ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA

ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG
UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA
An Undergraduate Thesis Presented To
Dr. Emilina Sarreal
Of the
Decision Sciences & Innovation Department
RVR-College of Business
De La Salle University, Manila
In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements in
THSMGT2
Term 1 AY 2015-2016
Submitted by:
Abdalla, O’myr Faisal Mustafa C.
Cruz, Karissa A.
de Leoz, Cara Marie V.
Eusebio, Franchesca Nicole M.
23 November 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this study would not be possible without the guidance of various
individuals from our lives and our esteemed professors in the academe.
The completion of this study would not be possible without the guidance of various individuals
from our lives and our esteemed professors in the academe.
First, we would like to express our sincerest gratitude to our mentor, Dr. Emilina Sarreal,
who guided us from the very beginning until the accomplishment of our thesis. We give you our
sincerest thanks for imparting to us your knowledge and expertise beyond our comprehension. We
also offer our sincerest gratitude for the patience you have given us despite the many shortcomings
that we had. More importantly, thank you for instilling in us the significance of hard work and
perseverance. Without these values, we would not have completed our study successfully. We take
pride in the knowledge and skills we have acquired in our journey of thesis writing as a product of
your guidance. Second, we would also like to express our gratitude to our panel members, Mr.
Raymond Paderna and Mr. Jerome Alvarez for their insightful comments. Without them, we would
not have improved our study. Additionally, we give thanks to Ms. Honorata Dimapilis and Ms.
Shieradel Jimenez, for supporting us during the initial phase of our thesis. We are also grateful to
have the privilege of being part of the Lasallian community. Thank you, De La Salle University,
for fostering the true meaning of being “achievers for God and country”. Lastly, we would like to
thank our parents, brothers, sisters, and friends for all the support and inspiration that they have
provided to us during our entire thesis writing.
We dedicate this study to the Father Almighty, who served as our greatest inspiration
throughout this journey. Everything that we have done, and we will do is for His greater glory.

ABSTRACT
Academic dishonesty is considered as a violation of academic integrity, which is a
fundamental element in managing the quality of learning institutions. In this study, the
proponents determine the linkage between the perception of academic dishonesty and
quality of learning experience. Rationalization, opportunity and motive, were utilized in
determining their influence on the perception of cheating in assessments, examinations,
and plagiarism as types of academic dishonesty, leading to the quality of learning
experience, which is measured through skills development, learner engagement, teaching
quality, student support, and learning resources. Furthermore, demographic factors were
utilized as moderating variables in this study. The proponents made use of logistic
regression due to the binary nature of academic dishonesty, and in order to identify how it
is influenced by rationalization, opportunity, and motivation. A moderated regression was
also conducted to determine how the demographic factors of the students strengthen the
relationship of the elements of fraud to the perception of academic dishonesty. Finally, a
multivariate regression was conducted to analyze how the perception of academic
dishonesty impacts the five facets of quality of learning experience. The findings of this
research show that only rationalization proved to be a significant predictor of academic
dishonesty. In addition, the perception on academic dishonesty was found to differ across
various year level and age groups. Among all the facets of learning experience, only
learner engagement shows that it is significantly affected by perceived academic
dishonesty. Overall, the proponents recommend educational institutions to promote
academic integrity and further develop learner engagement among students, which could
be supported by CHED through the introduction of policies and programs. While
universities can focus on conducting regular evaluation of student services and resources
provided to the students, academicians are recommended to take course-specific trainings
to better cater to the enhancement of students’ collaboration skills. Most importantly, the
proponents highly recommend educational institutions to provide more opportunities for
student interaction through transformative group works and assessments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 6
1.3 Statement of the Research Objectives 7
1.4 Significance of the Study 8
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study 12
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 16
2.1 The Fraud Diamond 18
2.2 Application of the Fraud Diamond 23
2.2.1 Business 23
2.2.2 Academic Institution 29
2.3 Types of Academic Dishonesty 38
2.4 Existence of Academic Dishonesty in Philippine Universities 40
2.5 Demographics and Academic Dishonesty 49
2.6 Academic Dishonesty and Effect on Academic Institution 54
2.6.1 Integrity and Quality of Learning Experience 54
2.7 Total Quality Management 60
2.8 Quality Education in Universities 64
2.9 Success Factors of Learning Institutions 70
2.10 Conclusion 73
2.11 Research Gap 75
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 79
3.1 Theoretical Framework 79
3.2 Operational Framework 83
3.3 Hypotheses/Proposition 89
3.4 Assumptions 92
3.5 Operational Definition of Terms 94
3.5.1 Motive 94
3.5.2 Rationalization 94
3.5.3 Opportunity 95
3.5.4 Academic Dishonesty 95
3.5.5 Demographics 97
3.5.6 Quality of Learning Experience 98
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 100
4.1 Research Locale 100
4.2 Research Design 101
4.3 Sampling Design 104
4.4 Method/s of Data Collection (Research Instrument) 107
4.5 Data Collection Procedure 110
4.6 Method/s of Data Analysis (Statistical Treatment of Data) 114

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS 122
5.1 Descriptive Analysis 122
5.1.1 Demographics 122
5.1.2 Elements of Fraud 128
5.1.3 Types of Academic Dishonesty 130
5.1.4 Quality of Learning Experience 133
5.1.5 Recommendations of How to Improve Quality of Learning Experience 135
5.2 Causal Analysis 144
5.2.1 Logistic Regression 144
5.3 Correlational Analysis 163
5.3.1 Moderated Regression 163
5.3.2 Multivariate Regression 171
5.3.3 ANOVA 176
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 179
6.1 Conclusion 179
6.2 Recommendation 185
6.2.1 Individual Level 185
6.2.2 Organizational 195
6.3 Areas for Future Research 202
BIBLIOGRAPHY 204
APPENDICES 213

1
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
Fraud has been a major topic in recent times and commitment of fraudulent acts by
large corporations has been known to create shockwaves to different industries. One known
instance is the occurrence of the 2009 Global Financial Crisis. In this phenomenon,
Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Thomas (2011), reported that one of the main reasons why the
Financial Crisis happened was because of greedy bankers from Wall Street who
manipulated the financial system for personal gains. As many know, the result of the
Financial Crisis was huge because of the hundreds of layoffs and bankruptcies that
occurred all over the world. Similarly, there is also the infamous Bernie Madoff ponzi
scheme that was reported by Forbes magazine (2008) to have lured investors $50 Billion.
This fraudulent act affected not only the financial industry but also the government
monitoring units that were not able to detect this at an earlier stage. Other than that, there is
also the local fraudulent act happening daily in the Philippines. There are numerous
fraudulent activities happening such as electronic fraud, identity theft, credit/debit card
fraud etc. (ANZ Philippines, n.d.). One of the most notable and large scale fraud that
occurred in the Philippines is the Fertilizer fund scam in which government officials
embezzled and committed fraud to the Filipino people and the Philippine government
(Marcelo, 2014). These fraudulent acts in the business setting have, in some way, shaped

2
how businesses monitored their performance in terms of financial and non-financial aspects
(Kellen, 2003). As a result, businesses turn to policies to prevent and detect fraud in order
to lessen their losses (ACFE, 2014).
In line with that, people mostly associate fraud to the business spectrum but it is rare
to view fraud in the academic setting. According to the University of California, Los
Angeles (2013), academic dishonesty is also known as academic fraud. In 2007, a popular
website named College Humor, conducted a poll directed to college students about
cheating. Out of the 30,000 respondents, 60.8 percent have admitted that they have cheated
in doing their assignments and answering their examinations. Consequently, the poll
revealed that in those students who admitted to cheating, 16.5 percent of them did not
regret their actions. Meanwhile another poll was conducted in Fordham University that
revealed cheaters, on average, boast a 3.45 GPA while non-cheaters have an average grade
of 2.85. Surprisingly, the study done by Ad Council and ETS showed that 95 percent of
cheaters do not get caught. Despite some online applications that professors use (e.g.
Turnitin.com) to make sure that their students do not cheat, students can still get away with
cheating during examinations and assignments (OEDb, 2010). It has been observed that
there is a current upward trend in terms of the academic dishonesty occurrence. In line with
that, there have been numerous cases of high profile academic dishonesty committed in
different academic institutions in the Philippines. An instance is the case of cheating that
has happened during the 2006 Nursing board exam where Rodis (2007) reported that the

3
exam takers were caught to have access to leakage materials thereby committing academic
dishonesty and invalidating the results.
According to The Guardian (2014), there should be two values that students and
parents alike get from spending money on education: learning experience and social values.
In line with that, the article states that universities should not be influenced by what
businesses or future employers want; meaning they should not just focus on producing
graduates whose goals are to earn good income in the future. Instead, they should focus on
improving the learning quality they provide in order to maximize the stay of their students.
In addition, students must also be molded with proper values. As Schwartz (2003)
mentioned, “the goal of university education is to help build a fairer, more just society.”
Through this teaching, students can learn freedom of expression and responsible
citizenship.
Knowing the current behavior of students in terms of the reason as to why they
commit academic dishonesty and how that affects the quality education that is provided by
the university is essential, given this will help universities improve their educational and
learning system. According to Widianingsih (2013), Noor and Dangi (2013), students have
the tendency to commit academic dishonesty because of certain elements. These elements:
capability, motive, rationalization, and opportunity, make up the Fraud Diamond and
explain the reasons as to why people commit fraud (Mackevicius and Giriunas, 2013). In

4
line with this, much attention has to be given on how the fraud diamond affects the cheating
behavior of students and how that behavior affects the quality of learning experience of
students in the Philippine learning institutions. These problems have to be addressed by
academic institutions in order for them to be able to improve the quality of learning
experience that they provide to their students. This will also act as a support for the
administrators to better manage the students and improve on the services provided by their
respective universities.
When the education system of the country is rocked by controversy, it prompts and
initiates drastic changes that affect all the stakeholders involved. Not only do universities
have to formulate and implement policies that will ensure these academic dishonesty never
happen again, it is also noteworthy to mention that the changes will unequivocally affect
the quality of learning experience that the university provides. Universities have to always
consider their quality; administrators and academicians must take note of effective
strategies to instill learning to their students (Morris, 2010). In addition to that, the UCLA
(2013) believes that the existence of academic dishonesty only damages the community of
the university and may only alienate some of the best students of an institution.
Furthermore, the existence of academic dishonesty only becomes a hindrance for
universities to earn good reputation and damages their credibility (John Hopkins
University, 2013).

