Academic dishonesty , academic error or academic fraud are all kinds of fraud that occur in relation to formal academic exercises. It could be included
- Plagiarism : Adoption or reproduction of original creations from other authors (persons, collectives, organizations, communities, or other types of authors, including anonymous authors) without acknowledgment.
- Fabrication : Falsification of data, information, or quotes in any formal academic exercise.
- Fraud : Providing false information to an instructor about a formal academic exercise - for example, giving a false excuse to miss a deadline or falsely claiming to have sent a job.
- Cheats : Any attempt to get help in formal academic exercises (such as checking) without notice (including use of cheat sheet).
- Bribery or paid services: Provide answers to tasks or test answers for money.
- Sabotage : Act to prevent others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages from library books or deliberately interfering with other people's experiments.
- Professorial infringement : Professorial acts that are academically fraudulent are similar to academic fraud and/or class fraud.
- Impersonation : assumes student identity with a view to providing benefits to students.
Academic dishonesty has been documented in every type of educational setting from elementary school to graduate school. Throughout history, such dishonesty has been met with varying degrees of approval.
Video Academic dishonesty
Histori
In ancient times, the notion of intellectual property did not exist. Ideas are the common property of the educated elite. Books are published by copying their hands. Scholars freely make essays or comments on other works, which can contain as much or as few original material as desired by the author. There is no standard quote system at this time. Scholars are a group of elite and small who know and generally trust each other. This system continued through the Middle Ages of Europe. Education in Latin and sometimes Greek. Some scholars are monks, who spend much time copying manuscripts. Other scholars are in urban universities connected to the Catholic Church.
Academic dishonesty dates back to the first test. Academics note that cheating often occurred on Chinese civil service exams thousands of years ago, even when cheating brought death penalty for examiners and examiners. Bribery examiners are also common, as represented in works such as the collection of the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty Rulin wa Prior to the establishment of MLA and APA by the end of the 19th century, there were no established rules on how to quote excerpts from other people's writings, which may have caused many cases of plagiarism due to ignorance. "
In the late 19th and early 20th century, cheating was widespread on college campuses in the United States, and was not considered dishonorable among students. It is estimated that as many as two-thirds of college students are having an affair at some point of their college career at the turn of the 20th century. Brotherhood often operates so-called essay factories, where papers are stored in files and can be repeated many times by different students, often with the only change being names on paper. Because higher education in the US tends toward meritocracy, however, greater emphasis is placed on anti-cheating policies, and the newly diverse student body tends to arrive with a more negative view of academic dishonesty.
Maps Academic dishonesty
Today
Academic dishonesty happens at all levels of education. In the United States, one study showed that 20% of students started cheating in first grade. Similarly, another study revealed that currently in the US, 56% of high school students and 70% of high school students have been deceived. A large-scale study in Germany found that 75% of students admitted that they performed at least one of seven types of academic misconduct (such as plagiarism or falsifying data) in the previous six months.
Students are not the only ones who cheat in academic settings. A study among North Carolina school teachers found that about 35% of respondents said they had witnessed their colleagues cheating in one form or another. The emergence of high-risk testing and consequence of outcomes in teachers is cited as the reason why a teacher may want to inflate their students' results.
The first scientific study in 1960 academic dishonesty in higher education found that nationally in the US, somewhere between 50-70% of students had an affair at least once. While nationally, this level of fraud in the US remains stable today, there is a big difference between different schools, depending on the size, selectivity, and anti-cheating policy of the school. Generally, the smaller and more selective lectures, the less cheating happens there. For example, the number of students who have been involved in academic dishonesty in a small elite liberal arts college can be as low as 15-20%, while cheating at major state universities can be as high as 75%. In addition, researchers have found that students who attend school with a code of honor tend not to cheat rather than students at school in other ways to uphold academic integrity. For postgraduate education, recent research found that 56% of MBA students claim to be cheating, along with 54% of graduate students in engineering, 48% in education, and 45% in law.
Cheating in high school grew in the United States at an exponential rate. There is also a great difference in students' perceptions and the reality of their own ethical behavior. In a 2008 survey of 30,000 students in high school conducted by the Josephson Institute for Youth Ethics, 62 percent of students surveyed said they "copied someone else's homework twice or more in the past year." However, in the same survey, 92 percent said they were "satisfied with their ethics and personal character." Therefore, there is generally a difference between actual behavior and self-image of high school student characters.
