), and
Rest (1986, 1994) to explain that a student’s interaction with
others has the potential to influence moral development. If a
student is exposed to others with a high level of moral development, student behaviors are positively influenced, whereas
interaction with those who possess unethical behaviors will
impart a negative influence. O’Rourke et al. (2010) concluded
that cheating is socially driven and chosen over moral values if
it is the accepted behavior within a group. Therefore, academic
dishonesty is often learned from observing peers who provide
a kind of normative support for cheating (Bandura, 1986; McCabe et al., 2001).
Individual Factors
McCabe et al. (2001) described that many college students
use a variety of “neutralization techniques” (p. 227), such as rationalization, condemnation of accusers, denial, and deflecting
blame to others in explaining cheating behaviors. However, in
a study on attitudes toward behaviors of academic misconduct,
Copyright © SLACK Incorporated
KLOCKO
McCrink (2010) found that nursing students with negative attitudes toward rationalization behaviors were less likely to engage in them. Certain personality traits add to the individual
factors that can influence the likelihood of cheating behaviors.
Lack of responsibility, laziness, poor self-image, lack of character, lack of personal integrity, lack of moral development, lack
of satisfaction in a job well done, and even a desire to excel are
some of these traits (Harper, 2006; Hilbert, 1987; McCabe et
al., 2001).
Boblin, 2007; Gaberson, 1997; Hilbert, 1987; McCabe, 2009;
McCabe et al., 2001).
A variety of strategies have been proposed and implemented
to deter cheating behaviors in higher education. Evaluation of
outcomes has shown that some strategies were more effective
than others. The methods proven to be effective have been implemented as best practices. Less effective approaches imposed
barriers between the educator and student and did not mitigate
the problem of academic fraud.
Student Attitudes
Policy Implementation and Code of Conduct
It is evident in the literature that student attitudes toward the
definition of academically dishonest behaviors play a major role
in determining engagement in those behaviors (Bolin, 2004;
McCabe et al., 2001; McCrink, 2010). McCabe (2009) found
that the more serious a student felt a cheating behavior was, the
less likely they were to engage in it. Students who rationalize
cheating are positively correlated with behaviors of academic
misconduct (McCrink, 2010). Certain behaviors of cheating,
such as getting test questions from another student, were not
deemed unethical by 19% of student respondents in a study of
nursing students by McCrink (2010). Seventeen percent of respondents in the same study did not view paraphrasing without citation or appropriate referencing as unethical (McCrink,
2010).
A link has been established between lack of acquired knowledge due to classroom cheating behaviors and clinical misconduct and incompetency (Hilbert, 1987; McCrink, 2010). As
many as 13% of respondents in a study regarding nursing student’s attitudes towards unethical behaviors did not find falsifying vital signs or breaking sterile technique without replacing
supplies to be unethical (McCrink, 2010). Gaberson (1997) suggested that nursing faculty should be seriously concerned when
a link exists between academic integrity and future professional
practice. Schmidt (2006) found that cheating among nursing
students is a significant ethical concern for nurse educators.
A study by Arhin (2009) found similar results in that today’s
Generation Y students have normalized many behaviors considered by faculty to be dishonest. Although a large proportion of
students in this population easily identified dishonest behaviors
in examination situations, only approximately half were able to
identify that “making up” laboratory data was a dishonest practice (Arhin, 2009). Known for their inventive resourcefulness
and peer-dependent characteristics, the Generation Y age group
felt they demonstrated good use of available resources, creativity, and imagination when falsifying and sharing laboratory
data—a distinct dissimilarity from faculty perceptions (Arhin,
2009; Tanner, 2004). The increased use and availability of technology has only added to the normalization, ease, and incidence
of cheating behaviors in higher education (Arhin, 2009; Harper,
2006; McCabe, 2009; Tanner, 2004).