5
Because much attention must be given in ensuring the quality of the learning
experience of the students, Gooler (1977) proposed a set of criteria, which represents the
success factors of higher education. Originally applied to non-traditional postsecondary
higher education programs, Gooler (1977) expressed the necessity to evaluate the overall
performance of academic institutions. This criteria includes access, relevancy of the
programs, quality of program offerings, learner outcomes, cost effectiveness, impact and
generation of knowledge. Gooler (1997) stated the need to understand educational change
and innovation. It is important to conduct an evaluation, because not only is it a vehicle for
understanding innovation, but it is also a tool for improvement of policies. Moreover, the
University of Buffalo (2015) stressed that academic integrity is a fundamental university
value because it helps in sustaining the integrity of a university at the same time facilitates
the university’s effectiveness in developing learning experience for their students. Past
studies emphasized how foreign universities, such as University of Buffalo (2015) and John
Hopkins University (2013), value academic integrity as it helps sustain academic quality.
Academic integrity assures quality in the learning experience of the students. Hence, Morris
(2010) insisted that there must be a “consistent provision and utilization of good and high
standard resources intended to foster effective teaching and learning.

6
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The proponents of this study aims to address the main research question, “What is
the linkage between academic dishonesty and the quality of learning experience of selected
undergraduate students in Metro Manila?”
Listed below are the specific research questions to assist the proponents in
addressing the aforementioned research problem:
1. What is the separate and collective degree of influence of rationalization,
opportunity, and motive on the level of academic dishonesty based on the
perception of selected undergraduate students belonging to the PAASCU accredited
universities in Metro Manila?
2. Which among the three (rationalization, opportunity, and motive) exert the strongest
influence on academic dishonesty based on the perception of selected undergraduate
students?
3. What is the extent of influence of demographics such as age, gender, grade point
average (GPA), extracurricular activities involvement, year level, and course/major
on the elements of fraud which cause an individual to percieve academic
dishonesty?
4. What is the degree of relationship between academic dishonesty and the quality of
learning experience among perception of selected undergraduate students belonging
to the PAASCU accredited universities in Metro Manila?

7
5. What courses of action should universities undertake to enhance learning experience
as aff
6. ected by academic dishonesty among students?
1.3 Statement of the Research Objectives
In order to answer the research problems of the study, the following objectives were
formulated:
1. To determine the influence of academic dishonesty on quality of learning experience
based on the perception of selected undergraduate students
2. To determine how rationalization, opportunity, and motive separately and
collectively influence the perception of students on academic dishonesty
3. To establish if undergraduate students’ demographic characteristics such as age,
gender, grade point average (GPA), extracurricular activities involvement, year
level, and course/major influence their perception on committing academic
dishonesty
4. To identify how academic dishonesty can affect the quality of learning experience of
undergraduate students belonging to PAASCU accredited universities located in
Metro Manila
5. To recommend strategies to the universities in Metro Manila on how to improve the
quality of learning experience of students taking into consideration academic
honesty

8
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study will produce conclusions that are relevant to several stakeholders as the
implications will lead to various potential changes in the way the educational system of
Philippine universities are conducted. In line with that, this study is necessary in order to
improve the educational policies in the country, and the manner in which students are
governed. Therefore, this could potentially benefit the academicians, educational
institutions, researchers, business organizations, students and policy makers, among others.
On a more detailed and specific basis, this research is relevant because of its valuable
contribution to the following beneficiaries:
1.4.1 Individual Level
1.4.1.1 Students
This research could serve as a foundation for future research topics of students.
They can utilize the extensive research and results generated to support them in their
research papers. On the other hand, a personal benefit to be realized by the students is that
this will help them determine the personal and external factors that affect their behavior and
perception on academic dishonesty. By knowing the said factors, students can determine
and establish personal preventive measures that will help them to avoid committing
academic dishonesty.

9
Moreover, Dangi and Noor (2014) believe that the act of cheating by students can
be carried over even when they start working. Because of this, this paper will stress out the
importance on why students should not cheat and help them better understand the
consequences of cheating, as students become part of the workforce. Furthermore, with
better understanding of academic dishonesty, students should be able to incorporate their
acquired critical skills from management program. Thereby, the students may uphold the
highest ethical standards needed as future business leaders.
1.4.1.2 Academicians
This study will give the researchers an opportunity to analyze the relationship
between academic dishonesty and quality learning experience, apply their critical skills
learned in the MGT program, and provide sound recommendations based on data analysis.
Moreover, the results and implications can contribute to the existing but scant literature
available. Furthermore, this could also open the possibilities for the said researchers to
tackle new topics related to the field. Lastly, the results that will be generated could
potentially serve as the foundation for their respective research papers.
Furthermore, the members of the academe can significantly benefit from the results
of this study. It can help in determining factors on why academic dishonesty exists and in
the process establish measures to ensure that students are not motivated to commit
fraudulent acts. Similarly, this can help them in formulating educational policies that will

10
benefit both the students’ learning process as well as their educational system.
It is vital for the students be given the appropriate and conducive ambiance in
school for their moral development considering students spend an average of 3-5 years in
their respective universities. This will prove to be a challenge when there is not enough
information on how students understand the ethical foundation of academic integrity and
how certain external factors cause the students to commit cheating and plagiarism within
the academic context. Hence, this study could be used as information or reference in order
to check the learning processes implemented by universities to promote moral growth
among students.
1.4.2 Organizational
1.4.2.1 Educational Institutions
Results generated by our study as well as conclusions drawn upon can help the top
level decision makers in the educational institutions to formulate the necessary policies that
will improve the quality of the learning experience of the students. The decision makers in
the educational institutions can establish measures and improve the management of their
staff and students which in turn can have significant positive effect of the quality of the
learning experience felt and being offered to the students. Similarly, the results of this study
will enable the management to promote policies that will also improve their output such as
the skills development of the students and teaching quality of the teachers. This will not

11
only benefit the educational institutions but most importantly it will help the students. In
addition, they will get a better idea on the prevalence of cheating in universities as well as
find means to prevent it. This is because the main goal of academic institutions is to instill
values for the benefit of the learners, to develop the intellectual ability of the students and
to hone students as individuals capable of acquiring both physical and intellectual skills. To
be able to meet these goals, this study will be very useful in giving an overview of how
universities effectively manage their roles in terms of how students view the quality of
learning they get from their respective universities. In addition, the university is an
organization that is tasked to provide their customers with the best services they can offer.
In here, the students can be viewed as their customers whose parents avail of the
university’s services for their children. It is important for universities to utilize their
resources and capabilities to serve their purpose as an institution. Thus, this study will be
helpful to them to improve on the quality of the services that they offer to their students.
This study is deemed of crucial importance in order for academic institutions to
identify conditions, which promote academic dishonesty. Furthermore, an in-depth
understanding of external and internal factors contributing to this misbehavior will allow
educators to form decisions on the prevention and solution of the problems, which are
associated with students’ academic dishonesty.

12
1.4.2.2 Policy makers
The government officials specifically those pertaining to the Department of
Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) can also benefit
from this study. This research can help them understand the dynamics present in the current
educational system, which motivates the students to commit academic dishonesty, which
then deteriorates the quality of learning experience of the students as supported by the
studies conducted by Griffith University (2011) and Research Integrity Lectures (2011). By
knowing all of these matters, the information can help them in determining and formulating
the necessary policies that should be passed and implemented in the Philippine educational
system when it comes to the improvement of how educational institutions are managed.
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study only covers selected undergraduate students from from Metro Manila.
The data, which will be statistically analyzed, will depend on data gathered through
deployed survey forms. The survey questionnaire is based on the QS World University
Ranking and other institutions that ranks universities based on a given criteria. As the
proponents wish to protect the identity of students and the reputation of universities, the
respondents of this study must be undetectable. That is, the proponents will not in any way
divulge the identity or any personal information of the respondents because names and
universities enrolled in will not be asked. Moreover, the proponents will ensure that this is
maintained all throughout the study. In addition, only undergraduates who are

13
enrolled in any universities located in Metro Manila may participate in the study. This is
due to the fact that the proponents are also located in Metro Manila thus their connections
and reach are limited to the said region.
Because the respondents will be coming from various universities in a single time
period, the research design calls for a cross-sectional study. As defined by Levin (2006), a
cross-sectional study design is utilized when the study is descriptive, usually in the form of
a survey carried out at one time point in order to describe population. However, in this
study, the proponents will focus on describing a sample size of respondents coming from
different universities in Metro Manila. Moreover, Levin (2006) also mentioned that cross-
section study is used to find the commonness of an outcome. In the case of this study, the
proponents would like to determine the prevalence of academic dishonesty. Moreover,
since a cross-section is also used to investigate causality, this kind of research design
applies to investigating the views of selected students from various universities situated in
Metro Manila when it comes to how academic dishonesty affects the learning experience of
the students. At a single time period, the proponents will survey students who are part of
the undergraduate programs of the said universities, specifically those who are going into
their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th year at the time of data collection.
Lastly, the study's data collection period will span from May to September. As
mentioned, this study will only involve the views of the respondents as regards the