As more and more students take online courses and assessments, there is a persistent perception that it is easier to cheat in online classes than in face-to-face courses. In addition, there are online services that offer to prepare any type of high school homework and college and take online tests for students. Although administrators often know such websites, they are not successful in limiting cheating in homework and non-proctored online tests, turning to recommendations by the Ohio Mathematics Association to get at least 80% of online classroom classes from proctored tests. In addition, colleges and universities are increasingly turning to online proctoring services to oversee tens of thousands of exams per year.
While research on academic dishonesty in other countries is less extensive, anecdotal evidence suggests cheating may be more common in countries such as Japan and the Philippines.
The typology of academic error has been designed by Perry (2010). Perry's typology presents a two dimensional model of academic error with one dimension measuring the extent to which rules are understood and other dimensions measuring how closely these rules are followed. According to typology only students who understand the rules but fail to comply with the rules are classified as 'deceiving'.
Type
Bribe
Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that changes the behavior of the recipient. Bribery is a crime and is defined by the Black Dictionary as offering, giving, receiving, or requesting valuables to influence the actions of officials or others responsible for public or legal duties.
A bribe is a gift that is given to influence the behavior of the recipient. It may be money, right, right in action, property, preferences, privileges, emoluments, value objects, profits, or just pledges or attempts to persuade or influence a person's actions, votes or influence in a public official or capacity.
Cheats
Cheats can take the form of a cradle record, look at someone's shoulders during an exam, or share information prohibited between students about an exam or an exercise. Many complicated cheating methods have been developed over the years. For example, students have been documented hiding notes on toilet restrooms, on the edges of their baseball caps, their sleeves, along their thighs or in their cleavage. Also, storage of information in graphic calculators, pagers, cell phones, and other electronic devices has been cut off since the information revolution began. While students have been stealthily scanning the tests of people sitting nearby, some students are actively trying to help those who try to cheat. The method of quietly indicating the correct answer for a friend is quite varied, ranging from coded sneezes or pencils knocking to high-pitched sounds beyond the ears of most teachers. Some students have been known to use more complicated means, such as using a repeatable body signal system such as hand gestures or jerking legs to distribute answers (ie where the tap legs can be appropriate to answer "A", two taps to answer "B", and so on).
Cheating differs from most other forms of academic dishonesty, where people can engage in it without profiting themselves academically at all. For example, a student who illegally sends an answer to a friend during the test will cheat, even though the student's own work is not at all affected. Another example of academic dishonesty is the dialogue between students in the same class but in two different time periods, both of which are scheduled for the day. If the student in the previous time period informs other students in the next period of test; which is considered academic dishonesty, although the first student has not benefited.
One other method is utilizing time zones, especially in exams organized around the world. Those who take the first test (possibly in Oceania) can then send an answer to those who will take the exam (in the time zone behind like Europe).
Fraud
Fraud provides false information to a teacher/instructor regarding formal academic exercises. Examples include taking more time on take-home tests than allowed, giving a dishonest reason when requesting an extension of a deadline, or falsely claiming to have sent a job. This type of academic error is often considered softer than the more obvious forms of cheating, and normally honest students are sometimes involved in this type of dishonesty without thinking of themselves cheating. Sometimes also done by students who fail to complete the task, to avoid responsibility for doing so.
Fabrication
Fabrication is a forgery of data, information, or quotes in any formal academic exercise. This includes creating citations to support arguments or making quotes. Fabrication dominates in the natural sciences, where students sometimes falsify data to make "successful" experiments. This includes data forgery, where false claims are made about research conducted, including selective submission of results to exclude uncomfortable data to generate false data.
Bibliographic references are often made, especially when certain minimum reference amounts are required or considered sufficient for certain types of paper. This type of fabrication can range from referring to works whose titles look relevant but which are not read by students, to create fake titles and authors.
There is also the practice of dry-labbing - which may occur in the field of chemistry or other laboratory courses, where teachers clearly expect experiments to produce specific results (confirming the established law), so that students start from the results and work backwards, calculating what the experimental data should be, often adding variations to the data. In some cases, lab reports were written before the experiment - in some cases, the experiment was never performed. In both cases, the result is what the instructor hopes for.
