FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2036491738> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2036491738 endingPage "561" @default.
• W2036491738 startingPage "545" @default.
• W2036491738 abstract "Research and media reports have established continued pervasiveness of academic dishonesty among students on America's college campuses [12, 13, 22, 25, 26, 33, 46]. While some colleges have responded with academic integrity classes and increased efforts to convince reluctant faculty members to report student cheaters [13], there is a renewed interest in concept of as an effective foundation for campus governance. For example, Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching's special report, Campus Life: In Search of Community, concludes, What is needed, we believe, is a larger, more integrative vision of community in higher education. . . . a place where individuals accept their obligations to group and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior for common good [10, p. 7]. Derek Bok, in Universities and Future of American, echoes this theme: [U]niversities need to consider larger campus environment beyond classroom. An obvious step in this direction is to have rules tha t prohibit lying, cheating, stealing, violent behavior, interference with free expression, or other acts that break fundamental norms. Such rules not only protect rights of everyone in community; they also signal importance of basic moral obligations and strengthen habits of ethical behavior [5, pp. 84-85]. Bok offers honor code as perhaps most effective approach in matters of academic integrity, but acknowledges that, the pervasive competition for grades; size, diversity, and impersonal nature of many large universities; their lack of any honor code traditon; and wide-spread distaste for accusing one's classmates combine to work against such an approach [5, p. 87]. Although honor code traditon dates back over a century, viability of such codes on today's campuses is open to some question [12]. Small, relatively homogeneous campuses have generally given way to large, culturally diverse institutions which lack any apparent sense of community or common purpose among students other than getting a credential and a job. Despite fundamental nature of this question, there is a surprising paucity of empirical research which addresses effectiveness of honor codes. study discussed here attempts to help fill this gap by comparing academic dishonesty in colleges that have honor codes and those that do not. The few studies that have addressed effectiveness of honor codes [7, 9] have generally considered code effectiveness independent of context. We believe that it is important to acknowledge and understand complexity of social systems within which honor codes are embedded and fact that other contextual factors may be as important or more important than existence of an honor code by itself. Thus this study extends beyond previous work by studying effectiveness of honor codes within a more complex social context. Honor Codes in Context Academic Dishonesty Depending on one's definition of academic dishonesty, data collection methods employed, and other variables, prior studies report that anywhere from 13 to 95 percent of college students engage in some form of academic dishonesty [12, 17, 20, 21, 26, 30, 31, 42]. A major dichotomy that separates these prior studies is level of analysis. One stream of research has focused on though to be predictive of cheating behavior, such as gender [45], grade point average [1, 22,], work ethic [15], Type A behavior, competitive achievement-striving [35], and self-esteem [44]. In contrast, other studies have concentrated on institutional level of analysis and examined such contextual factors as honor codes [7, 8, 9], faculty responses to cheating [26], sanction threats [33, 42], and social learning [33]. Although individual differences approach helps to understand individuals' predispositions to cheat, findings are not particularly useful to university administrator searching for effective institutional responses to issues of academic dishonesty. …" @default.
• W2036491738 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2036491738 creator A5015706287 @default.
• W2036491738 creator A5073551311 @default.
• W2036491738 date "2017-05-15" @default.
• W2036491738 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
• W2036491738 title "Academic Dishonesty" @default.
• W2036491738 cites W2153976890 @default.
• W2036491738 doi "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315263465-43" @default.
• W2036491738 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2036491738 type Work @default.
• W2036491738 sameAs 2036491738 @default.
• W2036491738 citedByCount "311" @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382012 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382013 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382014 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382015 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382016 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382017 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382018 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382019 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382020 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382021 @default.
• W2036491738 countsByYear W20364917382022 @default.
• W2036491738 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W2036491738 hasAuthorship W2036491738A5015706287 @default.
• W2036491738 hasAuthorship W2036491738A5073551311 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C2776603611 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C2778024590 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C2778585151 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C144024400 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C15744967 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C17744445 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C2776603611 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C2778024590 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C2778585151 @default.
• W2036491738 hasConceptScore W2036491738C77805123 @default.
• W2036491738 hasLocation W20364917381 @default.
• W2036491738 hasOpenAccess W2036491738 @default.
• W2036491738 hasPrimaryLocation W20364917381 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W1782247654 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W1989903907 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2023447820 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2102976284 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W226806293 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2303986469 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2368493744 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2758478379 @default.
• W2036491738 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2036491738 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2036491738 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2036491738 magId "2036491738" @default.
• W2036491738 workType "book-chapter" @default.