14
reasons why they will commit academic dishonesty. The respondents must be
undergraduate students enrolled in PAASCU accredited universities situated in Metro
Manila. These are measured by rationalization, opportunity and motive to commit fraud,
which is further classified into personal and external pressures. Moreover, the study will
also include an analysis on the role of undergraduate students’ demographic characteristics
such as age, gender, grade point average (GPA), extracurricular activities involvement, year
level, and course/major as moderating variables between reasons to commit fraud and
academic dishonesty. The study will also tackle how academic dishonesty will potentially
affect the quality of learning experience of the selected students.
On the other hand, there are also possible weaknesses or difficulties, which could be
faced by the proponents while doing this study. One of which is the ethical dilemma posed
by the research. There are several possible ethical questions to be raised when evaluating
such a sensitive topic that is related to the academic dishonesty, which will be likely
committed by the students. However, the proponents ensure that the study will be treated
with the utmost sensitivity and responsibility. Furthermore, the respondents and data will
be treated with confidentiality since the results will not divulge personal information of the
respondents so it will not in any way harm the respondents or any stakeholder of this
research study. The proponents’ intention is merely to determine the potential collective
impact of the said variables on the quality of the learning experience of the students. Hence,
there are no ethical issues that will be violated by this research.

15
Another possible weakness of this study is the data collection process given the
enormous data to be collected by the proponents. However, the proponents have established
measures that will ensure that the data will be collected on time. The survey will be in the
form of a Google survey in order for participants coming from various universities to
conveniently answer the survey. At the same time, the proponents will be using snowball
sampling method to collect data from various respondents. This is also a measure to ensure
that the proponents will be able to collect all the necessary data as well as number of
respondents in the allotted time. This is also ensure that the respondents of the survey
belong to different PAASCU accredited universities, thereby giving us an unbiased data
and also a better perspective on the study. Also, the time frame is long enough to enable the
proponents to reach the expected number of respondents. Furthermore, the data collected
will undergo all the necessary statistical treatment in order to ensure that it is fit for
regression and evaluation. Thereby, producing reliable results, conclusions and most
importantly, recommendations.

16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is a compilation of past studies related to the subject of this research.
The studies conducted by various authors show different types of information the
proponents should consider in data gathering in order to successfully conduct the study and
find the most accurate relationships among the variables. The findings are arranged in an
organized manner in order to present the existing body of knowledge on the fraud diamond
and its application, academic dishonesty in Philippine universities, and learning processes.
Cheating Fact Sheet (1999), defined Academic Dishonesty as “representing
someone else’s work as your own. It comes in various forms such as sharing another’s
work, purchasing a term paper or test questions in advance, paying another to do the work
for you.” Also, statistics enumerated by Cheating Fact Sheet (1999) reveal that cheating has
risen among students for the past 50 years. It used to be just the academically challenged
student who was more likely to cheat. Today, even above average students commit
academic fraud. Unfortunately, cheating no longer carries its negative connotation. It has
become more acceptable among students. It is also very common to many students to focus
more on getting high grades compared to actual learning. This could be attributed from the
thinking of the students that their individual honesty in academics does not affect anyone
else (Cheating Fact Sheet, 1999). Moreover, Cheating Fact Sheet (1999) has cited that
students who have resorted to cheating justified their wrongdoing by comparing

17
themselves to other students who cheat as well. Being honest would put them in an unfair
disadvantage. When it comes to gender, over the past 30 years, males were more inclined to
commit academic dishonesty than females. Today, studies have shown that cheating
between men and women in college are at par. It was also revealed that cheating starts early
in elementary school. The research was able to tap into the reasons why college students
commit cheating: campus norm; No honor code; Penalties not severe; Faculty support of
academic integrity policies is low; Little chance of being caught; Incidence is higher at
larger, less selective institutions. Moreover, the profile of college students who are more
prone to cheat are: Business or Engineering majors; Those whose future plans include
business; Men self-report cheating more than woman; Fraternity and Sorority members;
Younger students; Students with lower GPA's or those at the very top (Cheating Fact Sheet,
n.d).

18
2.1 The Fraud Diamond
Figure 1. Fraud Triangle
Source: Mackevicius and Giriunas (2013)
Generally, the fraud triangle was originally conceptualized from the Cressey’s fraud
theory which elaborately explained the main reason why individuals commit fraud. This
has been widely used by professionals, academicians and auditors in their determination of
fraud committed in the workplace. As such, Cressey argued in his 1953 paper that there are
three aspects that constitute fraud, namely (i) Pressure or motive (for consistency, the term
“motive” will be used in this study), (ii) opportunity, and (iii) rationalization. According to
Cressey, the presence of all these creates favorable conditions for committing fraudulent
act/s. In 1973, Cressy explained that the motive to commit fraud consists of three types: a
personal pressure to pay for the promoted lifestyle, pressure by the employer (company’s
management) to meet the goals of the company and external pressure. The list can be
expanded to include other variables such as debt, greed, desire to go against the system,
dissatisfaction with wages and etc. The next element of the fraud triangle is opportunity.
Motive
Opportunity Rationalization

19
As stated by Turner, Mock, Srivastava (2003), despite having the motive, a person cannot
commit fraud without the presence of opportunity. Opportunity can come in the form of
poor job division, large number of complex transactions completed, poor internal control,
audit not performed on a regular basis and alike. The authors stressed that opportunity is
most affected by a poor internal control of the company’s assets, procedures and
accounting. Mackevicius and Giriunas (2013) classified lack of fraud detection and
prevention policies as forms of poor internal control system. Moreover, Turner, Mock,
Srivastava (2003) noted that fraud is committed if the individual has another element which
is rationalization. Duffield & Grabosky (2001) explained that “rationalization” if often
described as a personal excuse for committing fraud. It is defined as “borrowing”, “no one
will suffer”, “company executives deserve even more, because they exploit me”, “this is for
a noble purpose”, etc.
The study conducted by Mackevicius and Giriunas (2013) suggested an
improvement in the fraud triangle and presented it in the form of a square. The identified
four elements of the fraud square includes motive (the researchers will be the term
“motive” instead of “incentive”), opportunity, capability, and rationalization (the
researchers will be using the term “rationalization” instead of “realization”).

20
Figure 2. Evolution of Fraud Triangle to Fraud Diamond
Source: Bressler & Bressler (2007)
Bressler & Bressler (2007) proposed the idea of fraud diamond by claiming that the
triangle is not sufficient because it lacks a very important variable - capability. They argued
that not every person who has the motive, opportunity and realization may decide to
commit fraud due to the lack of the capability to carry out or conceal it. This element is
specifically important when it comes to large-scale or long-term fraud. Moreover, the
authors believe that only the person who has a high capability will be smart enough to
understand the existing internal control, to identify its weaknesses and to use them in
planning the implementation of fraud.
The classical theoretical framework of the fraud diamond is discussed further in
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework.
Motivation
Opportunity Rationalizatio
Motivation
Capability
Rationalizatio Opportunity

21
Figure 3. The scales of evaluating the components of the fraud risk
The fraud diamond does not reflect the conditions under which is it easiest to
commit fraud, does not show individual’s abilities to commit fraud, cannot tell when there
is the greatest risk of fraud, and does not take into account the purpose of internal control
system in assessing and detecting fraud. Due to the fact that the fraud diamond has a few
drawbacks, fraud scales was created.
Since motives for fraud can be classified by age or gender, in Table 1, Mackevicius
and Giriunas (2013) explained that men’s main motives for frauds are economic, different
types of addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.), dissatisfaction with work and the
leaders, and the reputation of being undervalued. On the other hand, women usually

22
commit fraud on the grounds of their emotions and solving personal problems in health,
household, love and etc. Fraud can be committed by women due to hatred, pride, revenge
against certain individuals, seeking to punish employer and more as in the Table 1.
Table 1. The Motives for Fraud by Fraudster’s Gender
In addition to that, Swayne (2013) has reported that women are less likely to
commit corporate fraud as compared to men. A team of sociologists were able to analyze a
database on corporate fraud and found that a lot of women were not part of it. If ever a
woman did play a role, it was only minimal or the act was not significant. This led to the
Steffenmeir’s (researcher) suggestion that women should be placed on executive roles as

23
they may raise ethical standards. The findings had also shown that more than half of the
women involved in corporate fraud earned little or no money from it. Meanwhile 26
percent of males earned between $500,000 to $999,000 while 33 percent of them made
more than a million dollars. Similar to what was mentioned before, the reason behind
women committing fraud was due to personal or emotional reasons while men were more
on money and status. Steffenmeir has also pointed out that most positions given to women
can prevent them from committing corporate fraud because the high positions are usually
given to males.
2.2 Application of the Fraud Diamond
2.2.1 Business
Gbegi and Adebisi (2013) made use of the fraud diamond in order to help broaden
the knowledge of forensic accountants on the occurrence of fraud in Nigeria. This was done
because forensic accountants are frequently tasked to play an important role on helping
companies investigate, prevent, and detect fraud. In their methodology, the fraud diamond
served as their framework in order to analyze the factors of fraud. In order to better capture
the motivations affecting fraud, they also used the NAVSMICE model, which stands for
National Value System, Money, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego.
The model has given them a suggestion that Nigeria lacks good corporate
governance. Gbegi and Adebisis (2013) further argued that this can only change when their
government leadership changes their character and orientation. The model has shown