Many faculty experience an ethical predicament when faced
with implementing policy regarding academic fraud (McCabe
et al., 2001). This, in addition to lack of support by other faculty,
can cause teachers to ignore obvious cheating (Bailey, 1990;
Jeffreys & Stier, 1995; McCabe et al., 2001). Hoyer, Booth,
Spelman, and Richardson (1991) proposed that nurse educators
might be reluctant to admit that students engage in unethical
clinical behaviors, as these behaviors compromise a patient’s
physical well-being. This may pose a threat to the educator’s
professional self-image (Hoyer et al., 1991). Harper (2006) explained that the failure of professors to address academically
dishonest student practices contributes to a culture that allows
cheating to be permissible. To curb academic dishonesty, a joint
university and student government–generated policy regarding
academic dishonesty needs to be consistently supported, implemented, and enforced (Arhin, 2009; Bailey, 1990; Balik et al.,
2010; Gaberson, 1997; Jeffreys & Stier, 1995; Kenny, 2007).
The use and enforcement of honor codes has proven to be
efficacious in curbing cheating behaviors (Arhin, 2009; Harper,
2006; Keçeci, Bulduk, Oruç, & Çelik, 2011; McCabe, 2009;
McCabe et al., 2001). Students who agree to the honor code are
less likely to cheat and rationalize cheating behaviors (McCabe
et al., 2001). Honor codes need to contain clear definitions of
what constitutes academic fraud, delineate sanctions that will
be imposed for infractions, and deeply embed a contextual
culture of integrity on campus (Gaberson, 1997; Keçeci et al.,
2011; McCabe et al., 2001). Student involvement in the development and oversight of an honor code increases the likelihood
of its understanding and acceptance by students (Arhin, 2009;
Balik et al., 2010).
SOLUTIONS: BARRIERS AND BEST PRACTICES
Because a combination of attitudes, contextual factors, and
individual factors contribute to cheating behaviors in students,
best practice solutions consider and incorporate all of these factors when approaching the problem (Arhin, 2009; Baxter &
Journal of Nursing Education • Vol. 53, No. 3, 2014
Moral and Character Development and Role Modeling
Another barrier to academic integrity is impaired or stalled
moral development. This character trait leads to student unawareness of or indifference to unethical behaviors in the academic or clinical setting (Gaberson, 1997). Nursing faculty
must contribute to the development of moral character in nursing students to ensure that honesty and integrity are practiced,
not only in school but after graduation as well (Gaberson, 1997;
Keçeci et al., 2011; Schmidt, 2006). Keçeci et al. (2011) and
Tippitt et al. (2009) found that nurse educators play a major
role in establishing a culture of integrity in the academic setting
and are responsible for facilitation of student achievement of
ethical professional behaviors. Lewenson, Truglio-Londrigan,
& Singleton (2005) challenged nurse educators to examine their
own values and to engage in behaviors that provide positive role
modeling for nursing students to follow. Tippitt et al. (2009)
123
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
found that bringing about an environment that fostered academic integrity often required a cultural change on campus, but
it is a goal that must be pursued by nurse educators to achieve
long-term changes.
Socialization into the profession of nursing that emphasizes ethical and caring practices is an essential component in
the education of the nursing student (Baxter & Boblin, 2007;
Gaberson, 1997; McCrink, 2010). Nursing students are socialized in clinical areas regarding ethically sound behaviors by
adopting behaviors to which they have been exposed (Baxter
& Boblin, 2007). However, the reverse is true when improper
role modeling provides examples of unprofessional, ethically
deviant behaviors or when students have had poor or absent role
models in their lives (Baxter & Boblin, 2007; Gaberson, 1997).
Nursing faculty have a responsibility to provide students with
opportunities to work alongside ethically sound practitioners in
a professionally positive learning environment (Baxter & Boblin, 2007). Finally, it is imperative that nursing faculty personally act as shining examples of professionalism and character
by role modeling the ethical practices and behaviors they expect
to instill in students (Baxter & Boblin, 2007; Gaberson, 1997;
Tippitt et al., 2009).
