The impact of a journal club intervention on student perceptions and behaviours regarding academic dishonesty
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: There has been an increase in academic dishonesty among nursing students. Reasons for this increase are due in part to greater demands on nursing students and ready availability of technology that facilitates these behaviours. The purpose of this study was to determine if participation in a journal club would impact nursing students’ perceptions and behaviours regarding academic dishonesty. This issue needs attention because it impacts professional integrity. Methods: Researchers used a mixed-methods design. Seventy-nine nursing students from a baccalaureate program in the Midwestern United States participated in a journal club activity designed to stimulate conversation about academic dishonesty. Students were tested pre- and post-intervention. Transcripts of class discussion and written responses to case study questions were analyzed for identification of themes. Results: An unexpected finding was that reports of dishonesty increased after participation in the journal club intervention. The most common form described was copying the work of peers. Participants noted that both strong and weak students engage in academic dishonesty, and they believe that there are times when this behaviour is acceptable. They described the influence of personal circumstances and pressure to succeed on fostering the decision to engage in academic dishonesty. Participants described feeling frustrated and angry when they witnessed academic dishonesty among peers, but said they would not report a friend. Results suggest implications for faculties. Most participants believed faculties should clearly describe penalties for academic dishonesty and should strictly adhere to these penalties, although some believed that consequences should vary depending on the severity and number of episodes. Participants also identified actions faculties could implement to deter academic dishonesty. Conclusions: Students are under considerable pressure to succeed, which could lead to academic dishonesty; journal clubs could raise awareness of this issue. Educators cannot assume that students have the same definition of academic dishonesty as faculties; it is recommended that faculties state explicitly what acts are considered dishonest. Consequences for academic dishonesty should be clearly described verbally and in writing, and faculties should strictly adhere to stated penalties. Additionally, students have a role in promoting honesty in the classroom.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».