24
them that there exists a high level of corruption, fraud, mismanagement, embezzlement, and
dishonesty, lack of transparency, unaccountability, irresponsibility, and indiscipline in the
country. In line with that, the authors had suggested that Nigeria’s leaders should possess
integrity, accountability, transparency, and strong characters. Leaders like that must live
with strong mission and vision to gain the support of the country’s people.
Another study done by Carcello and Hermanson (2008) used the fraud diamond in
order to address problems on fraudulent financial accounting. According to them,
accounting fraud has become a great issue because it can lead to large investor losses and
intense media and regulatory scrutiny. Their research had shown that 83 percent of fraud
occurring in an SEC enforcement action from the years 1987-1997 had the CEO involved.
They had also stated that firms who fell victim to fraud had weak corporate governance and
had no or lacking audit committees. Other findings showed that fraudster were careful not
to be easily detected and the consequences of fraud can be as severe as filing for
bankruptcy or change of ownership.
The fraud diamond comes in when they analyzed what caused people to commit
fraud. They each linked financial fraud reporting to incentives, opportunity, rationalization,
and capability. From there, they were able to find that financial fraud reporting largely
supports the fraud triangle. They then gave the red flags that businesses must take into
consideration such as: the pressure against internal and external environment, effective

25
corporate governance and research on the attitude and rationalization. In ending their study,
they stated that although the fraud diamond has a link to the occurrence of fraud, businesses
should still consider other measures that can detect the existence of fraud as well as include
other variables (e.g. technology).
2.2.1.1 Fraud and Business Performance
McKinsey & Company (2010) conducted a survey that explored capabilities that are
critical to a company’s business performance. Based from their results, most companies
noted that strategy is an important indicator because it can build a competitive advantage
for them. Another aspect is training programs that are properly aligned with actual business
operations. Usually companies with training programs that are effective help maintain and
improve the drivers of business performance. In addition, the involvement of senior leaders
in terms of setting the agenda actually helps training programs become more effective.
On the other hand, a study conducted by Kellen (2003) states that business performance
is measured by financial or non-financial indicators. According to him, financial measures
are derived from a company’s chart of account and are found in their balance sheet. On the
other hand, non-financial measures cannot be found in a business’ account and are instead
measured by customer satisfaction and product/service quality. Kellen has also looked at
reasons on why one should measure performance. He has stated that measuring business
performance can help in the following:

26
• Monitoring and controlling company operations
• Driving improvement
• Maximizing the effectiveness of the improvement effort
• Achieving alignment with organizational goals and objectives
• Rewarding and disciplining
Aside from the measures of performance discussed previously, there are also tools and
frameworks that serve as the companies’ reference on measuring business performance.
This can involve a balance scorecard wherein it tackles the financial, customer, internal
business, and learning and growth perspective. Another is the economic value added that
serves as a financial tool on the creation of shareholder value. Other frameworks involve:
activity-based costing, quality management, customer value analysis, and action-profit
linkage model.
According to Brown, Davidson, and Hagel (2010), most companies measure their
performance via the return on equity, commonly known as ROE. The ROE focuses on the
return to the stakeholders of the company. In line with that, companies should be weary of
their financial strategies to maintain a healthy ROE. For instance, growing debt leverage
and stock buybacks funded by accumulated cash can help in maintaining it. However,
companies must also be aware that excessive debt leverage can be risky especially when the
market/economy is down.

27
Thompson (n.d.) has stated that fraud can affect the companies through several
factors such as: financial losses, lost inventory, lost productivity, and legal problems. In
line with what Kellen (2003) said, these factors can be considered as the financial and non-
financial performance of a business. Financial losses can be detected from the balance sheet
wherein the books cannot be balanced correctly. In most cases, the balance sheet is altered
by the fraudsters to show that there is nothing wrong. In effect, companies lose income and
in worst cases, can actually run out of money. Meanwhile, the lost of inventory or tangible
goods can also affect the company’s financial statements. In addition, whatever the value of
the stolen tangible asset is equivalent to the money that the company has paid for it. For the
productivity, fraudulent employees tend to focus more on ways on how to steal instead of
doing their work properly. This, in turn, can affect their efficiency in doing their job
properly and giving proper service to their customers. It will also be costly for the company
when they devote time to figure out who the fraudsters are and how much have they lost
because of them. Finally, employees have the capability to also steal from their customers.
This brings nothing good to a company and can also lead them to legal risks.
In addition to the measures mentioned above, Jacobson (1987) focused on the
impact and validity of Return on Investment (ROI) as a measure of business performance.
He tested the impact of ROI by determining and analyzing the covariance with the stock
returns. He believed that by correlating it with the stock returns then we can gather a

28
reliable and accurate relation about the impact of ROI on the overall performance of the
business. Despite the limitations implicated in using ROI to measure business performance,
it was still concluded by Jacobson (1987) using a pooled time series cross-sectional basis
that ROI is highly correlated with stock returns and is deemed as an important determinant
in the business performance of company. Thus, the economic return associated is an
important indicator to stakeholders of the company about how the company performs.
KPMG International (2011) was also able to determine the average total losses in a
company per fraud. Table 2 shows the average values for: Asia, Middle East, North
America, Australia and New Zealand, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Africa, South
America, and India.
Table 2. Average Total Losses per Fraud in Different Continents
Sub region Average total losses per fraud
(in millions of $)
Asia 1.5
Middle East 1.5
North America 1.2
Australia and New Zealand 1.1
Eastern Europe 1.0
Western Europe 0.9
Africa 0.9
South America 0.8
India 0.7
Source: KPMG International (2011)

29
The results show an alarming loss because the occurrence of fraud can lead to as
much as an average loss of $1.5 million in a company. Asia, excluding the Middle East and
India, and the Middle East have the most financial loss while North America and Australia
and New Zealand follow with a value of $1.2 million and $1.1 million respectively. Despite
being in the bottom, the value that India loses because of fraud still sums up to $700,000--
still a high value.
2.2.2 Academic Institution
A study divulged (“75 to 98 percent of College Students have Cheated”, 2011) that
the acts of the students were justified by their rationale that system is structured unfairly or
because of the reason that so many more students cheat. Moreover, many students claimed
that their attitude toward cheating was influenced by peer behavior and peer disapproval,
and outlook of cheating (Balbuena & Lamela, 2015). Moreover, a study reported that
cheating was committed due to teachers and students’ incompetence, unfavorable
environment, and lenient internal school policy.
Balbuena & Lamela (2015) stressed that situational factors such as information
technology paved more enticements for students to cheat. This can be attributed as
opportunity. Cheating occurs when opportunities are enhanced, surveillance can be
avoided, chances for success are improved, and risk of punishment is low.

30
Widianingsih (2013) stated that universities “play an important role to the birth of a
virtuous intellectual generation.” In addition, universities help present students take on their
role in the workplace as a person with value and integrity. Thus, universities must be able
to provide their students strong ethical culture, supervisory code of conduct, and programs
and processes that comply with laws and regulations. Joseph Wharton (1881) believed that
“a great boon would be bestowed upon the nation if its young men of inherited intellect,
means, and refinement could be more generally led so as to manage their property as
[theirs], while husbanding it to benefit the community.” With this, he established the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and opted to create socially responsible
graduates.
At present time, however, universities have been experiencing academic fraudulent
behavior (i.e. cheating) that distorts the values considered to be good citizens and future
business practices. Because of this, Widianingsih (2013) opted to analyze the factors that
affect the behavior of students towards cheating. The model she used was based on the
Fraud Diamond wherein incentive, rationalization, and opportunity served as the
independent variables to the dependent variable, cheating. She hypothesized on the
influence of the independent variables to cheating and used the likert scale for her
measures. Her respondents were 106 students from the Universitas Pelita Harapan Surabaya
(UPHS). After distributing the questionnaires, she computed for the descriptive statistics
and regressed the values to get the effect of the independent variables to the dependent

31
variable.
Table 3. Universitas Pelita Harapan Surabaya Regression Results
Var Coef. Reg. Sig.
I
O
R
Adjusted R-squared
F-value
-1.472
0.019
0.140
0.217
10.708 p = 0.000
0.000
0.953
0.641
Source: Widianingsih (2013)
Widianingsih’s (2013) regression has shown that out of the 3 variables affecting
cheating behavior, only incentive proved to be significant with a p-value of 0.000. In
addition, the coefficient for incentive showed a negative relationship between the two
variables. The result of this study had the conclusion that cheating behavior has inverse
relationship with motive in the school where he conducted his study. According to
Widianingsih (2013), this was because the descriptive statistics of the students showed that
most of them had a GPA of greater than or equal to 3. Thus, most of them had disagreed
that they cheat because they are pressured to get good grades when it is possible that they
already have good grades so they have no reason to cheat anymore.
Despite the results, Widianingsih (2013) gives importance on analyzing and
understanding why students cheat because it will be beneficial for institutions to evaluate

32
their learning process in the community. More knowledge on academic fraud will help the
institution prevent such cases from happening.
Another study on academic fraud was done by Noor and Dangi (2014). Similar to
Widiangsih’s study, they based their framework on the fraud diamond and through it,
analyzed the factors affecting fraud. According to them, students try to find an easy way to
be able to have a higher Cumulative Grade Point Average and that is why they resort to
academic cheating/dishonesty. This behavior should not be tolerated because cheating
brings negative consequences to higher education institutions. Grave (2008) even pointed
out that the students who cheat are more likely to do so as well in the work place. Thus,
these academic institutions must be able to prevent their students to commit this act.
In doing their methodology, they used descriptive statistics to be able to determine
the factors that lead students to cheat by relating it to the fraud diamond theory. The data
they used came from a survey that was distributed to 59 students who have committed
cheating before. In addition, they did a qualitative study by interviewing academic staff on
their opinion about cheating. Starting with the demographics, they found that females were
more likely to cheat than males, those who are below 20 years old were more frequent in
cheating compared to other age groups, and 97 percent were single (whereas 2 of the
respondents were already married). The next analysis involved the views of the respondents
about cheating which will be shown in Table 4.

