Ma Students' Viewpoints about Academic Misconduct, Its Reasons and Anti-Plagiarism Policies and Procedures in Iran
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionUniversity students can find all the information they need to do their assignments in the net and as a result this accessibility and popularity of the internet catapulted to a new height. In 2001 McCabe and his colleagues reported that roughly 82 percent of the students cheat. The most common definition of is using different sources without mentioning the source is called which is a problem in higher education. McCabe (2005) believed that the problem of is further aggravated by the advent of internet and the World Wide Web. Therefore, some certain rules must be observed to prevent the wanted or unwanted and academic misconduct.Plagiarism and academic misconducts appears to be steadily increasing not only across college and university campuses but also within other groups such as scholarly and scientific communities (Schrimsher, 2011). In the educational setting can attack the goal of academic integrity (Loutzenhiser, Pita & Reed, 2006). Plagiarism is not bound to a culture or country. Glendinng (2014) reported of a complete research undertaken for project Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education across Europe (IPPHEAE). It is stated that Asian students have been proved of the largest number of students responding to (Introna, et al., 2003). As a result it is necessary for educators to have a comprehensive understanding of the status of and its related issues in Iran. In this line the main purposes of the present study are to find the familiarity of the students with academic misconduct and its different types, the most common reasons for doing plagiarism, and anti-plagiarism policies and procedures on the side of university and faculties in Iran.Review of literatureWith the popularity of the word plagiarism academic misconduct remains rife on universities worldwide. Scholars argue that attitudes toward academic misconduct are different in different cultures and countries. At western universities is widely assumed as ethically wrong and the risk of punishment is discovered (Wheeler, 2014). While Wheeler (2014) stated that in contrast negative connotations of do not extend beyond the west. He argued in East Asian societies there is little concept of word owner ship. As a result students don't hesitate to copy and paste or they think citing the original author is unnecessary. The author exemplifies Japanese students as a case in point.The first proposal for the Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education across Europe (IPPHEAE) was developed during 2009. Before this time very little research had been conducted in European countries (Glendinning, 2014). McCabe (2005) reported data generated as part of Academic Integrity Assessment Project conducted by the Center For Academic Integrity at Duke University from 80,000 students and 12,000 faculty in the United states and Canada. The findings documented and cheating in those universities. To promote students' academic integrity he proposed honor code strategies.Marshal and Garry (2006) compared the attitudes and perceptions of non- English speaking background (NESB) with English speaking background (ESB). The results indicated that is not only common but also NESB students are more likely to engage in than ESB students.Academic misconduct can have different sources and can be considered from different aspects. Schrimsher (2011) gathered data from 681 students from Samford University about their attitude regarding plagiarism. The result indicated that faculty should clarify their expectations to prevent cheating or misconduct. The same results were obtained by Foltynek et al. (2014). It would appear that better understanding of student' educational need can help students to avoid in a more effective way.Moore (2014) researched on accuracy of referencing and patterns of in electronically published theses in Finland. …
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 | 0,017 | 0,007 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».