> Impersonation
Impersonation is a form of cheating in which different people from students who are assigned a task or exam solve it. Unlike ordinary cheating, academic work is actually 'outsourced' to other people or organizations, usually for payment.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is "the use or imitation of the language and the thoughts of other authors and the representation of them as the original work of a person". In the academic world, this can range from borrowing without phrase attribution very precisely, to paraphrase other people's original ideas without quotes, to cheating wholesale contracts.
The concept of modern plagiarism as immoral and originality as ideals emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, whereas in earlier centuries writers and artists were encouraged to "copy master as much as possible" and avoid "unnecessary discoveries". New morals of the eighteenth century have been institutionalized and established clearly in academic sectors (including academic, educational, technical, etc.) and journalism, where plagiarism is now regarded as academic dishonesty and violation of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions such as expulsion and other severe career damage. Not so with art, which has rejected the old tradition they created as a fundamental practice of the creative process, with plagiarism still tolerated by 21st century artists. Legislation is an unstructured professional field around the concept of originality and for which plagiarism is less relevant.
Plagiarism is not a crime but is not approved for moral offenses. This may be a civil case case if it is substantial to be a copyright infringement.
Since 2000, discussions on the subject of student plagiarism have increased with the main focus of this discussion centered on how best students can be helped to understand and avoid plagiarism. Given the serious consequences of plagiarism for students there is a call for greater emphasis on learning to help students avoid plagiarism.
Professorial Violation
Professorial violations include improper assessment of student papers and oral exams, class fraud, deliberate neglect of fraud or assistance in cheating. This can be done for reasons of personal bias towards a student (favoritism) or a particular point of view (intellectual dishonesty), for a bribe, or to improve the performance the teacher perceives by increasing the pass rate. Sometimes it is still done for ego problems or for sexual assistance (sexual harassment).
Sabotage
Sabotage is when a student or professor prevents others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages from library books, deleting data from classmates' computers or deliberately interfering with other people's experiments. Sabotage is usually found only in highly competitive, cruel environments, such as in very elite schools where class rankings are greatly appreciated. Poor behavior and low levels of learning from other students, however, are very common in all educational settings. Some medical school librarians have noted that important articles - required reading for the main courses - often missing from bound journals - sliced ​​with razors, scalpels, or other sharp knives. Other journals will be marked with crayons.
Cause
There are various causes of academic misconduct. Researchers have studied the correlation of cheating with personal characteristics, demographics, contextual factors, methods of preventing errors, even stages of moral development.
Incentives to cheat
Some scholars argue that there are students who have pathological impulse to deceive. The author Thomas Mallon notes that many scholars have found plagiarism in the literature (Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Charles Reade to be two important examples) to be performed in a manner similar to kleptomania (a psychological illness associated with uncontrollable stealing, even when it is against the interests of thieves ). On the other hand, Mallon concluded there is a possibility that most "fraudsters" make rational choices for academic misconduct. A common reason for unethical behavior is the desire to "gain a competitive advantage in the seizure of positions or power".
Richard Fass puts forward the possibility that business scandals in the real world make students believe dishonesty is an acceptable method for achieving success in contemporary society. Academic dishonesty, in this case, will become a practice for the real world. For some students there will be a dichotomy between success and honesty, and their decision is that: "It's not that we love honesty more, but we love success more." In contrast, other scholars assume that with the rising ethics of firms related to firing in the business world, this cheating approach may lose its appeal, if it really exists. However, it has been shown that the expected benefits of student fraud and morality play an important role for engagement in dishonest behavior.
Recent studies show that there is no clear relationship between academic dishonesty and academic success. One study showed that students who were given unexpected opportunities to cheat did not increase their value significantly from the control group. Another study showed that students who were allowed to bring cheat sheets to a test did not increase their value. While this may be contrary to the general perception of fraud (one survey found only 13% of men and 46% of women thought that cheating does not help value,) is often seen by professors and members of the academic behavior committee when a paper has been traced by its inferior quality.
In the United States, William Bowers reports that, on average, one-third of grade A students had an affair in 1964. And affirmed that academic dishonesty acts as a shortcut, so that grade A students may be tempted to cheat. He argues that even if plagiarism receives a relatively low value, the value is actually high, considering how much time and effort goes into the paper. In the above mentioned study (where students were allowed to carry bed sheets for tests but did not increase their grades), the researchers concluded that students use the crib records as an alternative to learning, rather than as a complement to learning, and thus spend less time prepare for the exam.
