ویژگیهای روانسنجی مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی و ارتباط آن با چشمانداز زمان در دانشآموزان دبیرستانی
مجله اخلاق زیستی- علمی پژوهشی,
دوره 9 شماره 32 (1398),
3 December 2019
,
صفحه 19-32
https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v9i32.25728
چکیده
زمینه و هدف: بیصداقتی تحصیلی به عنوان تلاش عمدی دانشآموزان برای تحریف، جعل یا ساختن تکالیف تحصیلی به یک مشکل نگرانکننده تبدیل شده است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف روانسنجی مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی، دانشآموزان دبیرستانی انجام شد.
مواد و روشها: در این مطالعه توصیفی ـ همبستگی، 606 دانشآموز پسر و دختر مقطع متوسطه، مدارس دولتی شهر اهواز در سال تحصیلی 98-1397 به روش نمونهگیری خوشهای چندمرحلهای انتخاب شدند. برای جمعآوری دادهها از مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی Witherspoon و همکاران (2010 م.) و مقیاس چشمانداز زمان Zimbardo و Boyd (1999 م.) استفاده شد. برای سنجش روایی مقیاس از تحلیل عامل تأییدی، همبستگی مؤلفهها با نمره کل و روایی همگرا و برای سنجش پایایی آن از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ و روش تنصیف با استفاده از نرمافزارهای AMOS 21 و SPSS 22 بهره گرفته شد.
یافتهها: در نمونه دانشآموزان ایرانی ساختار دوبعدی مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی شامل رفتارهای تقلب سنتی و پیشرفته با دادهها برازش مطلوبی داشت. روایی و پایایی مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی تأیید شد. بین رفتار تقلب سنتی با گذشته منفی، گذشته مثبت، حال لذتگرا و حال مقدر (p<0/05) و همچنین، رفتار تقلب پیشرفته با گذشته منفی، حال لذتگرا و حال مقدر همبستگی مثبت و معنیداری وجود داشت(p<0/01). افزون بر این، بین نمرات مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی در دختران و پسران تفاوت معنیداری مشاهده شد (0/001=p).
نتیجهگیری: یافتهها مبین آن است که مقیاس بیصداقتی تحصیلی برای سنجش رفتارهای بیصداقتی تحصیلی در دانشآموزان دبیرستانی ابزاری روا و پایا است. استفاده از این مقیاس در مطالعات روانشناختی، تربیتی و مشاورهای دانشآموزان دبیرستانی توصیه میگردد.
- بیصداقتی تحصیلی؛ چشمانداز زمان؛ روانسنجی؛ دبیرستان
ارجاع به مقاله
مراجع
Thomas D. Factors that explain academic dishonesty among university students in Thailand. Ethics & Behavior 2017; 27(2): 140-154.
Bashir H, Bala R. Development and validation of academic dishonesty scale (ADS): Presenting a multidimensional scale. International Journal of Instruction 2018; 11(2): 57-74.
Stephens JM. Bridging the divide: The role of motivation and self-regulation in explaining the judgment-action gap related to academic dishonesty. Frontiers in Psychology 2018; 9(246): 1-15.
Abusafia AH, Roslan NS, Mohd Yusoff D, Mat Nor MZ. Snapshot of academic dishonesty among Malaysian nursing students: A single university experience. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 2018; 13(4): 370-376.
Peled Y, Eshet Y, Barczyk C, Grinautski K. Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Computers & Education 2018; 131: 49-59.
Kam CCS, Hue MT, Cheung HY. Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students: Application of theory of planned behaviour. Educational Psychology 2018; 38(7): 1-19.
Moradi S, Nikpay I, Farahbakhsh S. Mastery goal structure and academic dishonesty: The mediatory role of learning goal orientation. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2018; 11(3): 73-80. [Persian]
Baranian S, Hajiyakhchali A, Atashafrouz A. A model to explain the relationship of the big five personality factors and academic dishonesty with mediating role of academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic self-esteem among students. Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning 2017; 5(1): 23-34. [Persian]
Etemaad J, Jokar B. Academic dishonesty and epistemological beliefs: Verifying the mediating role of gender. Studies in Learning & Instruction 2018; 10(1): 111-130. [Persian]
Haghnegahdar M, Jokar B. Relationship moral identity with academic dishonesty: Examination the moderating role of gender. Studies in Learning & Instruction 2016; 8(2): 143-162. [Persian]
Birks M, Smithson J, Antney J, Zhao L, Burkot C. Exploring the paradox: A cross-sectional study of academic dishonesty among Australian nursing students. Nurse Education Today 2018; 65: 96-101.
