Academic plagiarism prevalence among Spanish undergraduate students: an exploratory analysis

Comas‐Forgas, Rubén; Negre, Jaume Sureda; Mut, Francesca Salvà

doi:10.11613/bm.2010.038

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, no commonly accepted definition exists of academic dishonesty or, what Ghaffari (2008, p. 90) refers to as "academic disintegrity". Specifically, there appears to be no consensus about definitions that relate to the various behaviours that constitute particular forms of academic dishonesty of students (Comas-Forgas, Sureda-Negre and Salva-Mut, 2010;Schmelkin et al, 2008;Trost, 2009). For example, if a student submits, for examination, an assignment previously presented for another course without permission to do so, does this constitute cheating because the student omitted to write a new assignment, or is it not considered to be cheating as the assignment comprises the student's own work?…”

Section: Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding of and attitudes to academic ethics among first‐year university students

Thomas

Zyl

2014

AJOBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to explore the understanding of and attitudes towards academic ethics of first-year students at a South African University using a paper-based survey that yielded 3611 respondents. A degree of confusion and ambivalence regarding academic ethical issues exists. The relative wealth of respondents also appears to influence the understanding of and attitudes to academic ethics. Millennial students have a tendency to disregard ownership of knowledge. There is a need for instruction in academic ethics to instil an awareness of integrity in academic pursuit, coupled with an understanding of the world views of millennials.

show abstract

Section: Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding of and attitudes to academic ethics among first‐year university students

Thomas

Zyl

2014

AJOBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…El cuestionario utilizado se diseñó a partir del análisis bibliográfico de la literatura focalizada en la integridad académica y el fraude del alumnado español en las evaluaciones (Comas, 2009;Comas et al 2010, Comas et al, 2011Comas & Sureda, 2016;Foltynek, 2013;Teixeira & Rocha, 2006). De acuerdo con los resultados de este análisis se identificaron 29 comportamientos fraudulentos y 10 tipos de sanciones aplicables.…”

Section: Cuestionario Y Procedimientounclassified

“…Este trabajo se focaliza en los dispositivos normativos de las universidades españolas. Cabe remarcar que España, donde la prevalencia de la deshonestidad es alta (Comas et al, 2011;Comas, Sureda & Salva, 2010), es uno de los países europeos en los que el alumnado universitario recibe menos formación sobre la práctica deshonesta más extendida: el plagio (Foltynek, 2013); un país en el que las normativas universitarias sobre el tema son escasas y poco precisas (Sureda et al, 2016), y en el que la presencia de estas cuestiones en documentos como las guías docentes es exigua (Cebrian-Robles, Raposo-Rivas & Sarmiento-Campos, 2016).…”

unclassified

Las conductas fraudulentas del alumnado universitario español en las evaluaciones: valoración de su gravedad y propuestas de sanciones a partir de un panel de expertos

Negre

Cerdà-Navarro

Calvo-Sastre

et al. 2019

rie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este trabajo se centra en el fraude en las evaluaciones por parte del alumnado universitario español y su reglamentación por parte de las universidades como dispositivo para combatirlo. A partir del análisis de la literatura y la consulta a un panel de expertos mediante la administración de un cuestionario en dos rondas se identifican los principales comportamientos fraudulentos en las evaluaciones. Posteriormente, a partir de las opiniones de los expertos se determina, por una parte, el nivel de gravedad de cada uno de los comportamientos fraudulentos y, por otra, el tipo de sanciones aplicables según su gravedad. El análisis del grado de concordancia de los expertos en torno a estas cuestiones sugiere que, si bien hay algunos elementos que presentan un consenso significativo, continúan habiendo importantes divergencias en algunos criterios fundamentales a la hora de valorar y sancionar los comportamientos fraudulentos del alumnado en las evaluaciones. Los resultados ofrecidos pueden ser de utilidad para la elaboración y desarrollo de políticas educativas contra la deshonestidad académica basadas en dispositivos normativos This paper focuses on the fraud in the evaluations perpetrated by the Spanish university students and its regulation by the universities as a device to combat it. From the analysis of the literature and the consultation of a panel of experts through the administration of a questionnaire in two rounds, the main fraudulent behaviours in the evaluations are identified. Subsequently, based on the opinions of the experts, it is determined, on the one hand, the level of seriousness of each of the fraudulent behaviours and, on the other, the type of sanctions applicable according to their severity. The analysis of the degree of concordance of the experts on these issues suggests that, although there are some elements that present a significant consensus, there continue to be important divergences in some fundamental criteria when assessing and punishing the fraudulent behaviour of students in the evaluations The results offered can be useful for the development and implementation of educational policies against academic dishonesty based on normative devices.

show abstract

“…There is no common definition for the set of behaviours that constitute student academic dishonesty (Comas-Forgas et al 2010). Cheating behaviour is an integral component of student academic dishonesty and generally includes cheating during tests or examinations, collaborating on assignments set as individual tasks, plagiarising or taking the work or ideas of others without proper attribution, copying work, fabricating work and purchasing assignments.…”

Section: Student Academic Dishonesty and Strategies To Address The Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic honesty: Perceptions of millennial university students and the role of moderating variables

Zyl

Thomas

2015

KOERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic plagiarism prevalence among Spanish undergraduate students: an exploratory analysis

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Understanding of and attitudes to academic ethics among first‐year university students

Understanding of and attitudes to academic ethics among first‐year university students

Las conductas fraudulentas del alumnado universitario español en las evaluaciones: valoración de su gravedad y propuestas de sanciones a partir de un panel de expertos

Academic honesty: Perceptions of millennial university students and the role of moderating variables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About