Teacher
The federal government of the United States has mandated high-risk testing as part of the Non-Disappearing Act, signed into law in 2002. Schools and teachers are responsible for the outcome. According to Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, co-authors of Freakonomics, teachers are known to "teach for exams": while not teaching the true answers, they teach questions and similar, and they ignore any topic that will not tested. Levitt also stated that teachers can improve the test results given in their classes. Teachers and librarians can have a significant proactive impact on doing honest work.
Personal and demographic causes
Research has identified a number of demographic characteristics that seem to be an important influence on cheating, including age, gender and average value. Older students, women, and students with higher academic achievement tend not to cheat, while students involved with many extra-curricular activities are more likely to do so. Students who engage in extra-curricular activities may be less committed to their studies, or may have more demands on their time, disrupting their studies, creating greater incentives to cheat. It has been found that younger students are somewhat more likely to cheat: one study found the highest incidence of cheating occurred during the second year in college. Although fraud may be expected to decrease with greater moral development, one experiment found that there is no relationship between how a student conducts a morality test and the likelihood of his fraud (ie, students at the pre-conventional stage of morality are most likely to deceive as in the post- conventional). Higher academic procrastination was also found to increase the frequency of seven different forms of academic error (using fraudulent reasons, plagiarism, copying from others in tests, using forbidden tools in exams, taking illicit means into examinations, copying homework sections from others , and fabrication or data forgery) as well as various academic misconduct. German panel studies among thousands of students argue that academic error may be a coping strategy to address the negative consequences of academic procrastination such as lower performance.
Race, nationality, and class all show little correlation with academic misconduct. There is also no correlation between how religious a person is and the possibility that the person will cheat. Comparisons between students of different religions produce similar results, although the study shows that Jews tend to cheat less than other religious members. One of the strongest demographic correlations with academic misconduct in the United States is with language. Students who speak English as a second language have been shown to commit academic cheating more and more likely to be captured than native speakers, as they often do not want to rewrite the sources with their own words, fearing that the meaning of the sentence will be lost through poor paraphrase skills. In the University of California system, international students make up 10% of the student body but comprise 47% of cases of academic dishonesty. In British universities, students from outside the EU make up 12% of the student body but comprise 35% of cases of academic dishonesty.
Contextual causes
Academic violations are more easily traced to the student's academic and social environment than they are in their background. These contextual factors can be as wide as the social environment in the school until it is as narrow as that given by the teacher before the exam.
Contextual factors that can affect individual teachers often make the smallest difference in cheat behavior. A study found that increasing the distance between students taking the exam had little effect on academic misconduct, and that threatening students before an exam with expulsion if they cheat actually promotes cheating behavior. Indeed, increases in proctoring exams and other methods of detecting classroom fraud are largely ineffective. According to a survey of American college students, while 50% had cheated at least once in the previous six months, and 7% had cheated more than five times in that period, only 2.5% of the caught con artists. When teachers find more complicated methods of preventing fraud, students create more complicated cheating methods (sometimes even treating them as games), leading to what some teachers call an expensive and unrachable weapons race. Increased penalties for academic error also have little correlation with cheat behavior. It has been found that students with very different perceptions of how hard the punishment for cheating are equally likely to deceive, may indicate that they think that increased penalties are immaterial because their cheating will never be found. However, if a professor explains that he does not approve of fraud, either in the syllabus, in the first grade, or at the beginning of the test, academic dishonesty may drop by 12%. Some professors may have little incentive to reduce cheating in their classes below the point that should be obvious to outside observers, as they are assessed by how many research papers they publish and produce research they have won for college rather than how well they teach.
Teachers can, however, inadvertently promote cheating behavior. A study found a correlation between how abusive or unfair a professor perceives as and academic error, because students see cheating as a way to repay teachers. Also, students who see themselves in competition, such as when teachers use class curves, are more likely to cheat.
Research also shows the correlation between goal orientation and the occurrence of academic fraud. Students who regard their class as having high goals of mastery tend not to cheat than those who see their classes to emphasize performance goals. In other words, students who are encouraged to learn for the sake of learning and who show the intrinsic value of education tend not to cheat rather than those who are driven primarily by other extrinsic values ​​and rewards.
