This paper reviews the literature on plagiarism by students, much of it based on North American experience, to discover what lessons it holds for institutional policy and practice within institutions of higher education in the UK. It explores seven themes: the meaning and context of plagiarism, the nature of plagiarism by students, how do students perceive plagiarism, how big a problem is student plagiarism, why do students cheat, what challenges are posed by digital plagiarism and is there a need to promote academic integrity? It is concluded that plagiarism is doubtless common and getting more so (particularly with increased access to digital sources, including the Internet), that there are multiple reasons why students plagiarise and that students often rationalise their cheating behaviour and downplay the importance of plagiarism by themselves and their peers. It is also concluded that there is a growing need for UK institutions to develop cohesive frameworks for dealing with student plagiarism that a...

/pdf/in-other-people-s-words-plagiarism-by-university-students-1dawnlt793.pdf

In Other (People's) Words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons

A review was conducted of the results of 107studies of the prevalence and correlates of cheatingamong college students published between 1970 and 1996.The studies found cheating to be more common in the 1969-75 and 1986-96 time periods thanbetween 1976 and 1985. Among the strongest correlates ofcheating were having moderate expectations of success,having cheated in the past, studying under poor conditions, holding positive attitudes towardcheating, perceiving that social norms support cheating,and anticipating a large reward for success. However, animportant limitation on the conclusions drawn from this research is that many variables wereincluded in only one or a few studies. A model of theantecedents of cheating is proposed and the implicationsof this model for the identification of students at risk for cheating and controlling cheatingare discussed.

/pdf/factors-associated-with-cheating-among-college-students-a-493n2nglo1.pdf

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CHEATING AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: A Review

This article addresses academic integrity in both the classroom and the work environment. The authors distributed an in-class questionnaire to a sample of business students from 6 different campuses (N = 1,051). The study was an attempt to bridge the gap between findings related to academic dishonesty and those regarding dishonesty in the workplace. The authors found that students who believed that cheating, or dishonest acts, are acceptable were more likely to engage in these dishonest behaviors. Additionally, students who engaged in dishonest acts in college classes were more likely to engage in dishonest acts in the workplace. The authors suggest some techniques to discourage dishonesty in the classroom.

An Examination of the Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation

Although academic dishonesty is a major problemin American colleges and universities, relatively littleresearch has investigated gender differences incheating. Based on the differential socialization theory of gender differences in moral reasoning(e.g., Chodorow, 1989; Gilligan, 1982) we expected that,compared to women, men would report more favorableattitudes toward cheating and more cheating behavior. We conducted a meta-analysis that included 8studies of gender differences in attitudes towardcheating, 34 studies of gender differences in cheatingbehavior, and 6 studies that investigated both attitudes and behavior. Although the mean effect size forgender differences in attitudes was of moderatemagnitude, equivalent to a correlation of r = .21, themean effect size for behavior was small, equivalent to r = .08. Behavior effect sizes also varied asa function of field of study, method of data collection,and country in which the study was conducted. We discussthe implications of our results for future research on gender differences in academicdishonesty.

Gender Differences in Cheating Attitudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior: A Meta-Analysis

Academic dishonesty is an issue of concern for teachers, students, and institutions of higher education. Because students and faculty do not interact directly in web-based classes, it is often perceived that cheating will be more abundant in these classes. Using data from a survey administered to students who had an online course during the 2001 fall semester, we find evidence that academic dishonesty in online classes is no more pervasive than in traditional classrooms. Introduction Academic dishonesty is issue of concern for teachers, students, and institutions of higher education. Studies consistently show that a significant number of students cheat in college (Michaels & Miethe 1989; Whitley, 1998; Brown & Emmett, 2001), and that cheating impacts the attitudes and opinions of both students and teachers. Cheating appears to be endemic across cultures and pedagogies (Magnus at al., 2002). Academic research on the extent of and motivation for cheating has helped illuminate practitioners on the degree of cheating in different disciplines and by students of different demographic profiles. The focus of this paper is on academic dishonesty in online courses. To make comparisons with prior studies, online academic dishonesty includes cheating on exams or assignments, including plagiarism. Currently, evidence on academic dishonesty in online courses is nonexistent, but some claim that because students and faculty do not interact directly in such classes, online classes will invite more cheating than traditional classes. For example, Kennedy et al. (2000, p. 311) state, "Because both students and faculty believe it is easier to cheat in a distance learning class, ... as the number of distance learning class increases so will academic dishonesty." Conversely, Smith, Ferguson and Caris (2003, p. 2) claim that enhanced communication and the breaking down of social barriers leads to less cheating, stating, "This emergence of online identity may make the whole worry of online cheating a moot point. Often stronger one-to-one relationships ... are formed in online courses than in face-to-face classes." Because of the growth in online education at the university level and because of the untested presumption that academic dishonesty will be greater in these classes than in the traditional classroom this study fills an important void in the literature of academic dishonesty. A Model of Cheating. Most researchers view the decision to cheat as the result of a cognitive process which involves substantial planning (Bunn, Caudill, & Gropper, 1992; Alschuler & Blimling, 1995; Mixon, 1996), but survey evidence suggests that students break down actual cheating behavior into two categories: planned cheating and panic cheating (Bunn, Caudill, & Gropper, 1992). Although both types of cheating involve weighing costs and benefits, if social norms differ for planned and panic cheating, the subjective costs and benefits may be different for planned and panic cheating. Planned cheating may involve making crib sheets for tests, copying homework, or plagiarizing a paper; it occurs with full knowledge that it is wrong. Panic cheating, on the other hand, occurs during a test when the student finds herself at a loss for an answer. Although she did not plan to cheat, she looks at another student's paper and copies the answer. Being premeditated, planned cheating may be viewed as more dishonest than panic cheating and perceived as having a greater social cost. Bunn, Caudill and Gropper (1992) report that the majority of students believe the most common type of cheating is panic cheating with 358 of 476 students at Auburn University stating that they primarily observe panic cheating. Some type of pedagogies may be more susceptible to one type of cheating. In online classes, planned cheating may be a much greater threat than panic cheating simply because circumstances engendering panic cheating may be relatively rare compared to a traditional classroom. …

/pdf/academic-honesty-and-online-courses-4gphwjfj0k.pdf

Academic Honesty and Online Courses

In this 10-year follow-up study of student cheating, we surveyed 474 university students to (1) evaluate the extent of cheating; (2) assess attitudes toward cheating; (3) identify variables that discriminate between cheaters and noncheaters; (4) assess the relative effectiveness of various deterrents to cheating; and (5) examine changes in cheating attitudes and behaviors from 1984 to 1994. Most students (61.2%) reported cheating in 1994, up significantly from 54.1% in 1984 (Haines et al., 1986). Despite this increased cheating, students in 1994 were significantly less likely than in 1984 to neutralize (rationalize) their cheating. Ten variables that discriminated between cheaters and noncheaters in 1984 did so again in 1994, and 12 additional discriminating variables were identified. A principal components analysis of these 22 variables indicated that, compared to noncheaters, cheaters are (1) less mature; (2) less reactive to observed cheating; (3) less deterred by social stigma and guilt and more likely to neutralize cheating; (4) less personally invested in their education; and (5) more likely to be receiving scholarships, but doing less well in school. Both cheaters and noncheaters rated embarrassment and fear of punishment as the strongest deterrents to cheating; disapproval of one's friends was ranked as the least effective deterrent by both groups.

College cheating: Ten years later

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Billy Francis

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

College cheating: Ten years later