|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Literature Review
In order to introduce academic dishonesty we had to define it. The Queen’s Gazette (1989) defined academic dishonesty, which included plagiarism as any deliberate attempt to gain advantage using dishonest practices such as fabrication of data, cheating, or uttering by a student of false statements relating to academic work.
There are several landmark studies on academic dishonesty. Two of which we considered are Davis, Grover et al (1992) and their study on academic dishonesty; its prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. ... C, (2003)) study on academic dishonesty in which he called it a plague on our profession. ... (1992) study is a more quantitative evaluation of academic dishonesty. ... The most significant trend that they observed was that there appeared to be an increased prevalence in academic dishonesty. They suggested that a general perception of academic dishonesty was that it is inevitable and a component of academics. ... That is that academic dishonesty is a real and relevant issue and that there are quantitative factors that can be measured and evaluated. ... C, (2003)) study on academic dishonesty provided a more qualitative explanative source of information on academic dishonesty. He suggests reasons for ‘cheating’, some of which are; cultural decay in academia, a benign neglect of cheating, academic neglect and so on.
Approximate Word count = 989
Approximate Pages = 4
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|