The most important contextual causes of academic error are often out of the hands of individual teachers. One of the most important factors is time management. One survey reported two thirds of teachers believed that poor time management was the main cause of cheating. Often social involvement is to blame. It has been found that there is a strong correlation between extracurricular activities and cheating, especially among athletes, even on intramural teams. It has also been found that the rate of student cheating increases significantly more time students spend playing cards, watching television, or drinking with friends. Related, brotherhood or student membership is also strongly correlated with academic misconduct.
One of the most important causes of academic error is the contextual factor of the peer disagreement environment, peer pressure. Psychologists note that everyone tends to follow their peer group norms, which will include norms about academic dishonesty. Thus, students who believe that their friends do not agree with cheating tend not to cheat. Indeed, several studies have shown that the most decisive factor in a student's decision to deceive is the perception of his colleagues' relationships with academic dishonesty. For example, an average of 69% of college students are having affairs in college with low community resistance to academic misconduct, whereas only about 23% of students cheat in college with strong community rejection of academic misconduct. Peer pressure works in two ways, because a study found that there was a 41% increase in the probability of student cheating if he saw someone else having an affair. However, even if most students strongly disagree with fraud, there must be a community to have those norms enforced through peer pressure. For example, larger schools, which typically have much higher levels of cheating than small schools, tend to have weaker communities, become more divided into different peer groups that put little social pressure on one to another. Another measure of the college community, how many students live on campus, further indicates a significant relationship with school-level fraud. Related, many professors argue that smaller classes reduce cheating behavior.
Ethical causes
No matter what the demographic or contextual influences on students who decide to engage in cheating behavior, before they can deceive they must overcome their own conscience. It depends on how strongly someone does not approve of academic dishonesty and what kind of justification students use to break away from guilt. For example, students who do not personally have moral problems with academic error can be deceptively free from guilt. However, while many students have been taught and have internalized that academic dishonesty wrong, it has been shown that on average one-third of students who strongly disagree with cheats have actually been cheated. People who cheat though personal disapproval of cheating engage in something called "neutralization", in which a student rationalizes cheating as acceptable due to certain mitigating circumstances. According to deviant behavior psychologists, people involved in neutralization support a questioned community norm, but "juggle" the reason why they are allowed to violate that norm in certain cases. Neutralization is not a simple case of ex post facto rationalization, but rather a more comprehensive affair, occurring before, during, and after cheating. Researchers have found four major types of neutralization of academic dishonesty, which they categorize by type of justification. Disapproval of responsibility - that is, accusations that others are to blame or that something forces students to cheat - is the most common form of neutralization among deceived students, with 61% of cheaters using this form of justification. Condemn the curse - that is, that professors are hypocrites or bring it to themselves - is the second most common form of student neutralization at 28%. The third most popular form of neutralization among students is the attraction for higher allegiance, where students think that their responsibility for some other entity, usually their peers, is more important than doing what they know morally. right. About 6.8% of cheaters in higher education use this neutralization form. Injury rejection - think that there is nothing worse for an affair - is the fourth most popular type of neutralization in 4.2% cheating players.
Effects
Fraud in the academic field has a number of effects on students, on teachers, in each school, and on the education system itself.
For example, students involved in neutralization to justify cheating are, in fact, more likely to engage in the future, potentially placing them on the path to a life of dishonesty. Indeed, one study found that dishonest students in the class were more likely to engage in fraud and theft at work when they entered the workplace. Students are also negatively affected by academic dishonesty after graduation. A university diploma is an important document on the labor market. Potential entrepreneurs use the degree as a representation of the knowledge and ability of graduates. However, due to academic dishonesty, not all graduates of the same grade actually do the same job or have the same skills. So, when faced with the fact that they do not know which graduates are skilled and which are the "lemon" (see "Market for Lemons"), the employer must pay all the graduates based on the quality of the average graduate. Therefore, the more students who cheat, survive without achieving the necessary skills or learning, the lower the quality of the average school graduate, and thus fewer entrepreneurs are willing to pay new employees from the school. For this reason, all students, even those who do not deceive themselves, are negatively affected by academic misconduct.
Academic dishonesty also creates problems for teachers. In economic terms, cheating causes a lack of knowledge, where the professor's job is to generate knowledge. In addition, cases of cheating will often cause emotional distress to faculty members, many of whom consider it a bit personal to them or their breach of trust. Dealing with academic error is often one of the worst parts of a career in education, one survey claims that 77% of academics agree with the statement "dealing with cheating students is one of the most demanding aspects of work".
