Binti Muchsini, Siswandari, Susilaningsih

Dimensi Fraud Pentagon: Mengeksplorasi Persepsi Dan Praktik Kecurangan Akademik Mahasiswa Pendidikan Akuntansi

Introduction

Dimensi fraud pentagon: mengeksplorasi persepsi dan praktik kecurangan akademik mahasiswa pendidikan akuntansi. Penelitian ini mengkaji persepsi dan praktik kecurangan akademik mahasiswa pendidikan akuntansi. Mengungkap bentuk cheating, plagiarisme & pemicu berdasarkan Fraud Pentagon. Relevan untuk desain pembelajaran.

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi persepsi mahasiswa pendidikan akuntansi terkait pemicu kecurangan akademik dan sejauh mana praktik kecurangan akademik mahasiswa pendidikan akuntansi. Desain penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian survey dengan pendekatan kuantitatif untuk mengeksplorasi bentuk dan pemicu kecurangan akademik yang biasanya dilakukan mahasiswa selama proses pembelajaran. Data dalam penelitian ini dikumpulkan melalui angket dengan melibatkan 104 mahasiswa pendidikan akuntansi di Surakarta sebagai responden. Analisis deskriptif kuantitatif dalam penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa masih terlibat dalam berbagai bentuk kecurangan seperti cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, dan facilitation. Hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan bahwa kecurangan yang dilakukan mahasiswa disebabkan berbagai pemicu seperti, pressure, opportunity, rationalization, capability, dan arrogance. Penelitian ini menjadi dasar penelitian selanjutnya bagi praktisi pendidikan dalam mendesain pembelajaran yang mempertimbangkan dimensi pressure, opportunity, rationalization, capability, dan arrogance untuk meminimalisir terjadinya kecurangan.

Review

The submitted manuscript, "Dimensi Fraud Pentagon: Mengeksplorasi Persepsi Dan Praktik Kecurangan Akademik Mahasiswa Pendidikan Akuntansi," addresses a highly pertinent and critical issue within higher education: academic dishonesty. The study aims to explore both the perceptions of accounting education students regarding triggers of academic fraud and the extent of their engagement in such practices. Utilizing a quantitative survey approach with 104 accounting students in Surakarta, the research provides valuable descriptive insights. The findings unequivocally demonstrate that students remain involved in various forms of academic misconduct, including cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, and facilitation. Crucially, the study identifies several underlying drivers consistent with the Fraud Pentagon framework, namely pressure, opportunity, rationalization, capability, and arrogance, providing a robust conceptual lens for understanding this phenomenon. A significant strength of this research lies in its application of the Fraud Pentagon framework to the context of academic integrity, offering a fresh perspective on the well-documented problem of student cheating. By linking specific academic misconducts to these five dimensions, the study provides a more nuanced understanding than simpler models might. The clear identification of various forms of cheating and their perceived triggers offers concrete information that educators and administrators can utilize. While the descriptive quantitative approach effectively highlights the prevalence and perceived causes, the abstract's mention of "persepsi" alongside "praktik" suggests a potential for deeper exploration into the congruence or divergence between student awareness of triggers and their actual involvement. A more in-depth statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics, if applicable, could potentially reveal stronger correlations or predictive relationships between the identified dimensions and the forms of academic fraud. Overall, this study makes a valuable contribution to the literature on academic integrity, particularly within the specialized field of accounting education where ethical behavior is paramount. Its findings serve as a strong empirical foundation for developing more targeted and effective interventions. The explicit mention of the Fraud Pentagon dimensions as considerations for designing future learning processes provides actionable insights for educational practitioners seeking to minimize academic misconduct. Future research could build upon these findings by exploring the issue qualitatively to gain deeper contextual understanding, examining the efficacy of specific intervention strategies, or conducting comparative studies across different institutions or countries to assess the generalizability of these important results. This paper is well-positioned to inform both academic discourse and practical policy development aimed at fostering a culture of academic honesty.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.