Can Future Managers and Business Executives be Influenced to Behave more Ethically in the Workplace? The Impact of Approaches to Learning on Business Students’ Cheating Behavior

Joan Ballantine, Xin Guo, Patricia Larres

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This study considers the potential for influencing business students to become ethical managers by directing their undergraduate learning environment. In particular, the relationship between business students’ academic cheating, as a predictor of workplace ethical behavior, and their approaches to learning is explored. The three approaches to learning identified from the students’ approaches to learning (SAL) literature are: deep approach, represented by an intrinsic interest in and a desire to understand the subject; surface approach, characterized by rote learning and memorization without understanding; and strategic approach, associated with competitive students whose motivation is the achievement of good grades by adopting either a surface or deep approach. Consistent with the hypothesized theoretical model, structural equation modeling revealed that the surface approach is associated with higher levels of cheating while the deep approach is related to lower levels. The strategic approach was also associated with less cheating and had a statistically stronger influence than the deep approach. Further, a significant positive relationship reported between deep and strategic approaches suggests that cheating is reduced when deep and strategic approaches are paired. These findings suggest that future managers and business executives can be influenced to behave more ethically in the workplace by directing their learning approaches. It is hoped the evidence presented may encourage those involved in the design of business programs to implement educational strategies which optimize students’ approaches to learning towards deep and strategic characteristics, thereby equipping tomorrow’s managers and business executives with skills to recognize and respond appropriately to workplace ethical dilemmas.
LanguageEnglish
Pages245-258
JournalJournal of Business Ethics
Volume149
Issue number1
Early online date3 Feb 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2018

Fingerprint

workplace
manager
learning
student
business relationship
structural model
Cheating
Business students
Work place
Managers
Work Place
learning environment
evidence

Keywords

  • Approaches to learning
  • deep
  • strategic
  • surface
  • cheating behavior
  • future

