Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38818062›Full record

ArticleJACS Au2024

Using Hypothetical Scenarios to Address Social Desirability Bias: Investigating Student Perceptions, Evaluations, and Motivations of Cheating and Academic Integrity in the General Chemistry Laboratory.

Field M Watts, Slade C McAfee, Jon-Marc G Rodriguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACS Au, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Field M WattsDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1800-1816
Slade C McAfeeDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6894-0369
Jon-Marc G RodriguezDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6949-6823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Supporting students with upholding the principles of academic integrity is an important aspect of teaching. Academic integrity is especially important in chemistry laboratory classrooms, where students gain hands-on experience related to research and scientific practices. Prior literature on academic integrity largely focuses on catching and preventing cheating, describing various factors commonly associated with cheating behaviors. This body of literature assumes that students neutralize their feelings about cheating to engage in unethical behavior. In contrast, for this study, we began with the assumption that students intend to act ethically; to this end, we sought to investigate students' perceptions, evaluations, and motivations related to cheating and academic integrity. We interviewed 24 students enrolled in general chemistry laboratories and asked questions related to cheating and academic integrity. Additionally, to address concerns about social desirability bias affecting students' responses, we asked students questions involving hypothetical scenarios related to academic integrity that were contextualized within the chemistry laboratory classroom. In our analysis, we found that students held common views about cheating and academic integrity in general but diverged in their responses to the hypothetical scenarios. Our findings suggest the importance of providing clearer, more direct instruction regarding what counts as cheating and how to engage in academically honest behavior within the chemistry laboratory classroom.

Identifiers

PMID38818062
PMCPMC11134351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.