Allowing Mistakes
Academic dishonesty can and will proliferate in an environment of high stress, where students feel the need to perform perfectly at all times (Gaberson, 1997). Perfection is a particularly
unrealistic goal for nursing students, who naturally will make
mistakes in the course of their education (Gaberson, 1997).
When faculty offer an atmosphere that allows a safe place to
make mistakes, they create an environment that promotes academic integrity by acknowledging that errors can and do occur
(Baxter & Boblin, 2007; Gaberson, 1997).
Student-Suggested Solutions
Students surveyed regarding methods that would discourage cheating suggested closer student observation, additional
proctor presence, keeping belongings at the front of class during testing, and not allowing students to leave the room during
examinations (Brown, 2002). Regarding examinations, students
felt less cheating would occur if examinations were changed
often and kept under lock and key, if seating was assigned during examinations, and if different versions of the same test were
administered simultaneously (Arhin, 2009; Brown, 2002; Tippitt et al., 2009).
McCabe (2009) suggested that many of these safeguards address individual factors and are ineffective in deterring cheating
behaviors. Rather, it is suggested that honor codes and academic
environments of integrity have been proven to be the keys to
successful solutions to academic fraud (Chiesl, 2007; McCabe,
2009).
Harper (2006) recommended that a combination of high-tech
and low-tech methodologies might be effective in diminishing
the incidence of cheating. High-tech methods that detect plagiarism include Internet plagiarism search sites, such as Turnitin®,
that scan submitted papers for similarity to other papers within
a large database (Chiesl, 2007; Harper, 2006). New software is
being developed that identifies a student’s literary fingerprint in
124
a writing assignment known to be original. Most students use
the same vocabulary within writing assignments, so comparing
the known writing to subsequent writings identifies suspicious
differences (Young, 2013).
Online course designers are devising new ways to prevent
and detect cheating. Testing systems are available that select
questions at random from a computerized test bank while an examination is being administered. Tests could still be taken from
anywhere, but students should have a very narrow time window
in which to test (one minute or less per question), disallowing
the opportunity look up answers (Chiesl, 2007; Young, 2013).
Chiesl (2007) suggested computerized testing that does not allow a student to go back to a question when an answer has been
selected, minimizing the ability to look up and change answers.
A method under consideration at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology uses electronic fingerprinting to analyze each
user’s typing style and face recognition to help verify student
identity in testing situations (Young, 2013). Some online universities are using products that allow a 360° view around students, with human proctors who remotely watch students on
Web cameras and monitor keystrokes during testing (Young,
2013). Fingerprint scanning has also been used to determine a
student’s identity in a testing environment (Young, 2013).
Low-tech methods suggested to deter cheating incorporate
contextual solutions, such as honor codes, communication of
academic integrity expectations, maintenance of a community
of trust and integrity on campus, and support for university
standards regarding academic integrity (Harper, 2006; McCabe,
2009). Chiesl (2007) suggested that classroom cheating can be
almost eliminated by using multiple versions of the same paper
test, verbally warning students regarding the consequences of
cheating, and by increasing proctor presence within the testing
environment. Chiesl (2007) further hypothesized that allowing
a student multiple attempts to take an examination and averaging the results reduces the pressure to cheat and allows for additional learning as new questions are introduced on subsequent
tests.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Academic dishonesty among nursing students is particularly disturbing because it has been linked to unethical clinical
behaviors that may endanger human lives. It is essential that
schools of nursing graduate technically and ethically competent
practitioners. Monitoring for dishonest behaviors is an essential precursor for achieving this goal. A good understanding of
the reasons for academic dishonesty provides a solid basis for
enlightened action plans that avoid barriers to solutions and incorporates best practices into the academic arena.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.R. (1991). Detecting, understanding, and controlling for cheating
on tests. Research in Higher Education, 32, 725-736.
Arhin, A.O. (2009). A pilot study of nursing student’s perceptions of academic dishonesty: A generation Y perspective. ABNF Journal, 20, 1721.
Bailey, P.A. (1990). Cheating among nursing students. Nurse Educator,
15(3), 32-35.