Cite this

@article{60559b17f2ec4602a09599911092ce84,
title = "Can Future Managers and Business Executives be Influenced to Behave more Ethically in the Workplace? The Impact of Approaches to Learning on Business Students’ Cheating Behavior",
abstract = "This study considers the potential for influencing business students to become ethical managers by directing their undergraduate learning environment. In particular, the relationship between business students’ academic cheating, as a predictor of workplace ethical behavior, and their approaches to learning is explored. The three approaches to learning identified from the students’ approaches to learning (SAL) literature are: deep approach, represented by an intrinsic interest in and a desire to understand the subject; surface approach, characterized by rote learning and memorization without understanding; and strategic approach, associated with competitive students whose motivation is the achievement of good grades by adopting either a surface or deep approach. Consistent with the hypothesized theoretical model, structural equation modeling revealed that the surface approach is associated with higher levels of cheating while the deep approach is related to lower levels. The strategic approach was also associated with less cheating and had a statistically stronger influence than the deep approach. Further, a significant positive relationship reported between deep and strategic approaches suggests that cheating is reduced when deep and strategic approaches are paired. These findings suggest that future managers and business executives can be influenced to behave more ethically in the workplace by directing their learning approaches. It is hoped the evidence presented may encourage those involved in the design of business programs to implement educational strategies which optimize students’ approaches to learning towards deep and strategic characteristics, thereby equipping tomorrow’s managers and business executives with skills to recognize and respond appropriately to workplace ethical dilemmas.",
keywords = "Approaches to learning, deep, strategic, surface, cheating behavior, future",
author = "Joan Ballantine and Xin Guo and Patricia Larres",
note = "Reference text: AACSB. (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) Ethics Education Task Force. (2004). Ethics Education in Business Schools. Tampa, Florida: AACSB. Allmon, D. E., Page, D., & Robert, R. (2000). Determinants of Perceptions of Cheating: Ethical Orientation, Personality and Demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4), 411-422. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS. Ballantine, J. A., & McCourt Larres, P. (2009). Accounting Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning as a Model for Enhancing their Interpersonal and Communication Skills to Interface Successfully with Professional Accountancy Education and Training. Accounting Education: an international journal, 18(4-5), 387-402. Biggs, J. B. (1993). From Theory to Practice: A Cognitive Systems Approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73-85. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cannon and Newble (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th Ed.). London: Kogan Page Cermakova, L., Moneta, G. B., & Spada, M. M. (2010). Dispositional flow as a mediator of the relationships between attentional control and approaches to studying during academic examination preparation. Educational Psychology, 30(5), 495–511. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (October), 297-334. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage Publications. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative Versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263-282. Diseth, {\AA}. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 373-388. Diseth, {\AA}., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: the role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies. Higher Education, 59(3), 335-352. Duff, A. (2003). Quality of Learning on an MBA Programme: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23(2), 123-139. Duff, A. (2004a). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) and its Use in Management Education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 56-72. Duff, A. (2004b). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education: an international journal, 13(4), 409-430. Duff, A. (2014). Learning styles and approaches in accounting education. In R. M. S. Wilson (Ed.). Routledge Companion to Accounting Education (pp.163–188). Oxford: Routledge. Entwistle, N. (1988a). Motivation and learning strategies. Educational and Child Psychology, 5(3), 5-20. Entwistle, N. (1988b). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.). Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21-51). London: Plenum Press. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approach to study inventory across contrasting groups and context. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33-48. Evans, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning styles in education and training: Problems, politicization and potential. Education and Training, 48(2-3), 77-83. Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 483–511. Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & McPhail, K. (1994). Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching: educating immorality and a possible case for social and environmental accounting education. Accounting Education: an international journal 3(1), 51-75. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Hartman, L. P., & Werhane, P. H. (2009). A Modular Approach to Business Ethics Integration: At the Intersection of the Stand-Alone and the Integrated Approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3 Supplement), 295–300. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Jorge, M. L., & Pe{\~n}a, F. J. A. (2014). Determinants of corporate social responsibility and business ethics education in Spanish universities. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(2), 139-153. Jurdi, R., Hage, H. S., & Chow, H. P. H. (2012). What behaviours do students consider academically dishonest? Findings from a survey of Canadian undergraduate students. Social Psychology of Education: an international journal, 15(1), 1-23. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Ed.). New York: Guildford Press. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212 Loyens, S. M. M., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., & C{\^o}t{\'e}, D. J. (2013). Students’ approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking into account professional behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 23-32. Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. T. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1-10. Martin, D. E. (2012). Culture and unethical conduct: Understanding the impact of individualism and collectivism on actual plagiarism. Management Learning, 43(3), 261-273. Martin, D., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. (2009). Plagiarism, Integrity, and Workplace Deviance: A Criterion Study. Ethics and Behavior, 19(1), 36-51. Marton, F., & S{\"a}lj{\"o}, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-Outcomes and Processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2014). The Influence of Business Ethics Education on Moral Efficacy, Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A Quasi-experimental Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 67–80. McCabe, D. L., Trevi{\~n}o, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219-232. Moneta, G. B., Spada, M. M., & Rost, F. M. (2007). Approaches to studying when preparing for final exams as a function of coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 191–202. Mueller, R.O., & Hancock, G.Y.R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods (pp. 488-508). Los Angeles: Sage. Murdock. T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 129-145. Murphy. S. M., & Tyler, S. (2005). The Relationship between Learning Approaches to Part-Time Study of Management Courses and Transfer of Learning to the Workplace. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 455-469. Newble, D. I., & Entwistle, J. (1986). Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education. Medical Education, 20(3), 162-175. Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229-241. Nunnally, C. J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: Harper and Row. Payan, J., Reardon, J., & McCorkle, D. E. (2010). The Effect of Culture on the Academic Honesty of Marketing and Business Students. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(3), 275-291. Richardson, T. E. (2005). Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673-680. Richardson, T. E. (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74-80. Rodriguez, C. M. (2009). The impact of academic self-concept, expectations and the choice of learning strategy on academic achievement: the case of business students. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(5), 523–539. Saunders, E. J. (1993). Confronting academic dishonesty. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2), 224–231. Sigurjonsson, T. O., Vaiman, V., & Arnardottir, A. A. (2014). The Role of Business Schools in Ethics Education in Iceland: The Managers’ Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 25-38. Sims, R. R., & Felton, E. L. (2006). Designing and Delivering Business Ethics Teaching and Learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 297-312. Stevens, B. (2013). How Ethical are U.S. Business Executives? A Study of Perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 361–369. Streiner D. L. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99-103. Streiner D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1989). Health Measurement Scales A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualization of the approaches to study inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning (pp. 262−270). Oxford Brookes University, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytical evidence for the construct validity of score: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197-208. Turner, M., & Baskerville, R. (2013). The Experience of Deep Learning by Accounting Students. Accounting Education: an international journal. 22(6), 582-604. Van Yperen, N. W., Hamstra, M. R. W., & Van der Klauw, M. (2011). To Win, or Not to Lose, At Any Cost: The Impact of Achievement Goals on Cheating. British Journal of Management, 22, S5–S15. Warren, R., & Tweedale, G. (2002). Business Ethics and Business History: Neglected Dimensions in Management Education. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 209-219. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008). A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 120-127.",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s10551-016-3039-4",
language = "English",
volume = "149",
pages = "245--258",
journal = "Journal of Business Ethics",
issn = "0167-4544",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can Future Managers and Business Executives be Influenced to Behave more Ethically in the Workplace? The Impact of Approaches to Learning on Business Students’ Cheating Behavior

