In recent years with the changes of time, academic dishonest behaviors become more and more general. With the highly development of technology and the help of Internet, student can easily get all kinds of materials and commit plagiarism now. Cause there are still none related researches about the plagiarism behaviors in graduation theses, this study would try to figure out the plagiarism behaviors of the graduate students in writing theses about the technology acceptance model in Taiwan. In this study , we would like to find out the writing in 6 different dimensions. The description of the theory of the technology of acceptance model, the description of the the perceived usefulness, the description of the perceived ease of use, the description of external variables, the use of figure of theoretical framework and the use of the table of researches concerned. This study had chosen 226 graduation theses for sampled. Through using the content analysis, the major findings are as followed: (1) Plagiarism did happen in graduation theses in Taiwan (2) Most of what happened in all types of plagiarism behaviors is forming a new sentence without citing the source. (3) Students are lack of how to do a suitable writing , often forget to cite the sources and do not know it¡¦s necessary to write complete descriptions of whole variables. (4) Some students prefer to change what¡¦s in the figure of theoretical framework arbitrarily, and do not know it¡¦s necessary for citing the source of the figure.

A review of research indicates that academic dishonesty is a common occurrence at all levels of education with high school being a significant determinant in whether one will engage in cheating at the college level. Current research is heavily concentrated on cheating at the college level. This study investigated the academic expectations of a high school and the frequency of academic dishonesty as reported by high school principals. Specifically, four research questions were addressed: 1. To what extent are the academic expectations of a high school related to the frequency of academic dishonesty as reported by high school administrators? 2. To what extent is the implementation of an honor code at a high school related to the frequency of academic dishonesty as reported by high school administrators? 3. What do high school administrators perceive as the most important causes of academic dishonesty? 4. To what degree do high school administrators perceive academic dishonesty as an important problem in high schools? This quantitative research study used a sample drawn from public high school administrators (principals or assistant principals) in the Commonwealth of Virginia. A total of 129 participants from a possible 267 public high schools were surveyed. There was no relationship found between the implementation of an honor code and the frequency of academic dishonesty. School administrators perceived the academic expectations of the school and teacher, the lack of an honor code, and the enforcement of an honor code as less likely to be contributing factors to academic dishonesty in comparison to other factors. The main causes for student cheating perceived by the principals were a fear of failure, laziness or procrastination and ease of cheating. Overall, the principals placed less importance upon academic dishonesty in comparison to other disciplinary problems they face at the high school level. / Ph. D.

No description available.

Academic dishonesty is a major dilemma for institutions of higher learning. Cheating behaviors among students have been documented as early as 1941 when Drake conducted a study that indicated that 23% of students cheated. Since then percentages of students involved in cheating and academic dishonesty have increased. Students are now cheating at an alarming rate as evidenced in a study by McCabe and Trevino (1993) where 52% of 6,000 undergraduate students surveyed admitted cheating on an exam by copying from another student. The purpose of this study was to analyze the extent to which academic integrity policies, standards, and programs differ by institutional type. Specifically, the study focused on the academic integrity policy of each institution, the promotion of standards, and the academic integrity program. Data were collected using the Academic Integrity Survey originally developed by Kibler (1993) and modified for use in this study. The survey consisted of 48 questions designed to measure the differences between academic integrity policies, standards, and programs by institution type. The findings revealed significant difference in three of the five areas. These findings suggest that private institutions are developing honor code systems, training faculty more, and seeing better results from their academic dishonesty initiatives than private institutions. / Master of Arts