Balik, C., Sharon, D., Kelisheck, S., & Tabak, N. (2010). Attitudes towards
Copyright © SLACK Incorporated
KLOCKO
academic cheating during nursing studies. Medicine and Law, 29, 547563.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baxter, P.E., & Boblin, S.L. (2007). The moral development of baccalaureate nursing students: Understanding ethical behavior in classroom and
clinical settings. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 20-27.
Bolin, A.U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as
predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138,
101-114.
Bowers, W.J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New
York, NY: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.
Brown, D.L. (2002). Cheating must be okay, everybody does it! Nurse Educator, 27, 6-8.
Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based
courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 203-211.
Gaberson, K.B. (1997). Academic dishonesty among nursing students.
Nursing Forum, 32(3), 14-20.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Harper, M.G. (2006). High tech cheating. Nurse Education Today, 26, 672679.
Hilbert, G.A. (1985). Involvement of nursing students in unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1, 230234.
Hilbert, G.A. (1987). Academic fraud: Prevalence, practices, and reasons.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 3, 39-45.
Hoyer, P.J., Booth, D., Spelman, M.R., & Richardson, C.E. (1991). Clinical
cheating and moral development. Nursing Outlook, 39, 170-173.
Jeffreys, M.R., & Stier, L.A. (1995). SPEAKING against student academic
dishonesty: A communication model for nurse educators. Journal of
Nursing Education, 34, 297-304.
Keçeci, A., Bulduk, S., Oruç, D., & Çelik, S. (2011). Academic dishonesty
among nursing students: A descriptive study. Nursing Ethics, 18, 725733.
Kenny, D. (2007). Student plagiarism and professional practice. Nurse Education Today, 27, 14-18.
Journal of Nursing Education • Vol. 53, No. 3, 2014
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy
of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Lewenson, S.B., Truglio-Londrigan, M., & Singleton, J. (2005). Practice
what you teach: A case study of ethical conduct in the academic setting.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 21, 89-96.
McCabe, D.L. (2009). Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An empirical investigation. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 614-623.
McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research
in Higher Education, 38, 379-396.
McCabe, D.L.,Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic
institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11, 219-232.
McCrink, A. (2010). Academic misconduct in nursing students: Behaviors,
attitudes, rationalizations and cultural identity. Journal of Nursing Education, 49, 653-659.
O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger,
D.A. (2010). Imitation is the sincerest form of cheating: The influence
of direct knowledge and attitudes on academic dishonesty. Ethics and
Behavior, 20, 47-64.
Rest, J.R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory.
New York, NY: Praeger.
Rest, J.R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions (pp. 1-26). Hillside,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, S.D. (2006). Cheating: An ethical concern for nursing educators.
Alabama Nurse, 33(1), 1,4.
Supon, V. (2008). Teachers: Recognize important steps to reduce cheating.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 376-379.
Tanner, C.A. (2004). Moral decline or pragmatic decision making? Cheating and plagiarism in perspective. Journal of Nursing Education, 43,
291-292.
Tippitt, M., Ard, N., Kline, J., Tilghman, J., Chamberlain, B., & Meagher,
G. (2009). Creating environments that foster academic integrity. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30, 239-244.
Young, J.R. (2013). Online classes see cheating go high tech. Education
Digest, 78(5), 4-8.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Research Brief
An Evaluation of an Extended Intervention to Reduce Plagiarism in
Bachelor of Nursing Students
Alison Smedley, Tonia Crawford, and Linda Cloete
Abstract
Pre- and postintervention surveys of first-year nursing students were undertaken to establish the students’ knowledge of
plagiarism following implementation of an online library-based Academic Integrity Module and the use of plagiarism detection
software. Knowledge and understanding of plagiarism improved, but students’ ability to paraphrase remained poor. Students
entering postsecondary educational institutions require ongoing support and learning opportunities to improve their skills in
paraphrasing and referencing to avoid plagiarism.