AU - Ballantine, Joan

AU - Guo, Xin

AU - Larres, Patricia

N1 - Reference text: AACSB. (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) Ethics Education Task Force. (2004). Ethics Education in Business Schools. Tampa, Florida: AACSB. Allmon, D. E., Page, D., & Robert, R. (2000). Determinants of Perceptions of Cheating: Ethical Orientation, Personality and Demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4), 411-422. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS. Ballantine, J. A., & McCourt Larres, P. (2009). Accounting Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning as a Model for Enhancing their Interpersonal and Communication Skills to Interface Successfully with Professional Accountancy Education and Training. Accounting Education: an international journal, 18(4-5), 387-402. Biggs, J. B. (1993). From Theory to Practice: A Cognitive Systems Approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73-85. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cannon and Newble (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th Ed.). London: Kogan Page Cermakova, L., Moneta, G. B., & Spada, M. M. (2010). Dispositional flow as a mediator of the relationships between attentional control and approaches to studying during academic examination preparation. Educational Psychology, 30(5), 495–511. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (October), 297-334. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage Publications. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative Versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263-282. Diseth, Å. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 373-388. Diseth, Å., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: the role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies. Higher Education, 59(3), 335-352. Duff, A. (2003). Quality of Learning on an MBA Programme: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23(2), 123-139. Duff, A. (2004a). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) and its Use in Management Education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 56-72. Duff, A. (2004b). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education: an international journal, 13(4), 409-430. Duff, A. (2014). Learning styles and approaches in accounting education. In R. M. S. Wilson (Ed.). Routledge Companion to Accounting Education (pp.163–188). Oxford: Routledge. Entwistle, N. (1988a). Motivation and learning strategies. Educational and Child Psychology, 5(3), 5-20. Entwistle, N. (1988b). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.). Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21-51). London: Plenum Press. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approach to study inventory across contrasting groups and context. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33-48. Evans, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning styles in education and training: Problems, politicization and potential. Education and Training, 48(2-3), 77-83. Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 483–511. Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & McPhail, K. (1994). Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching: educating immorality and a possible case for social and environmental accounting education. Accounting Education: an international journal 3(1), 51-75. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Hartman, L. P., & Werhane, P. H. (2009). A Modular Approach to Business Ethics Integration: At the Intersection of the Stand-Alone and the Integrated Approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3 Supplement), 295–300. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Jorge, M. L., & Peña, F. J. A. (2014). Determinants of corporate social responsibility and business ethics education in Spanish universities. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(2), 139-153. Jurdi, R., Hage, H. S., & Chow, H. P. H. (2012). What behaviours do students consider academically dishonest? Findings from a survey of Canadian undergraduate students. Social Psychology of Education: an international journal, 15(1), 1-23. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Ed.). New York: Guildford Press. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212 Loyens, S. M. M., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., & Côté, D. J. (2013). Students’ approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking into account professional behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 23-32. Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. T. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1-10. Martin, D. E. (2012). Culture and unethical conduct: Understanding the impact of individualism and collectivism on actual plagiarism. Management Learning, 43(3), 261-273. Martin, D., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. (2009). Plagiarism, Integrity, and Workplace Deviance: A Criterion Study. Ethics and Behavior, 19(1), 36-51. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-Outcomes and Processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2014). The Influence of Business Ethics Education on Moral Efficacy, Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A Quasi-experimental Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 67–80. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219-232. Moneta, G. B., Spada, M. M., & Rost, F. M. (2007). Approaches to studying when preparing for final exams as a function of coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 191–202. Mueller, R.O., & Hancock, G.Y.R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods (pp. 488-508). Los Angeles: Sage. Murdock. T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 129-145. Murphy. S. M., & Tyler, S. (2005). The Relationship between Learning Approaches to Part-Time Study of Management Courses and Transfer of Learning to the Workplace. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 455-469. Newble, D. I., & Entwistle, J. (1986). Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education. Medical Education, 20(3), 162-175. Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229-241. Nunnally, C. J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: Harper and Row. Payan, J., Reardon, J., & McCorkle, D. E. (2010). The Effect of Culture on the Academic Honesty of Marketing and Business Students. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(3), 275-291. Richardson, T. E. (2005). Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673-680. Richardson, T. E. (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74-80. Rodriguez, C. M. (2009). The impact of academic self-concept, expectations and the choice of learning strategy on academic achievement: the case of business students. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(5), 523–539. Saunders, E. J. (1993). Confronting academic dishonesty. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2), 224–231. Sigurjonsson, T. O., Vaiman, V., & Arnardottir, A. A. (2014). The Role of Business Schools in Ethics Education in Iceland: The Managers’ Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 25-38. Sims, R. R., & Felton, E. L. (2006). Designing and Delivering Business Ethics Teaching and Learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 297-312. Stevens, B. (2013). How Ethical are U.S. Business Executives? A Study of Perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 361–369. Streiner D. L. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99-103. Streiner D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1989). Health Measurement Scales A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualization of the approaches to study inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning (pp. 262−270). Oxford Brookes University, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytical evidence for the construct validity of score: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197-208. Turner, M., & Baskerville, R. (2013). The Experience of Deep Learning by Accounting Students. Accounting Education: an international journal. 22(6), 582-604. Van Yperen, N. W., Hamstra, M. R. W., & Van der Klauw, M. (2011). To Win, or Not to Lose, At Any Cost: The Impact of Achievement Goals on Cheating. British Journal of Management, 22, S5–S15. Warren, R., & Tweedale, G. (2002). Business Ethics and Business History: Neglected Dimensions in Management Education. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 209-219. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008). A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 120-127.

