FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W278770955> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W278770955 endingPage "1063" @default.
• W278770955 startingPage "1055" @default.
• W278770955 abstract "INTRODUCTION Since the founding of Harvard in 1636, the oversight of students has required as much focus on their behavioral patterns as their academic performance (Brubaker & Ruby, 1976). the former category, it has been the aberrant behaviors exhibited by a small percentage of students enrolled in higher education that have caused concern for campuses. However, as higher education administrators are well aware, disruptive behaviors in the latter part of the Twentieth Century on college and universities campuses were increasing in both frequency and seriousness (Amada, 1994). Indeed, Amada (1994) reported that such incidents are not only increasing in number but are also increasingly a mirror of the problems society is experiencing. Carmody (1990) attributed the increase and seriousness of disruptive behaviors on college and university campuses to these factors: increased numbers of dysfunctional families, the upward mobility of the last decade of the Twentieth Century, increased stress from academic programs, and the impact of substance abuse. University and college campuses in the United States utilize disciplinary/judicial processes to help address behavioral problems. This investigation revealed that institutions of higher education utilize various forms of discipline/judicial processes to help maintain a reasonably tranquil, safe, and productive campus environment. The discipline/judicial processes employed by the campuses included in the purposeful sample were administrative, majority-peer, and minority-peer processes. These three processes were the focus of this research. The people that carry out administrative, majority-peer, and minority-peer discipline/judicial processes are generally given the responsibility to address disruptive behaviors on the nations' college and university campuses. These discipline/judicial processes determine if there was a violation of the conduct code and what discipline should be imposed for the violation. Administrative discipline/judicial processes are a hearing body or any person authorized by the college or university to determine first whether a violation of code of conduct occurred, and then to recommend and or impose sanctions (Paterson & Kibler, 1998). Majority-peer processes refer to those employing a judicial body or hearing board composed of faculty and/or staff, where students constitute fifty percent or more of this board's membership. Minority-peer processes also involve a judicial body or board composed of faculty and/or staff, yet here students constitute less than fifty percent of the board's membership. The individuals that are selected to comprise the discipline/judicial body are charged with the responsibility of addressing students' unacceptable behaviors by calling a disruptive to be accountable for his or her actions. addition, if a is found responsible for the inappropriate behavior, then those involved in the discipline/judicial processes are charged with the responsibility of imposing a penalty designed--wherever possible--to restore the to good standing with the community and to also educate the offender. These kinds of procedures are complex and time-consuming, and Carmody (1990) bemoaned the fact that increased numbers of students exhibiting inappropriate behavior were overwhelming campus discipline/judicial processes. Despite the complicated logistics of ensuring all discipline procedures are comprehensive, the work is important both to the campus and the offending students. Pavela (1985) asserted that calling a to accountability is affirming his or her dignity, noting, In reality, if the discipline is successful, then the regains self-control and remains in the college and the college has one less disruptive student (p. 47). To discipline a is often a win-win situation for the and the campus community, because the potentially becomes a member of the body again in good standing and likely also becomes a positive, contributing member of the campus community. …" @default.
• W278770955 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W278770955 creator A5035659461 @default.
• W278770955 creator A5055982468 @default.
• W278770955 date "2007-12-01" @default.
• W278770955 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W278770955 title "The Effectiveness of Discipline/Judicial Processes on Catholic Campuses as Measured by the Rate of Recidivism." @default.
• W278770955 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W278770955 type Work @default.
• W278770955 sameAs 278770955 @default.
• W278770955 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W278770955 countsByYear W2787709552014 @default.
• W278770955 countsByYear W2787709552017 @default.
• W278770955 countsByYear W2787709552021 @default.
• W278770955 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W278770955 hasAuthorship W278770955A5035659461 @default.
• W278770955 hasAuthorship W278770955A5055982468 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C27502469 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C2776090404 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C2776650110 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C2778722457 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W278770955 hasConcept C8795937 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C120912362 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C15744967 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C17744445 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C199539241 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C27502469 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C2776090404 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C2776650110 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C2778722457 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C70410870 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C73484699 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C77805123 @default.
• W278770955 hasConceptScore W278770955C8795937 @default.
• W278770955 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W278770955 hasLocation W2787709551 @default.
• W278770955 hasOpenAccess W278770955 @default.
• W278770955 hasPrimaryLocation W2787709551 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W1485636950 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W1541089732 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W1549876120 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W157970212 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W176168146 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W196952075 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W2011800488 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W2034501270 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W2089053267 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W2097286416 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W2163837840 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W217457455 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W247198257 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W3117803018 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W350490572 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W356937925 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W48685335 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W92740452 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W2181513109 @default.
• W278770955 hasRelatedWork W62529130 @default.
• W278770955 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W278770955 isParatext "false" @default.
• W278770955 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W278770955 magId "278770955" @default.
• W278770955 workType "article" @default.