KEY WORDS Academic Integrity – Academic Writing – Nursing Education – Paraphrasing – Plagiarism
A
cademic integrity and learning how to write and reference are
important in postsecondary learning environments (McCabe,
2009). Nurses are required to be honest, able to deal with
ethical and moral issues, and adhere to the profession’s code of
ethics and professional conduct; however, the prevalence of
academic dishonesty among nursing students is well documented
and has been linked to clinical dishonesty (Lynch et al., 2017;
McCabe, 2009; Oran, Can, Şenol, & Hadımlı, 2016). Despite this
concern, academic dishonesty continues to increase with the
introduction of online resources and ease of access to digital
devices (Azulay Chertok, Barnes, & Gilleland, 2014). This article
reports and evaluates an extension of an intervention to reduce
plagiarism among undergraduate nursing students.
BACKGROUND
Plagiarism is widely acknowledged in postsecondary education, and
nurse education is also implicated (Lynch et al., 2017; Oran et al.,
2016; Smith, 2016). Yet, despite this problem, there is limited
About the Authors Alison Smedley, EdD, RN, is a lecturer, Department
of Nursing, Avondale College of Higher Education, Wahroonga, Sydney
NSW, Australia. Tonia Crawford, MHSc(Ed), RN, is a lecturer, Sydney
University, Sydney, Wahroonga, Sydney NSW, Australia. Linda Cloete,
MSc, RN, is a lecturer, Department of Nursing, Avondale College of
Higher Education. The authors acknowledge Dr. Peter Morey for
assistance with statistical analysis. For more information, contact
Dr. Smedley at [email protected].
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF
versions of this article on the journal’s website (www.neponline.net).
Copyright © 2019 National League for Nursing
doi: 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000492
106 March/April 2020
research evaluating strategies to reduce plagiarism (Bristol, 2011;
Kashian, Cruz, Jang, & Silk, 2015; Lynch et al., 2017). After
reviewing 43 articles, Stonecypher and Willson (2014) outlined specific
strategies to assist in combating plagiarism, including discussion
with students about related policies and professional honor codes,
consistently reinforcing these policies and codes, and clearly outlining
the consequences for academic misconduct. Teaching of correct
citation and referencing techniques throughout the curriculum
and allowing for staged submissions for assignments are highly
recommended (Stonecypher & Willson, 2014). Lynch et al. (2017)
argue that lack of knowledge (inadvertent plagiarism) contributes to
the prevalence of plagiarism, and consequently, it is important for
educators to provide students with sufficient knowledge and
understanding of what constitutes plagiarism for them to have
confidence in writing and referencing correctly. Plagiarism detection
software can be used to achieve this aim.
Plagiarism detection software is used to encourage academic
honesty; it can also promote students’ ability to paraphrase through
text-matching functionality (Iparadigms, 2013). However, such software does not assist in developing knowledge of what constitutes
plagiarism or how to reference correctly. Educational interventions
are required to address this issue (Smedley, Crawford, & Cloete, 2015).
This article evaluates an intervention, modified from a previous
study implemented in first-semester nursing students in Australia.
Smedley et al. (2015) implemented an educational strategy aimed to
improve students’ understanding of plagiarism and their ability to
paraphrase, cite sources, and reference correctly. Evaluation of this
intervention found that there were general improvements in knowledge and understanding of the various aspects of plagiarism,
paraphrasing, and referencing, but areas for development remained
(Smedley et al., 2015). In the current study, the intervention was
extended by adding paraphrasing practice through a library-based
Academic Integrity Module (AIM) and the use of the text-matching
www.neponline.net
Copyright © 2020 National League for Nursing. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Research Brief
function of plagiarism detection software (Turnitin) to assist with selfevaluation of paraphrasing ability.
All students completed the structured online learning module
during their first semester of enrollment in a program. AIM was used
to assist students in developing good writing and referencing skills
required in postsecondary education. The focus was on promoting
understanding of plagiarism, how to reference correctly, and how to
make use of Turnitin, which generated a similarity report that could
be used by students to identify poor paraphrasing.
Directional activities were used to assist students’ application of
knowledge in these areas; for example,
