Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Theses. Master of Liberal Studies. 1991”

Alessandrini, Giuditta, and Giovanni Rosso. "University Training on Communities of Practice." In Encyclopedia of Information Communication Technology. IGI Global, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-845-1.ch104.

"cheating behavior among college students. However, unlike most studies with col-lege students, these factors were related to actual cheating frequencies across the multiple courses that students took during a target semester. METHOD Participants Participants attended a small, private liberal arts college that has had a formal honor code in effect since 1965. Anonymous surveys were mailed to a random selection of 25% of the student body in the spring semester. One hundred seventy-five stu-dents (representing approximately 9% of the student body) completed and returned the surveys (11 additional surveys were returned but were unusable), yielding a re-turn rate of 35%. Women were slightly overrepresented in the sample, at 68%, compared to 51% in the college. Participants were predominately White (90.3%). All class years were represented (26% of the sample were lst-year students, 22% were sophomores, 19% were juniors, and 33% were seniors). Measures Cheating rates. Participants reviewed 17 different cheating behaviors and indicated how many times they engaged in each behavior during the previous se-mester. The behavior list was a modified version of lists used by Gardner and Melvin (1988), Newstead et al. (1996), and Sutton and Huba (1995). It included a range of violations, such as copying from another student's exam, plagiarism, and inventing laboratory data. However, in contrast to previous studies, participants in this study reported cheating behaviors course by course. Thus, if a participant was enrolled in four courses during the target semester, the participant filled out the sur-vey four times, once for each course (to protect identities, department areas, not course names, were requested on the survey). In addition, participants indicated the frequency of each behavior by course. Motivation. Measures of mastery and extrinsic motivation were adapted from scales used by Midgley et al. (1998) and Anderman et al. (1998). These scales included measures of personal mastery motivation, personal extrinsic motivation, course mastery motivation, and course extrinsic motivation. The original scales were worded for middle school students and specified a particular subject (English or science). Our version replaced the subject indicator with a more generic descriptor, such as "course," and replaced the word "teacher" with "professor." As with the list of cheating behaviors, participants filled out a motivation scale for each course taken in the previous semester. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)." In Academic Dishonesty. Psychology Press, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781410608277-2.