Winrow AR, Reitmaier-Koehler A, Winrow BP. Social desirability bias in relation to academic cheating behaviors of nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 2015; 5(8): 1-14.
Jiang H, Emmerton L, McKauge L. Academic integrity and plagiarism: A review of the influences and risk situations for health students. Higher Education Research and Development 2013; 32(3): 369-380.
Aluede O, Omoregie EO, Osa-Edoh GI. Academic dishonesty as a contemporary problem in higher education: How academic advisers can help? Reading Improvement 2006; 43(2): 97-106.
Ballantine JA, McCourt Larres P, Mulgrew M. Determinants of academic cheating behavior: The future for accountancy in Ireland. Accounting Forum 2014; 38(1): 55-66.
Brimble M. Why students cheat: An exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education. Edited by Bretag T. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer Science-Business Media Singapore; 2016. p.365-382.
Sutherland-Smith W. Authorship, ownership and plagiarism in the digital ege. Edited by Bretag T. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer Science-Business Media Singapore; 2016. p.575-589.
Friedman A, Blau I, Eshet-Alkalai Y. Cheating and feeling honest: Committing and punishing analog versus digital academic dishonesty behaviors in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Life Long Learning 2016; 12: 193-205.
Rostaminezhad MA, Shokatirad AR. Predicting students’ membership in virtual networks and their academic performance based on parenting styles and adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology 2016; 2(38): 193-208. [Persian]
Kauffman Y, Young MF. Digital plagiarism: An experimental study of the effect of instructional goals and copy and paste affordance. Computers & Education 2015; 83: 44-56.
McCabe DL, Trevino LK. Academic dishonesty honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education 1993; 64(5): 522-538.
Iyer R, Eastman JK. The impact of unethical reasoning on academic dishonesty: Exploring the moderating effect of social desirability. Marketing Education Review 2008; 18(2): 1-13.
Ledesma RG. Academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in a Korean university. Research in World Economy 2011; 2(2): 1-11.
Eminoglu E, Nartgun Z. A scale development study to measure academic dishonesty tendency of university students. Journal of Human Sciences 2009; 6(1): 215-240.
Hensley LC, Kirkpatrick KM, Burgoon JM. Relation of gender, course enrollment and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teaching in Higher Education 2013; 18(8): 895-907.
Orosz G, Dombi E, Toth-Kiraly I, Bothe B, Jagodics B, Zimbardo PHG. Academic cheating and time perspective: Cheaters live in the present instead of the future. Learning and Individual Differences 2016; 52: 39-45.
Orosz G, Dombi E, Toth-Kiraly I, Roland-Levy C. The less is more: The 17 item Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Current Psychology 2015; 36(1): 39-47.
Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Putting time in perspective: A valid reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999; 77(6): 1271-1288.
Worrell FC, Mello ZR. The reliability and validity of Zimbardo time perspective inventory Scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational & Psychological Measurement 2007; 67(3): 487-504.
Aylmer B. Continuity and change in time perspective: A longitudinal field study of youth workers. Doctoral Dissertation. Dublin: Dublin City University; 2013.
Witherspoon M, Maldonado N, Lacey CH. Academic dishonesty of undergraduates: Methods of cheating. Denver: Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Research Association; 2010.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Edited by Kenny DA, Little TD. 3rd ed. New York, London: The Guilford Press: A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc; 2011.
Chan SM, Kwok WW, Fung TW. Psychometric properties of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory in Hong Kong adolescents. Time & Society 2016; 28(1): 33-49.
Lee GS, Yom YH. Structural equation modeling on life-world integration in people with severe burns. Asian Nursing Research 2013; 7(3): 112-119.
- چکیده مشاهده شده: 338 بار
- PDF دانلود شده: 176 بار