33
Table 4. Views of the respondents (UPHS) about cheating
Suggested definition of cheating in coursework
assessments and examinations
Number of
respondents
agreeing
Percentage
(%)
1. Copying other student’s assignment
2. Plagiarism
3. Looking at others’ answer script
4. Bringing in materials or notes during an
examination
5. Communicating with your friends during an
examination to get answers
6. Others
49
48
49
55
39
5
79.70
81.40
83.10
93.20
66.10
8.50
The next section then analyzes the pressure or motive on why people cheat. In Table
5, the most common reasons on why students cheat is because they would want to achieve a
higher CGPA. The next two most common reasons on why they cheat are because there are
too many assessments/assignments that are given to them and they don’t want to disappoint
their parents.

34
Table 5. Pressure or motive on why people cheat
Reason for the respondents to feel pressured Number of
respondents
agreeing
Percentage
(%)
1. Too many assessments/assignments given by the
lecturer
2. I do not understand what has been taught in my
lecture class
3. I am not prepared for the examination
4. There is not enough time given for the
examination
5. I need to achieve a certain grade to maintain my
CGPA
6. I need to maintain my CGPA to ensure that I will
obtain a scholarship that will further my studies
7. I do not want to disappoint or let down my
parents’ hope on me to achieve good result in the
examination
8. Others
35
11
28
17
38
15
36
4
59.3
18.6
47.5
28.8
64.4
25.4
61.0
6.8
Moving on to the presence of opportunity on why students cheat, there results have
shown that the highest number of students agreeing was only 14, compared to the 38
students on the motives. Nonetheless, the results show that the main opportunity students

35
get is that the moderators do not really supervise the examination accordingly. Table 6
shows the results on students’ opportunity towards cheating.
Table 6. Opportunity on why students cheat
Reasons to feel easy to cheat during examination Number of
respondents agreeing
Percentage
(%)
1. Seating arrangement in the exam room is
too close to each other
2. Invigilators do not supervise the
examination accordingly
3. Free seating during examination
4. Others
13
14
12
3
22
23.7
20.3
5.1
For the next variable, the common excuses, or rationalization, of students on why
they cheat revealed that students cheat because everyone is doing it. The second reasoning
they have is that they are helping themselves to get good grades. Table 7 shows the results
on students’ rationalization on cheating.

36
Table 7. Rationalization on why students cheat
Common excuses given to rationalize the cheating
behavior
Number of
respondents agreeing
Percentage
(%)
1. Everybody is doing it
2. I am just helping myself to get good grades
3. It is just cheating, no harm to other students
4. I cheat because I need to maintain the good
perception of the lecturer towards me
5. Others
29
20
10
11
9
49.2
33.9
16.9
18.6
15.3
Finally, the analysis on the possible environment that affects the student’s capability
to cheat showed that students were more capable to cheat if the examination is held in a big
room. This is because they feel that chances of being caught are low. The two others
follow: when possible places to hide notes (e.g. the washroom) are not monitored and when
invigilators do not inspect the pencil case or pocket of a student. Table 8 shows the
environment that makes students more capable of cheating.

37
Table 8. Possible environment that affects the student’s capability to cheat
Possible environment that makes students capable of
conducting cheating in coursework assessment and
during the examination
Number of
respondents
agreeing
Percentage
(%)
1. Lecturer did not usually check the references
thoroughly
2. Examination is conducted in a big hall, so
chances of getting caught are very low
3. No thorough check by the invigilators in the
students’ pocket or pencil case
4. Seating arrangement is too close in the exam
venue
5. Free seating is allowed during the examination
6. Any possible places, e.g. washroom, that could
be used to hide notes is not monitored
16
34
24
15
10
26
27.1
57.6
40.7
25.4
16.9
44.1
The results of the study pose several interpretations. Contrary to Widianingsih
(2013), Noor and Dangi (2014) believed that incentive/motive does not really have an
impact on the behavior of students to cheat. On the other hand, the results on opportunity
can have two separate meanings: one, there is little or no opportunity for the respondents to
cheat in their respective institution; and two, there is opportunity for them to cheat if the
university were not careful on how they conduct examinations and assessments. If nothing
is done to minimize opportunity, it is expected that the likelihood of students cheating will
increase. Similar to motives, rationalization does not have much impact on the behavior of

38
students to cheat. Nonetheless, institutions should still be weary to minimize students’
thoughts on cheating. Students also have the capability to cheat given the right timing and
the “right” person. Opportunity may also be linked to this because if given the right
opportunity, their capability to cheat will increase. To end it all, the authors have stated that
universities must take extra steps on preventing their students to cheat by giving training to
their staff, implementing strict rules on cheating, and continuous investigation.
2.3 Types of Academic Dishonesty
Jones (2011) identified academic dishonesty as the theft of ideas and other forms of
intellectual property, whether published or unpublished. Such theft greatly focuses on
cheating and plagiarism, as followed by the Florida Institute of Technology (2011). In
addition, McMaster University (2013) states that academic dishonesty is to “knowingly act
or fail to act in a way that results or could result to unearned academic credit or advantage.”
Some examples of academic dishonesty offences include plagiarism, forgery, alteration and
misrepresentation.
Lin and Wen (2007) have presented in their study previous researches, which states
the most common forms of academic dishonesty, particularly committed by college
students. According to Finn & Frone (2004), academic cheating is highly prevalent and an
ongoing problem at all grade levels, and has garnished more attention as college students

39
are discovered to be objects of the occurring dilemma (Crown & Spiller, 1998; McCabe &
Trevino 1996). Moreover, in a review of hundreds of studies related to cheating, it was
found that an average of 70.4 percent of the students are guilty of the dishonest behavior.
Also, it was discovered that 43.1% had cheated on examinations, 40.9 percent had cheated
on homework assignments, and 47 percent had plagiarized (Whitley, Nelson & Jones,
1999). Furthermore, the rates of dishonesty behaviors in learning institutions are not only
prevalent in the United States, but also in Russia (Lupton & Chapman, 2002) and Asia
(Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara & Yusukawa, 1999). In fact, Shen (1995) concluded that 85
percent of the subjects in a Japanese research cheated on examinations. Academic
dishonesty extends beyond cheating on examinations, and Lin and Wen (2007) focused on
examining the cheating behavior on tests, assignments, and plagiarism.
Similarly, Balbuena (2014) stated that academic dishonesty is synonymous to
cheating and plagiarism; it has been a prevalent problem in all academic institutions across
various academic levels. There are several academic dishonesty that is being committed by
students in today’s time. All of which has its own sense of gravity and impact but
nevertheless they are still considered as dishonest behavior in an academic setting.
Balbuena’s (2014) research was able to identify that cheating on assignments and
homework was the most prevalent. Twenty-four or 80 percent of the participants of his
survey reported that they engaged in the behavior more than once. Cheating during a test

40
or exam ranked second which is composed of 67 percent. This is followed by working by
group for an individual assignment 57 percent, and plagiarizing from printed materials 37
percent. Gurh (2012) added that plagiarism ranks one of the two most common instances of
academic fraud. Over the decades, the cases of plagiarism increase rampantly across
campuses around the world. This was caused by the emergence of websites selling research
papers and ghostwriting services leading to intellectual theft.
On the other hand, the least prevalent dishonest behavior was using unauthorized
gadgets during exams, followed by using kodigo, spreading leaked test papers, and
submitting term papers lifted from the Internet (Balbuena, 2014).
In addition to what has been mentioned earlier, numerous researchers such as
Marquez-Perez (2000) and Grimes (2003) have classified and identified other forms of
academic dishonesty. Some of which includes plagiarism, cheating, or assisting others in
cheating etc. The other types of academic dishonesty are most of the time based on the
university. Each university has its own set of rules and conducts and its corresponding
penalties to be incurred by the students.
2.4 Existence of Academic Dishonesty in Philippine Universities
Academic dishonesty has been a prevalent case among students competing for
better grades and it has now been observed in various levels of the education system (Koss,

41
2011). Moreover, it has also been noted in that same study by Koss (2012), that one of the
main reasons that academic dishonesty occurs in the classroom setting is because of the
peer pressure. The acts and behavior of peers of the fraudulent student clearly affects his
behavior and his probability to cheat.
In the case of the Philippines, cheating incidents in the big 4 universities: University
of the Philippines Diliman, Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University - Manila,
and University of Santo Tomas are such a big deal that they are usually made headlines by
the university paper as well as local newspapers in the country. One example is the case of
UP’s plagiarism incident. This incident that has happened in 2013 was known to the public
when one UP student, Mark Joseph Solis, entered his photograph entitled “The Mettle of
the Filipino Spirit, “in a photo contest. The photograph that he claimed to have shot was a
picture of a boy with seaweed on top of his head. According to Solis, this picture shows a
young boy, from Zamboanga, helping his dad in farming seaweed. The precise detail of the
picture and the meaning it gave helped Solis bag the first place for the said competition.
However, controversies emerged when Gregory John Smith, social entrepreneur and
founder of Children at Risk Foundation in Brazil, claimed that picture to be his. Smith
claimed that the picture was taken in Brazil way back in 2006 along with the boy’s brothers
and even showed proof of his claim (Bautista, 2013).
Afterwards Solis had no choice but to admit his fault and apologized to Smith via
email. Hannah Reyes, 3rd placer of the said competition and fellow UP alumni,

