2.4.6. Example of the results In the end we can conclude that this research has shown student cheating to be relatively widespread at Zagreb University, and student acquaintance with regulations on cheating to be low. Likewise, the students claim that a number of professors do not apply surveillance measures, and the offenders often go unpunished. As expected, it has been shown that more severe penalties force students to think better whether they’ll cheat or not, although a conclusion can also be drawn that even more severe penalties wouldn’t affect a certain number of students. Part of the solution is definitely promotion of honesty and the desire for knowledge and improvement as key academic values, as well as further improvement of the educational system in order to increase student satisfaction.
2.4.7. Recommended literature Anderman, et al. (1998), “Motivation and cheating during early adolescence”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1): 84–93.
Anderman, E. M., Midgley, C. (1997), “Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22: 269–298. Aronson, et al (2005), Socijalna psihologija, Naklada Mate, Zagreb. Eisenberg J. (2004), “To cheat or not to cheat: effects of moral perspective and situational variables on students’ attitudes”, Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 33, No. 2 Hard, Stephen, James M. Conway and Antonia C. Moran (2006), “Faculty and College Student Beliefs about the Frequency of Student Academic Misconduct“, the Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 77, No. 6 Hardigan, P. C. (2004.), “Firstand Third-Year Pharmacy Students’ Attitudes toward Cheating Behaviors”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(5). Jordan, A. (2001), “College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy”, Ethics and Behavior, 11: 233–247.
095