FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W258941862> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W258941862 startingPage "81" @default.
• W258941862 abstract "INTRODUCTION Cheating on campus is more prevalent today than ever and academic dishonesty seems to be more rampant in business programs as compared to non-business programs (Mangan 2006). Previous studies have tried to adopt either a traits approach or a context approach to understand the incidences of violations of academic honor codes (McCabe and Trevino, 1997). The studies adopting traits approach attempt to discover the individual characteristics that may make someone more prone to cheating. While, the context approach focuses on identifying the situational factors that are responsible for academic cheating. Previous studies have also noted that the students and the faculty across various campuses seem to differ on the definition of the term academic integrity (Kidwell et al, 2003; Stern and Havlicek, 1986). Moreover, there seemed to be differences even among the perspectives of full time and part-time faculty (Hudd et al., 2009). In an attempt to better understand the phenomenon of academic dishonesty, we distributed a survey to 250 undergraduate students located in a North Eastern University and asked them a variety of open-ended questions relating to various topics of academic integrity. For example, we asked them questions regarding what they perceived the academic integrity policy to be on campus, what their role was in following the rules, whether cheating was prevalent in their classes, their recommendations for improvement as well as some other relevant questions. We then conducted a content analysis on the data. Two researchers independently went through the entire data and identified a set of themes that emerged out of this first round of reading. Next, the researchers compared their list of themes and created a combined set of themes. Later, we went over the data again and distributed the various responses across the identified themes. We compared these classifications and if any discrepancy was found in our classification then it was sorted out through mutual discussion. Various themes that emerged from this qualitative data analysis with regards to students' feelings about academic integrity on campus are listed in the Table 1. POLICY UNDERSTANDING * Are students familiar with the policy and do they understand the definition of academic integrity? * How do students become familiar with the policy? * What is considered to be cheating? * How do students feel about the policy? From the data, it appears that the large majority of students were familiar with the University's academic integrity policy. Most of them became familiar with the policy at (1) orientation, (2) the first day of class, and/or (3) read about it in their syllabus. Many students stated that each semester, the instructor went over the policy, some more briefly, he spent a minute or two on the first day of (Male, 18 years old) and others more elaborately, almost the whole first half of class was devoted to going over it. (Male, 19 years old). What was particularly interesting in the data was that though students were familiar with the policy, there appeared to be an overwhelming ambiguity as to the definition of cheating. As mentioned ahead the prior research has demonstrated the differences of meaning of cheating between the faculty and students (Kidwell et al., 2003). In the present study we discovered that even among students there is a huge variance in their interpretations of what constitutes as academic cheating. E.g. most students agreed that it was wrong to cheat on a test, whether it was copying from a friend or making cheat sheets. At the same time, they found certain topics to be questionable as to whether or not they were considered to be actual cheating. A number of students wondered if discussing homework answers with a fellow classmate, or studying from a previous semesters test (Female, 18) were considered to be cheating! Others noted that in group-assignments, if a student doesn't do his/her share then it should be considered a form of cheating as well. …" @default.
• W258941862 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W258941862 creator A5024473940 @default.
• W258941862 creator A5033639537 @default.
• W258941862 date "2012-11-01" @default.
• W258941862 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W258941862 title "A Qualitative Analysis of College Students' Perceptions of Academic Integrity on Campus" @default.
• W258941862 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W258941862 type Work @default.
• W258941862 sameAs 258941862 @default.
• W258941862 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W258941862 countsByYear W2589418622015 @default.
• W258941862 countsByYear W2589418622017 @default.
• W258941862 countsByYear W2589418622018 @default.
• W258941862 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W258941862 hasAuthorship W258941862A5024473940 @default.
• W258941862 hasAuthorship W258941862A5033639537 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C2776603611 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C2778024590 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C2779390046 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W258941862 hasConcept C9114305 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C120912362 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C145420912 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C151730666 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C15744967 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C177264268 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C17744445 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C199360897 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C199539241 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C2776603611 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C2778024590 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C2779343474 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C2779390046 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C41008148 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C77805123 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C86803240 @default.
• W258941862 hasConceptScore W258941862C9114305 @default.
• W258941862 hasLocation W2589418621 @default.
• W258941862 hasOpenAccess W258941862 @default.
• W258941862 hasPrimaryLocation W2589418621 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W1568069431 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W1589424082 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W1603714241 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W198392110 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W1991976654 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2003111114 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2023481101 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2054917970 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2055692463 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W223034673 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W251165687 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2943718107 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2992818719 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W3011665078 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W3022579359 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W3202265626 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W966398402 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2148355988 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2310514148 @default.
• W258941862 hasRelatedWork W2611024010 @default.
• W258941862 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W258941862 isParatext "false" @default.
• W258941862 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W258941862 magId "258941862" @default.
• W258941862 workType "article" @default.