42
commented that Solis’ act hurt the organizers, contestants, his UP community, and the
person whom he has stolen the photograph from (Bautista, 2013).
Another controversial issue was the report made by Ong and Batalla (2012), writers
from The LaSallian, on two star scholar students of DLSU got away with cheating.
According to a source, a statistics professor caught 5 students cheating during an exam and
has threatened them that he will immediately fail all 5 if they did not confess. Afterwards, a
batch vice president approached the professor and confessed his actions while the professor
replied that all 5 of them must approach him. The 5 students, consisting of the batch VP, 2
star scholars, and the other two, approached the professor altogether. A few days later, the 5
of them were surprised by the fact that their professor did indeed let them off the hook after
their confession.
Star scholars of DLSU come from the top 100 scorers of DLSUCET, or the
university’s entrance exam. The LaSallian added that star scholars are pressured to
maintain a GPA of 2.5 and are expected to follow disciplinary rules of the university. The
incident on cheating has raised issues regarding the selection of these scholars and their
continued guidance in the university. Moreover, in the same university, an article written by
Uson (2013) reported that, which was mainly cheating and plagiarism, top the list of major
and minor offenses in the university.

43
A research done in Cavite featured the prevalence and severity of different types of
dishonest behaviors was identified based on a descriptive data gathering. The answers of
the respondents were based on the experiences and perception of college students. The
study was successful in identifying reasons why college students engage in a type of
cheating. A number of studies have tapped into proving evidence on the rapidly increasing
prevalence of academic dishonesty. The study of Balbuena (2014) focused on Filipino
students. Academic dishonesty was mostly committed by cheating on assignments and
examinations. The author admitted that there was limited literature in the Philippines on
ethical dilemmas faced by students enrolled in universities and colleges. Results have
shown that cheating among college students is prevalent because this act is socially
accepted as a norm (Balbuena, 2014). The author was also able to consider certain reasons
which have been considered in order to arrive at the decision to cheat. Usually, students are
torn between uplifting desirable values and high academic performance. To top it off, the
objectives of Balbuena’s study was to identify how prevalent academic dishonesty is in
college, determine the driving forces behind cheating, ask the perceived morality of
cheating, and identify ethical dilemmas faced by college students. The researcher’s
methodology made use of systematic random sampling in choosing 30 college students to
participate in the survey. Both quantitative and qualitative were used to interpret the
responses. Frequency counts were utilized in order to determine students’ engagement in
dishonest academic behaviors and perception on the seriousness of each behavior. Also, the
survey was designed to accommodate open-ended questions to find similar themes in

44
cheating. The questionnaire deployed in the study was adopted from the Academic Integrity
Survey first pioneered by Don McCabe. It consisted of checklists on the frequency of
students’ engagement in certain academic fraud. Table 9 shows the recorded frequency
responses of participants regarding their engagement in certain dishonest behaviors. From
here, one can see the types of cheating the respondents have committed.

45
Table 9. Students’ degree of engagement in dishonest behaviors
Behavior Never Once More
than
once
Not
relevant
1. Copied from another student during a test or exam.
2. Used unpermitted crib notes (or kodigo) during a
test or exam.
3. Got questions or answers from someone who had
already taken a test.
4. Using an electronic or digital device as an
unauthorized aid during an exam.
5. Helped someone else cheat on a test.
6. Read an abridged version of a book rather than the
original.
7. Turned in work you copied from another student.
8. Worked on an assignment with other students when
the teacher asked for individual work.
9. Copied a few sentences from a site on the Internet
without citing them.
10. Copied a few sentences from a book, magazine, or
other source without citing them
11. Let another student copy homework.
12. Turned in paper obtained in large part from a term
paper “mill” or website, or from a book, journal,
or other source.
13. Sold, purchased, or distributed in some other way
test/exam copies, questions, essays, or class notes.
3
27
14
28
15
13
13
6
16
8
2
21
26
7
3
6
1
5
8
8
7
7
8
4
3
1
20
0
10
1
6
5
6
17
7
11
24
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
0
0
1
0
2
1
Source: Balbuena (2014)

46
Moreover, in the same study, Balbuena was able to identify common themes which
urged students to cheat. Certain themes emerged from the responses of the students. These
generally describe the external or internal motives that force students to commit dishonest
academic behaviors. The frequency “sometimes” implied occasional engagement in the
behavior, or that there are some circumstances, which encourage the students to cheat.
Another important finding revealed that student’s reasons for cheating were mainly due to
circumstances that “they did not study well,” “they did not understand the teacher or the
lesson,” or “they forgot the right answer”. The main drive to cheat was the desire to pass
and get high grades. Furthermore, the results suggest that there are certain factors, which
lead to cheating. The top of the list is poor classroom management by the teacher. Also, the
absence of strict policy implementation and poor classroom structure enabled students to
freely and easily get involved in a cheating conspiracy with their classmates. Because of
this, students could collaborate to obtain better scores on their exams. Findings have shown
that students share answers on an objective type test, complementing each other if either of
them does not know the best answer to a test item. In addition, ineffective teaching might
have contributed to students’ poor knowledge and understanding of the subject matter,
which somehow motivated them to resort to dishonest measures.
On the bright side, only a handful of students view cheating as an unethical
behavior that must be avoided. However, some admitted that they have been involved in a
certain behavior, which they did not know as a form of academic dishonesty.

47
Furthermore, some respondents reported that they were honest “sometimes” and dishonest
in some other times (e.g., they cheat on assignments but not on exams). Therefore, a certain
dilemma occurs among students with respect to dealing with academic integrity.
Table 10. Students’ perceptions on the seriousness of each type of dishonest behavior
Behavior Not
cheating
Trivial
cheating
Moderate
cheating
Serious
cheating
1. Copying from another student during
a test or exam.
2 16 8 4
2. Using unpermitted crib notes (or
kodigo) during a test or exam.
15 1 1 13
3. Getting questions or answers from
someone who had already taken a
test.
8 11 5 5
4. Using an electronic or digital device
as an unauthorized aid during an
exam.
15 3 4 7
5. Helping someone else cheat on a
test.
9 9 9 2
6. Reading an abridged version of a
book rather than the original.
13 8 4 2
7. Turning in work you copied from
another student.
9 10 8 3
8. Working on an assignment with
other students when the teacher
asked for individual work.
4 14 11 1
9. Copying a few sentences from a site
on the Internet without citing them.
13 7 6 4
10. Copying a few sentences from a
book, magazine, or other source
without citing them.
9 9 7 5

48
11. Letting another student copy
homework.
4 25 22 0
12. Letting another student copy
homework.
15 5 4 5
13. Selling, purchasing, or distributing
in some other way test/exam copies,
questions, essays, or class notes.
14 1 3 12
Source: Balbuena (2014)
The Table 10 basically shows the severity of dishonest behaviors. Thirteen
behaviors were identified and used in the interviews and each had to be rated from “not
cheating” as least serious to “serious cheating” as the most serious. Copying during an
exam was viewed as “trivial cheating” by a greater number of participants. It can be
induced that copying from another student during a test or exam is accepted as normal.
Furthermore, using unpermitted crib notes “kodigo” during an exam was viewed differently
as either “not cheating” or “serious cheating”. Respondents had confusion regarding the
severity of using cheat sheets. The other listed behaviors were viewed as follows: getting
information from students who have taken a test was considered as a “trivial cheating”,
unauthorized use of mobile device as “not cheating”, helping someone cheat as “not a
serious cheating”, reading an shortened book as “not cheating”, submitting copied material
as “trivial cheating”, working in groups in an individual task as “trivial cheating”, copying
someone’s work without making citations as “not cheating”, sharing homework as “trivial
cheating”, submitting papers with most contents taken from online source without citing as
“not cheating”, and unauthorized dissemination of test leaks as “either least serious or most
serious type”.

49
The most common perception discovered in the results was trivial cheating. The
implication of this is alarming because students view cheating as just ordinary acts in and
out of the classroom. Students do not fear the consequences of their fraudulent acts.
2.5 Demographics and Academic Dishonesty
With an increasing competition in the labor market, whether in business, law, or
medicine industry, undergraduates experience a considerable amount of pressure to do well.
With this, one of the basic ethical decisions one has got to make is whether to cheat or not
to cheat. Prior research shows that such pressures from the competitive labor market often
lead to decisions to engage in various forms of academic dishonesty (McCabe, Trevino, &
Butterfield, 1999). As a solution, several universities have implemented academic honor
codes in order to decrease the prevalence of any form of academic dishonesty.
In 1964, Bill Bowers conducted one of the very first researches involving cheating
in higher education. With more than 5,000 respondents, Bowers discovered that three
fourths of the group had engaged in one or more incidents of academic dishonesty. Years
later, McCabe and Trevino (1997) replicated the study with a smaller number of
respondents, and found out that there was a modest increase in overall cheating. However,
disturbing increases were discovered in the most explicit forms of tests (or exam cheating),
as well as collaborative cheating among women.

