Examining the ethical environment in higher education

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across the world have found themselves faced with new challenges on issues of ethics. Much of this has been centred on issues of assessment: plagiarism, buying essays, sharing/lending of previously passed work and the stealing of marked/returned work of others. Institutions still treat academic misconduct as largely a behavioural difficulty rather than an issue of ethics (or education), suggesting that academia places a far greater emphasis on combating new forms of dishonesty than it does on encouraging ethical habits and a healthy ethical environment. To date, the majority of research in this area has examined these forms of academic misconduct from the point of view of the student and/or the university, with the perspective of academics receiving very limited attention. Our hypothesis is that academics are perhaps best placed to provide the education needed to create and sustain an ethical environment, and we argue that being ‘ethically aware’ is a critical factor in the development of academic competence for all parties. This study adds to existing research in three ways: firstly, by highlighting the importance of an overall framework for an ethical environment within HEIs; secondly, by suggesting an ecological model of key parties (the university, students and academics) with responsibility for this environment in assessment; and thirdly, by including new evidence (generated by a survey of academics) to extend our understanding of their views on these issues.     

Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda

This article focuses on (a) theoretical underpinnings of social constructivism and multicultural education and (b) aspects of social constructivism that can provide frameworks for research in multicultural science education. According to the author, multicultural science education is “a field of inquiry with constructs, methodologies, and processes aimed at providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn quality science.” Multicultural science education research continues to be influenced by class, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, and different lifestyles; however, another appropriate epistemology for this area of research is social constructivism. The essence of social constructivism and its implications for multicultural science education research includes an understanding of whatever realities might be constructed by individuals from various cultural groups and how these realities can be reconstituted, if necessary, to include a scientific reality. Hence, multicultural science education should be a field of study in which many science education researchers are generating new knowledge. The author strives to persuade other researchers to expand their research and teaching efforts into multicultural science education, a blending of social constructivism with multicultural science education. This blending is illustrated in the final section of this article. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

A comparison of learning disabled college students' achievement from WRAT and PIAT grade,standard, and subtest scores

Although there have been a number of studies that compared the test results of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), none had been accomplished with a group of college-aged learning disabled students. Indeed, few researchers had investigated populations over 16 years of age, and none had compared grade scores and standard scores with appropriate subtest scores as derived from these two instruments. With the recent emphasis on postsecondary education for the learning disabled, it is deemed critical that researchers should develop a data base for study of this population. The current research demonstrated that although both tests purport to measure academic achievement in reading, spelling, and arthmetic, in reality, significantly different scores are derived when WRAT (1965, 1978) norms are compared to PIAT (1970) norms as stated in grade scores and standard scores. These significant differences in the grade and standard scores clearly indicate that the WRAT and the PIAT, particularly in regard to arthmetic and to a lesser degree to reading, are not interchangeable instruments of academic achievement.