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A correlational quantitative research project was conducted at a large public research institution in the Southeast to investigate the relationship between ethical regard and academic dishonesty among undergraduate college students. An online survey was completed by 273 undergraduates. Participant engagement in cheating behaviors established a Propensity To Cheat (PTC) score, which was then analyzed in conjunction with student characteristics, ethical self-perception, ethical ideology, and perception of cheating behaviors. Data were analyzed using ANOVAs, independent t tests, correlations, and descriptive statistics. Findings indicate that students aged 22-23 were significantly more likely to cheat than students in other age ranges; Millennials were significantly more likely to cheat than non-Millennials. No significant difference existed between PTC compared by gender or academic classification. When given a response set of 11 behaviors commonly defined as academic misconduct, the majority of students indicated agreement that the identified behavior is a cheating behavior. The behavior most commonly perceived as cheating was copying from a classmate’s exam or permitting copying by a classmate (99.3% agreement). The behavior least likely to be perceived as cheating was seeking exam content from a peer who had taken the exam (55.7% agreement); students cited this cheating behavior as the most commonly committed (46.5%). A correlational analysis was conducted for each of the 11 cheating behaviors; results indicate that in 8 of the 11 behaviors, students were less likely to engage in the specific behavior if they perceived the behavior as cheating. Overall, 77.3% of respondents reported cheating, and 30.8% reported 4 or more cheating behaviors. The study is significant because few researchers have evaluated academic misconduct through the lens of ethical ideology. Therefore, this study contributes to the existing literature related to academic integrity among college students by employing ethical ideology as a conceptual framework to examine cheating behaviors and prevalence. In the analyses students who exhibit absolutist ideologies are significantly less likely to cheat than students with subjectivist ideologies. Furthermore, higher ethical self-perception scores significantly correlate to a lower PTC.

The purpose of this study was to determine if statistically significant differences existed between identified student demographic characteristics (gender and age), academic variables (classification, GPA, and major), and students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty, as measured by the Attitudes and Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty survey. A pen-and-paper survey was used to gather the data at the 3 participating universities and college (a 4-year public university, a 4-year private university, and a 2-year public community college). There were 22 items on the survey. There were 328 surveys distributed by the investigator to participating classes at the 3 institutions of higher education. All 328 surveys were returned. There were 116 student responses gathered from the 4-year private university, 103 student responses gathered from the 2-year public college, and 109 student responses gathered from a 4-year public university. All of the responses were valid and fit the perquisites for inclusion in the survey. These perquisites were that each student was at least 18 years of age and each student was registered as an undergraduate. There were 5 dimensions included in the survey (Dimension 1- Use of Technology, Dimension 2- Perceptions of Policy, Dimension 3- Instructor Consequences, Dimension 4- Student Consequences, and Dimension 5- Student Conduct). For Research Questions 2, 4, and 6 there were no significant differences found among any of the groups for any of the 5 dimensions. In Research Question 1 the 5 dimensions of the survey were compared among the 3 participating institutions (public 4-year university, private 4-year university, and public 2-year college). Dimension 4 (student consequences) was significantly different between the public 4-year university and the private 4-year university, with students at the private 4-year university scoring higher. In Research Question 4 a comparison of traditional aged and nontraditional aged students was made on the 5 dimensions. A significant difference was found between the 2 age groups on Dimension 3 (instructor consequences) and Dimension 5 (student conduct), with nontraditional students scoring higher in both cases. For Research Question 6 a comparison of criminal justice majors was made to other majors. Only Dimension 4 (student consequences) was statistically significant with other majors expressing a desire for more student consequences as a result of participating in academic misconduct.

It can be argued that perceptions of the quality of the nation's universities are fundamental to Australia's economy. At a time when universities are competing more and more in a global marketplace, reputation is a key factor in attracting students, and therefore funding. When reputations are called into question, the sustainability of institutions becomes uncertain. Scandals surrounding academic dishonesty in Australia have not been uncommon in recent years. In response, universities have demonstrated an increasing awareness of the problem and a move toward updating or instigating policies to deal with it. However, the evidence base for such policy development is scant. Outside the USA, there have been few studies of academic dishonesty and virtually no large-scale, multi-campus research. The present research was designed to provide such an evidence base. Three studies were conducted to explore the extent and nature of dishonest academic behaviour, together with an investigation of factors which might precipitate students' engagement in these activities. In addition to variables which had previously been shown to be related to cheating, it was theorised that factors identified by General Strain Theory as being related to delinquency and general deviance, may also be associated with student cheating. A large-scale multi-campus survey was conducted (N= 9543; 11 universities). Findings were analysed to assess the extent of cheating amongst students and identify factors which contribute to these behaviours. Two qualitative studies followed which were designed to tap the experiences of, and understandings about, academic dishonesty of both staff and students. Overall the research established that levels of dishonest academic behaviours by the students in this study, while still worryingly high, are somewhat lower than those reported in the international literature. A number of risk factors for student engagement in dishonest behaviour were identified. Chief amongst these were the experience of stressful life events and the presence of dishonest peers. To a lesser, but still significant extent, were factors related to student age, year of enrolment, and field of study. Implications for addressing the problem at the level of policy development and strategic response are discussed.