50
Over the years, the stream of research on academic dishonesty transitioned from the
influence of institutions to the role of individual factors related to cheating behavior. Such
stream of research have revealed that factors such as age, gender, grade point average
(GPA), work ethic, Type A behavior, competitive achievement striving, and self-esteem
can significantly influence the prevalence of cheating (e.g., Baird, 1980; Eisenberger &
Shank, 1985; Perry, Kane, Bernesser, & Spicker, 1990; Ward, 1986; Ward & Beck, 1990).
McCabe (1992) revealed that undergraduates use a variety of neutralization techniques such
as rationalization, denial, deflecting blame to others, and condemning the accusers, in order
to explain away their dishonest behavior. Supporting this claim is the role of both age and
class rank in influencing the decision to commit a dishonest academic behavior. Prior
studies, including that of McCabe and Trevino (2001), revealed that younger students tend
to cheat more than older students. In fact, McCabe and Trevino (1997) suggested that that
many freshmen and sophomores who find themselves in large lecture courses find it very
easy to rationalize cheating. Another individual factor that has received attention in the
literature is gender. Several studies have reported that men cheat more than women;
however, some have found no difference between men and women with regards to their
cheating behavior. Similar to majority of the studies, McCabe and Trevino (1997),
discovered that men do cheat more than women, but they also suggest that within similar
majors (engineering, business, etc.), gender differences are often very small. Other
individual-level factors include students’ grade point average (GPA) and involvement in
extracurricular activities. McCabe and Trevino (1997) concluded that student with lower

51
GPAs have more reports on cheating than those with higher GPAs. The researchers also
found out that students engaged in intercollegiate athletics and other extracurricular
activities self-reported more cheating.
Aside from individual factors, academic integrity is also influenced by contextual
factors. This includes the existence of an honor code, student understanding and acceptance
of a school’s academic integrity policy, perceived certainty that cheaters will be reported,
perceived severity of penalties, and the degree to which students perceive that their peers
engage in cheating behavior. The final variable in the study, as assessed by McCabe and
Trevino (1997), was found to have the most significant relation to with student cheating. In
McCabe and Trevino’s (1997) study entitled Individual and Contextual Influences on
Academic Dishonesty, it was discovered that the contextual factors (peer cheating behavior,
peer disapproval of cheating behavior, and perceived severity of penalties for cheating)
were significantly more influential than the individual factors (age, gender, GPA, and
participation in extracurricular activities).
McCabe et al. (1999) have also conducted a qualitative study stating the other
identified factors that can influence a dishonest academic behavior. These factors include
pressure to get high grades, parental pressures, a desire to excel, pressure to get a job,
laziness, a lack of responsibility, a lack of character, poor self-image, a lack of pride in a
job well done, and a lack of personal integrity.

52
A statistics report was presented by a study entitled “75 to 98 percent of College
Students have Cheated” (2011). According to the study, in 1940, there were only a handful
of 20 percent of college students who admitted to cheating. Presently, the number
skyrocketed to 75 to 98 percent. Moreover, it was mentioned that cheating usually starts in
middle school. There is also a disturbing ratio of 9 out of 10 elementary students admit to
the copying homework of a classmate and 75 percent admitted that they have cheated on
exams. Cheating was usually committed in major subjects such as science and math. The
results of the survey revealed that college students who are most likely to cheat are the ones
taking up engineering and business courses.
The same article concerned itself with identifying whether cheating was done in
order to pass or get high marks. Over the past 60 years, it is very evident that the number of
students who admitted they cheated has significantly gone up. Studies found out that
cheating was not just to pass but also to get ahead. A survey administered by Josephson
Institute of Ethics of 12,000 high school students showed that 74 percent of the respondents
admitted that they cheated in an exam at some point during the past year (2010) to get
ahead. It was concluded that students these days have become more willing to cheat.
Parents, teachers, and other authoritative figures are challenged to suppress the trend. The
author was worried whether the students who were willing to commit cheating are also
willing to commit other fraudulent acts.

53
Similarly, Nazir et. al. (2011) conducted a study that aims to determine how
demographics can act as a predictor of commitment of academic dishonesty among the
Pakistani students. The researchers thoroughly evaluated numerous personal demographics
factors such as age, gender, academic program, business/non-business major and CGPA.
They have utilized self-administered and well-structured questionnaires on 1000 students
that are enrolled in the educational system of Pakistan. It was then concluded by the
researchers that there is indeed a direct impact and correlation between the demographics of
a person and the attitude as well behavior of students towards academic dishonesty.
Moreover, Nazir et. al. (2011) have further concluded that the age, educational level, course
and CGPA of a person are highly significant in the predictability of a student to commit
fraudulent acts.
In a different study done by McCabe et. al. (2001), they reiterated the earlier
findings by the other studies. One of which is significantly deemed as a recurring and
significant factor, they found that the younger students are more likely to cheat in the
academic field as opposed to older and more experienced students. At the same time, they
have also identified another variable that is deemed to be a significant factor affecting the
likelihood of committing fraud or academic dishonesty, the said variable is gender. The
researchers have identified that the male population are more likely to commit academic
dishonesty than female students.

54
2.6 Academic Dishonesty and Effect on Academic Institution
The University of California, Los Angeles (2013) believes that the existence of
academic dishonesty is a disturbing issue that universities have to avoid. Universities must
take note that the encouragement to commit academic dishonesty can come from the
climate of their campus as well as internal pressures coming from the students. In addition,
when the university becomes indifferent of the said act, they can imply to students that the
value of integrity and honesty are not sufficient to one’s academic life. As a result, the
university’s sense of community on campus will be damaged which can alienate some of
the best students of the institution. Another issue is that the existence of academic
dishonesty can result to deception of the students who believe in the knowledge that their
institution provides them.
2.6.1 Integrity and Quality of Learning Experience
According to the University of Buffalo (2015), academic integrity is a fundamental
university value because it helps in sustaining the integrity of a university at the same time
facilitates the university’s effectiveness in transmitting knowledge to their students. A
study done by the Griffith University (2011) showed the importance of academic integrity
among universities. According to them, academic integrity comes from honesty and trust
among students. The core of academic integrity comes from the heart of all the activities
done by the university in order to assure that they provide the best service to their students,

55
which they are expected to carry with them even when they leave the university. Griffith
University states that, “without honesty and trust, true academic discourse becomes
impossible, learning is distorted, and the evaluation of student progress and academic
quality is seriously compromised.” As universities are tasked to defend their academic
credibility, protect the standards of their awards, and ensure that the non-cheating students
receive the credit from their work, it is only right for universities to prevent academic
misconduct that can harm their integrity. In addition, it is only appropriate for universities
to be equipped with proper staff, professors, deans, and other employees who can help
detecting and preventing academic misconduct. It should be part of the university’s system
to have an assessment committee and integrity policies to monitor quality and effectiveness
of learning among their respective institutions.
The University of Canterbury (2014) states that the violation of academic integrity
between universities undermines academic standards and educational outcomes.
Additionally, the university states that, “a strong emphasis on the academic integrity
among staff and students is a quality assurance mechanism that contributes to the
safeguarding of the standard of the University’s qualifications.” Because of this, the
University of Canterbury (2014) believes that it is only the responsibility of the universities
to provide and encourage academic integrity among students and employees because it is
part of their function to provide the best service they can offer to their students. It is also
important for the academic staff to understand the meaning of academic integrity and

56
dishonesty in order to properly discipline students at the same time instill the right values.
The Academic Integrity Rating System (AIRS), introduced by the International
Center of Academic Integrity (ICAI), is a framework that helps universities assess the state
of their academic integrity. According to the ICAI, the framework follows 4 metrics/ratings
for integrity and these are:
“1 – the item must reflect a “movement’ toward institutionalization
because it improves the structures, procedures and cultures in support of
academic integrity;
2 – the item must be “relevant and meaningful for diverse institutions”;
so some items are flexible while others apply differently to different
institutions;
3 – the item measurements “prioritize performance over strategy when
possible” so that adopting strategy for the sake of it is insufficient;
strategies have to be focused on improved performance and
quantitatively measurable (e.g., the percentage of faculty that report
cheating); and,
4 – the item has to be “objective, measurable, and actionable”

57
The metrics and ratings provided above help universities identify the areas wherein
they should improve academic integrity (ICAI, n.d.).
A Research Integrity Lectures (2013) conducted in John Hopkins University
stressed how fraud in the academic institution, especially in writing research papers,
deteriorate the quality of work done by the students. It was stressed in the article that,
“Integrity in the performance of research is essential, and it must be scrupulously and
vigorously maintained. Every single act of research fraud tarnishes the University’s
reputation and the credibility of all its faculty, staff and students, and hinders the pursuit of
new knowledge.” Because of this opposition against research fraud, John Hopkins
University adheres to the strict implementation of standards of integrity. It was also
emphasized that the university maintains an atmosphere, which fosters integrity at the same
time adopting measures for addressing research fraud. To ensure this, each division of the
John Hopkin’s University will periodically release dissemination and publicity of written
procedures for dealing with claims against research fraud.
Furthermore, in a research conducted in Kenya by Dr. Akaranga (2013), quality,
ethics and morality were factors considered in fostering effective teaching and learning. As
stated, education is considered as a very significant factor of national development because
it is a process where young adults are honed and equipped to live productively according to
their talents and interests. Education does not only teach learners but at the same time,