Academic violations can also affect the reputation of a college, one of the most important assets of any school. Institutions that are fraudulently scandalized may become less attractive to potential donors and students and especially prospective employers. Alternatively, schools with low academic dishonesty can use their reputation to attract students and employers.
Ultimately, academic dishonesty undermines the academic world. This disrupts the basic mission of education, the transfer of knowledge, by allowing students to survive without having to master knowledge. Furthermore, academic dishonesty creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to the learning process, which also affects the honest student. When honest students see detection escape, it can discourage students, as they see rewards for their work being cheaper. Cheating also undermines academics when students steal ideas. The idea is the "capital and identity" of a professional writer, and if someone's idea is stolen, it will hamper the search for knowledge.
If it has never been formally withdrawn, fake publications may remain a problem for many years as articles and books remain on the shelf and continue to be quoted. The case of S. Walter Poulshock, an early 1960s early career historian whose work was found to contain entirely artificial material, was described in 1966 with the American History Review which warns of the topic. Nevertheless, his book was never removed from the university library shelves and (along with his related thesis) is still quoted in 2013, 47 years after it was intended to be withdrawn by its publisher.
Prevention
All parties involved in dishonesty - not just individuals who are upgraded - can be punished.
Historically, work to prevent fraud has been given to teachers. Once in college professors acted in loco parentis and was able to regulate student behavior as parents. Thus, the professors who discovered cheating basically can give the punishment they deem appropriate. Students often do not have mechanisms to appeal. Generally, the supervisors are hired to take the patrol test. If a case is very serious, a dean or other top-level administrator may be involved. Against this inconsistent and paternalistic system, students in some schools rebelled and demanded to be treated as adults.
Code of honor
First at the College of William and Mary in 1779, and then followed by schools such as the University of Virginia in the 1850s and Wesleyan University in 1893, the students, with a faculty agreement who declared themselves dedicated to the ideals of democracy and character man, make the code of honor. B. Melendez of Harvard University defines the honor code as an academic code of conduct that includes a written pledge of honesty signed by a student, a judiciary-controlled student who hears allegations of infringement, a non-tested examination, and an obligation for all students to assist in enforcing the code. This system relies on student self-enforcement, which is perceived to be more youthful than the police by previous supervisors and professors. Interestingly, the US military academy takes the honor code one step further than the civil college, banning "tolerance", which means that if a cadet or cadet is found to have failed to report or directly protect someone engaged in academic dishonesty (as well as dishonesty or other theft), the individual must be expelled along with the perpetrator.
Mixed court
However, many people doubt the feasibility of relying on the abstract notion of honor to prevent academic dishonesty. This doubt may lead to the fact that no more than a quarter of American universities have adopted the honor code. In addition, many professors can not imagine a student running a trial process that treats the faculty accuser fairly. In response to these concerns, in the mid-twentieth century, many schools designed a mixed judicial panel of students and lecturers. This type of academic integrity system is similar to a traditional faculty control system because it relies on professors to detect fraud, except in this system, fraudsters are brought before a centralized student and teaching board to be punished. In the 1960s, more than a quarter of American universities have adopted this mixed judicial system system. However, there are still more than half of universities in America that continue to use a faculty-centered control system.
Legal process rights of students
Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court began to deviate deeply in the doctrine of in loco parentis , giving students more civil liberties such as legal process right in disciplinary proceedings ( Dixon v. Alabama Board of Education, 1961). In Cooper v. Blair (1973), a special academic error ordered to require legal process, becomes a matter of discipline and not a matter of education. The legal process rights of students in cases of academic violation are not the same level as the courts of law. For example, students have no right to representation and the burden of proof is not always rigorous. In the "General Order of Judicial Standards of Procedure and Substance in Review of Student Discipline at Higher Education Supported Institutions", (1968) students of legal process rights are organized as follows:
These new rules put an end to the old police system that adheres to academic dishonesty, now the students are entitled to an impartial trial. While schools using old honor codes or mixed judicial systems are not influenced by this decision, schools using faculty-based systems generally implement systems that rely on faculty and administrator committees or deans to run courtesy of academic ethics violations.
