The learning process through student conduct

Research has shown that, by far, men are involved in the majority of campus crime, cheating, and other conduct violations (Harper et al., 2005). This study attempted to address how student participants, specifically men, understand and view their learning through the conduct and hearing process. Gehring (2001) discusses that the conduct hearing is an environment that is ready for student learning to take place but is sometimes muddled by legalese and formality. The purpose of this research study was to seek a better understanding of the learning process students experience when going through the student conduct process. Three research questions were identified to help make meaning of this research including student characteristics, student self-definition, and the steps of the student conduct process. This was a mixed-methods study which included a survey of students that had gone through the student conduct process, as well as individual interviews. A survey was sent to 3,657 students with 62 students responding to the invitation to participate. From this survey, participants were asked for their interest in discussing their experiences further, and five students were interviewed in more detail about their experiences with the student conduct process. Quantitative data illustrated that participants were likely to be White, male, and in their first year of college during their violations. Additionally, data showed that students were most likely to formalize their learning in two areas of the student conduct process. One was the final stage of the student code of conduct process, which includes the student’s reflection and learning that occurs after all sanctions are complete. The second was the stage of intervention or being caught in the act of violating the student code of conduct by an authority figure. Qualitative data showed that while interviewees experienced varying degrees of violations, they too held that the most learning came from the act of being caught violating policy. When it comes to self-definition, students reported initial fear, frustration, anxiety, then a sense of ease, relaxation, and relief after the process. Students had a collective misconception of what the student conduct process included and were walked through the process by stakeholders such as their hearing officer. Implications included that students find email notices too strict, hearings are extremely helpful to alleviate fears, and relief is fully felt after sanctions are complete. Intervention officials should know that while students are most hard on themselves, it is best to act in a helpful, polite, and inquisitive way when approaching students caught violating policy. Educators are encouraged to find engaging ways to help students understand content especially in regard to alcohol and drug use. Facilitation should be engaging and fun while also teaching important material, and that fines are a biased and unequitable practice. This research showed that student identities had little to do with their learning and outcomes as it relates to student conduct, which is contrary to much research on student conduct and law enforcement. Further research on this topic specifically was suggested since the study was limited in scope and participants. Further research on student conduct should focus on larger groups of participants from multiple institutions and types, as well as focus on how gender may relate to the outcomes of student conduct.