58
learners are trained and guided to develop and acquire necessary skills, knowledge, and
attitude towards public life. It was also stressed that examination is the most popular tool
for assessing the progress and standing of the students. Furthermore, examinations enable
students to know their academic strengths and weaknesses. If the scores in the examination
were obtained unethically, then it means that the quality of learning experience suffers. In
line with this, quality is defined as “something good, ideal or high standard.” To be able to
assure quality in the learning experience of the students, there must be “consistent provision
and utilization of good and high standard resources intended to foster effective teaching and
learning in every stage and aspect of the education system” (Akaranga, 2013). It was stated
in the study that ensuring quality includes a process that involves activities such as
teaching, learning, and counseling, to which personnel in the educational institution
engages. These activities are captured by the constructs of the variable quality of learning
experience, specifically, skills development, learner engagement, teaching quality, student
support, and learning resources. These constructs are further discussed in section 2.8 of this
Chapter under Quality Education in Universities. Overall, academic integrity plays a role in
improving a university’s quality because it is dependent on how knowledge is transferred to
the students and to the effectiveness of the university and its professors to train and
influence their students.
In addition, teaching quality and learner engagement were constructs tackled in a
report by ESPN entitled, “UNC report: Sham classes pushed” (2014). It was discussed

59
that in the University of North Carolina, the quality of learning experience of the student
athletes was very poor because the professors and academic administrators made fake
courses which required no attendance, no exam, and the research papers were written by the
tutors of the athletes. This scenario enables the athletes to boost their GPAs, which keep
them eligible to compete for the school. Because of this, many of the varsity athletes were
not engaged to learn and took advantage of these courses. On the other hand, the same
problem on the lack of learner engagement from varsity athletes was evident in Dartmouth
University when the school designed an easy course, which most athletes cut.
To further discuss integrity and quality of learning experience, a guide for the
higher education community written by Morris (2010) presented the importance of
enforcing and fostering a culture of integrity in academic institutions by adhering to the
values of “honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility.” This study specifically
addresses student plagiarism. Moreover, the guide suggested an integrated approach which
is composed of interrelated measures to reduce academic dishonesty that are shown below:
1. Induction and learning support provision that enable students to not only receive
relevant information, advice and guidance, but have opportunities to develop study
and academic writing skills;
2. Ensuring the teaching and learning strategies emphasize designing authentic
assessment tasks than can help to reduce academic dishonesty;

60
3. Developing, implementing and monitoring formal policies and procedures, and
actively ensuring that these are readily available for and understood by staff and
students.
The measures presented by Morris (2010) fall under how the University Experience
Survey (2014) defines the measures of quality. Under their report, skills development
involves improving writing skills, critical thinking, and communication skills of a student.
In addition, teaching quality focuses on the effectiveness and quality of teaching offered by
the professors in a given university.
2.7 Total Quality Management
For over a decade, colleges and universities in the United States of America
searched and tested the adaptability of Total Quality Management (TQM) to higher
education (Coate, 1993). In a case study of Oregon State University, the management
searched for a new strategy as they experience downsizing, at the same time, try to improve
the quality of operations and services. Eventually the Oregon State University implemented
Total Quality Management, believing that it focuses on improving productivity with
reduced costs and maintained or improved quality. However, Coate (1993) also stated how
Total Quality Management offers more to the educational scene than simply efficiency;
rather, TQM offers a new way of thinking about higher learning institutions, including
management styles, accountability and approaches to issues of professional practice.

61
According to Seymour (1992), there are eleven quality principles applicable to
higher education. These principles are as follows:
1. Quality is meeting or exceeding customer needs.
2. Quality is continuous improvement.
3. Quality is everyone’s job.
4. Quality is leadership.
5. Quality is human resource development.
6. Quality is in the system.
7. Quality is fear reduction.
8. Quality is recognition and reward.
9. Quality is teamwork.
10. Quality is measurement.
11. Quality is systematic problem solving.
The quality principles stated above supports Chafee and Sherr’s (1992) argument on
why TQM can work in higher education. According to the aforementioned researchers,
TQM is a comprehensive philosophy; thus, it provides good mechanisms of good
management, from which organizations select those that suit their needs and purposes.
Moreover, Chafee and Sherr (1992) stated that TQM has face validity. This entails
utilization of known principles and tools of good management, making it clear and
understandable. Lastly, TQM is already applied to similar enterprises, as well as colleges
and universities.

62
Chizmar (1994) defined Total Quality Management as the collaborative and holistic
application of the ideas of the industrial TQM model to teach and learning. In his article,
Chizmar (1994) view teaching and learning as processes that can be managed just like any
other organizational functions. In fact, he suggests that the application of TQM to teaching
and learning process is a prime avenue for achieving national goals for undergraduate
education. Furthermore, Chizmar (1994) emphasized that the power of Total Quality
Management teaching and learning model lies in its ability to suggest hypotheses
concerning teaching strategies, which enhance learning and its emphasis on the quality of
product, orientation to students, advocacy of teamwork, and a continuing desire to improve.
The application in learning institutions of Total Quality Management to its teaching
and learning model requires translation of a few key terms originally found on that applied
to other industries. In the TQM teaching and learning model, the teacher will play the role
of manager. Students, however, will play a dual role in the model- customers and
employees. As Chizmar (1994) stated, “Students are important agents for their own
learning, indeed the creators of it.” Overall, the TQM teaching and learning model entails
various attributes or conditions which include teamwork, empowerment, feedback, and
continuous improvement. However, Chizmar (1994) emphasized that a learning strategy
which satisfies all attributes may still not qualify as TQM, for the conditions are necessary
but not sufficient.

63
Further research by Cole (1995) suggests that Total Quality Management can
influence decision making in higher education, enabling it to reestablish itself as credible in
its need for additional resources and deserving of both public and private support.
Specifically, Cole (1995) outlined the TQM principles and techniques as it is applied to
faculty selection. The model in the study was designed to integrate the TQM principles
with sound decision making principles that provide educational leaders with an enhanced
framework, which they can analyze and evaluate faculty selection processes, criteria for
selection, as well as relevant contextual issues that will result in the identification and
selection of the best qualified faculty available.
Koch and Fisher (1998) strongly recommended the study of TQM in an academic
setting because it is usually the frequently cited solutions for solving problems existing in
higher education. It was mentioned that the use of TQM in Samford University in the US
resulted in higher student satisfaction. Additionally, TQM could be used to solve major
problems such as learning, teaching versus research, student access, and more. It was also
stressed that TQM could serve as assistance in raising the performance of administrative
service areas and in areas the boost certain quasi-academic areas such as library services.
Cruickshank (2003) also supports the importance of identifying quality management
practices in higher education institutions. The author’s research locale was set in the United
States of America, United Kingdom and Australia. The author stressed that one of the

64
hardest concern when it comes to implementing the TQM in the tertiary education is “to
identify the appropriate management structure that will encourage quality improvement in
the light of shared goals without inhibiting the diversity, innovation, and creativity that are
the essence of a university.” This also implies that the educational sector is seen as an
industry in which TQM could serve a relevant role. Quality is actually viewed as a
management approach that could solve problems in higher education sectors. Moreover,
Cruickshank (2003) believes that, “... the concept of competitiveness is one that is gripping
our society and indeed societies all over the world. The success of business and
manufacturing organizations using TQM encouraged many US higher education
institutions to adopt it.” This could now provide the academic community a valuable test
for many key areas of management theory. The first US higher education, which embraced
TQM, was Fox Valley Technical College. As a result, this college became more efficient in
improving its learning environment specifically in areas such as curricular and core
learning process.
2.8 Quality Education in Universities
In Australia, they use the University Experience Survey, which is distributed to
university students in order to express about their experience. In line with that, the survey
aims to “help both universities and government improve teaching and learning in
Australia.” According to the UES report (2014) there are five facets of student experience:
skills development, learner engagement, teaching quality, student support, and learning

65
resources. The focus of each area is listed below:
• Skills development:
o independent learning developed by course
o knowledge of study areas developed by course
o complex problem solving developed by course
o spoken communication developed by course
o critical thinking skills developed by course
o written communication developed by course
o teamwork developed by course
o work readiness developed by course
• Learner engagement:
o felt prepared for study
o interacted with different students
o student interaction outside study
o opportunities to interact with local students
o online or face-to-face discussions
o sense of belonging to university
o worked with other students

66
• Teaching quality:
o quality of overall education experience
o quality of teaching
o course relevant to education overall
o course well structured
o teaching staff actively engaged students
o teaching staff set challenging assessments
o teaching staff explained coursework and assessment
o teaching staff concerned about student learning
o teaching staff provided constructive feedback
o teaching staff were helpful and approachable
o teaching staff provided intellectual stimulation
• Student support
o academic or learning advisors available
o academic or learning advisors helpful
o admin staff/systems helpful
o careers advisors available
o careers advisors helpful
o efficient enrollment and admissions processes
o english language support received

67
o induction/orientation activities relevant/helpful
o have been offered relevant support
o other advisors available
o other advisors helpful
o supported to settle into university
o university services used to support study
• Learning resources
o computing/IT resources - quality
o laboratory or studio equipment - quality
o library resources and facilities - quality
o online learning materials - quality
o student spaces - quality
o teaching spaces - quality
o textbooks and learning resources - quality
In the country, there is The Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges
and Universities (PAASCU), which is a private non-profit and non-stock corporation
registered in the Securities Exchange Commission since November 5, 1957. According to
their website, they are “a service organization that accredits academic programs which meet
standards of quality education.” On the year 1967, the Department of Education

ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA

ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA

Similar to ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA (13)

More from Darian Pruitt

More from Darian Pruitt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ANALYZING THE PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AND QUALITY OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AMONG UNIVERSITIES IN METRO MANILA