PY - 2018/4

Y1 - 2018/4

N2 - This study considers the potential for influencing business students to become ethical managers by directing their undergraduate learning environment. In particular, the relationship between business students’ academic cheating, as a predictor of workplace ethical behavior, and their approaches to learning is explored. The three approaches to learning identified from the students’ approaches to learning (SAL) literature are: deep approach, represented by an intrinsic interest in and a desire to understand the subject; surface approach, characterized by rote learning and memorization without understanding; and strategic approach, associated with competitive students whose motivation is the achievement of good grades by adopting either a surface or deep approach. Consistent with the hypothesized theoretical model, structural equation modeling revealed that the surface approach is associated with higher levels of cheating while the deep approach is related to lower levels. The strategic approach was also associated with less cheating and had a statistically stronger influence than the deep approach. Further, a significant positive relationship reported between deep and strategic approaches suggests that cheating is reduced when deep and strategic approaches are paired. These findings suggest that future managers and business executives can be influenced to behave more ethically in the workplace by directing their learning approaches. It is hoped the evidence presented may encourage those involved in the design of business programs to implement educational strategies which optimize students’ approaches to learning towards deep and strategic characteristics, thereby equipping tomorrow’s managers and business executives with skills to recognize and respond appropriately to workplace ethical dilemmas.

AB - This study considers the potential for influencing business students to become ethical managers by directing their undergraduate learning environment. In particular, the relationship between business students’ academic cheating, as a predictor of workplace ethical behavior, and their approaches to learning is explored. The three approaches to learning identified from the students’ approaches to learning (SAL) literature are: deep approach, represented by an intrinsic interest in and a desire to understand the subject; surface approach, characterized by rote learning and memorization without understanding; and strategic approach, associated with competitive students whose motivation is the achievement of good grades by adopting either a surface or deep approach. Consistent with the hypothesized theoretical model, structural equation modeling revealed that the surface approach is associated with higher levels of cheating while the deep approach is related to lower levels. The strategic approach was also associated with less cheating and had a statistically stronger influence than the deep approach. Further, a significant positive relationship reported between deep and strategic approaches suggests that cheating is reduced when deep and strategic approaches are paired. These findings suggest that future managers and business executives can be influenced to behave more ethically in the workplace by directing their learning approaches. It is hoped the evidence presented may encourage those involved in the design of business programs to implement educational strategies which optimize students’ approaches to learning towards deep and strategic characteristics, thereby equipping tomorrow’s managers and business executives with skills to recognize and respond appropriately to workplace ethical dilemmas.

KW - Approaches to learning

KW - deep

KW - strategic

KW - surface

KW - cheating behavior

KW - future

U2 - 10.1007/s10551-016-3039-4

DO - 10.1007/s10551-016-3039-4

M3 - Article

VL - 149

SP - 245

EP - 258

JO - Journal of Business Ethics

T2 - Journal of Business Ethics

JF - Journal of Business Ethics

SN - 0167-4544

IS - 1

ER -