Modified honor codes
Recently, Donald L. McCabe and Linda Klebe Trevino, two experts in the field of academic dishonesty, have proposed new ways to prevent cheats that have been applied in schools like the University of Maryland. Modified codes of dignity make students accountable for the judicial hearing process, making it clear that it is the responsibility of students to stop cheating on their own, but at the same time the students still have the exam and are not allowed to take a pledge of behavior both in the place of the supervision of the professor. Researchers who advocate this type of code seem to think that the normal honor code is something of a special case that does not apply to many schools. According to supporters of this system, schools with large student bodies, weak campus communities, or no history of self-governing students will not be able to support the full code of honor. However, while modified codes of honor seem to be more effective than the code of ethics of faculty or administrative integrity run, research shows that schools with modified codes still have higher levels of cheating than schools with a full code of honor.
Comparison of different enforcement systems
Research has shown that there is a strong correlation between the form of academic integrity system and the level of fraud in schools. Some studies have found that students who attend school with a code of honor tend to cheat less than students in schools with traditional integrity codes. Another study found that only 28% of schools with a code of honor had a high degree of fraud, while 81% of schools with mixed judicial councils had a high degree of fraud. While the faculty or administrations running the code of ethics tend to rely on police and punishments to deter students from cheating, honor codes tend to rely on and cultivate the senses of honor students and peer group pressure to prevent academic misconduct. As mentioned above in the section on the causes of fraud, increased enforcement or punishment is rarely effective in preventing fraud, whereas there is a high correlation between peer pressure and academic honesty. Modified honor codes try to foster peer disagreement from cheats while maintaining traditional oversight systems, although critics argue that the supervisory system undermines the creation of students' self-policing atmosphere, reduces the effectiveness of the code of honor, perhaps explaining why modified codes of honor have not been as effective as the original version.
Faculty issues in preventing academic dishonesty
There are limitations to relying on faculty for police academic dishonesty. One study found that up to 21% of professors have ignored at least one clear cutting case. Another study revealed that 40% of professors "never" reported fraud, 54% "rarely" reported fraud, and that only 6% acted on all cases of academic misconduct they faced. The third survey of professors found that although 79% had observed fraud, only 9% had punished students. According to the professor's guidance on cheating,
There are other reasons too. Some professors are reluctant to report violations to the authorities because they believe the punishment is too harsh.
Some professors may have little incentive to reduce cheating in their classes below the point that should be obvious to outside observers, as they are assessed by how many research papers they publish and produce research they have won for college rather than how well they teach.
Others do not report academic misconduct because of the postmodernist view of fraud. Postmodernism questions the concept of "author" and "originality". From the perspective of cultural studies and historicism, the authors themselves are only the construction of their social environment, and thus they simply rewrite the written cultural narrative. In addition, in the field of composition studies, students are encouraged more and more to do group work and participate in ongoing collective revisions. The postmodernist view is that "the concept of intellectual malpractice is of limited epistemological value." Under the ironic gaze of postmodernism, the distinction between guilt and innocence, integrity and lies seeping into the scandalous debate seems irrelevant. There is, however, the argument that postmodernism is merely moral relativism, therefore fraud is considered a legitimate academic method, even if it is morally and legally wrong. A professor writes in an article in The English Journal that when he peers in an untested class taking tests and seeing some students and consulting with one another, he decides that they are not cheating, non-traditional techniques and collaborative learning to overcome the obstacles that teachers have put in their way. The issue of cultural relativism also influences the professor's view of fraud; the standard objection is that "students from certain Middle Eastern, Asian, and African cultures are confused by the idea that one can 'own' ideas, because their culture considers words and ideas as the property of all rather than as individual property".
Another problem teachers may have with blocking cheating is that they can decide that it is not their job. The argument that "they are professors, not police" is often heard in the academic world. In economic terms, some professors believe that they are paid to provide learning, and if the student loses it learning through cheating, he is simply deluding himself from the money he pays.
Exposure of forged data
With the advent of the internet, there are now several tools available to help detect plagiarism and some publications in the biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers at Harold Garner's lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas was DÃÆ' Â © jÃÆ' Vu, an open access database containing several thousand examples of duplicate publications.
See also
References
External links
- Max A. Eckstein, Facing academic fraud: Towards a culture of integrity, International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO, 2003 (101 pages)
- Great university cheating scandal , Maclean magazine, February 9, 2007
- Richard P. Phelps, Dismissive Reviews: Academy Memory Hole, Academic Inquiries , May 30, 2012.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments