Analysis of trends of Academic Dishonesty

Analysis of trends of Academic Dishonesty Introduction Academic dishonesty encompasses a collection of purposeful but intolerable behaviors that are in opposition to the scholastic rules and regulations of any institution or a given course policy well affirmed in its course outline (Tadesse and Getachew, 2009).Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Analysis of trends of Academic Dishonesty specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More It covers three broad areas: writing, miscellaneous group and use of visual or oral communication methods. Miscellaneous method involves the use of programs gadgets like calculators, mobile phones, hiding books and lecture notes in toilets. Writing methods cover the use of copy notes, writing on individual’s body, clothes and other hard objects while visual method include: copying of other students’ assignments or works, requesting for answers from other students and having a fake student write your exam. However, plagiarism is the common most form of academic dishonesty while exam cheating being the least in rating. Dishonesty devalues educational standards, lowers learner’s individual identity, university’s reputation, mission and its offered qualification as educational validity depends on truth and principle of equity. Trends, historical precedence Since its first evidence in 1940, academic dishonesty has since gained a lot of attention. Nevertheless, the complexity of academic dishonesty has since increased and shortchanged many institutions and researchers. According to McCabe 2005, the percentage of students reported of not being allowed to work in partnership increased from 1963 levels of 11 percent to 49 percent in 1993. He concluded that there was faculty reluctance in following the institutional policies which they claimed on no enough time and effort, tedious and difficult tasks in its documentation, individual resistance to official penalties, and perspicacity of the faculty becomin g the defendant as an alternative to the concerned students. He concluded that academic dishonesty is on the rise and students perceived that most institutions and faculties had failed to institute a strong culture of integrity. It can therefore be concluded that cheating rate ranges between 60-80 percent with most American students both in high school and mid level colleges admitting that cheating is their usual practice. In fact, McCabe acknowledges that over 75 percent of college students have cheated at least once in their education lifetime; nevertheless, more than a half does not consider it as wrongdoing.Advertising Looking for report on education? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In fact, one online term paper writing center received over 80,000 clients per day (The Center for Academic Integrity, 1999). It can clearly be concluded that this device is at the pick and will continue to increase to eternity. At Si mon Fraser University, academic integrity is considered a serious issue and result in expulsion of the concerned student. The institutional strategy in promotion of academic integrity is well in grinned in the university code of academic integrity and good behavior, university board on student discipline, senate committee on disciplinary appeals, principles and procedures for student disciplines. These values support this university mission of providing quality education, promotion of scientific progress and as a foundation for vibrant academic life within and after the college (The Center for Academic Integrity, 1999). Literature review In Ethiopia, Tadesse and Getachew, 2009 on analyzing faculties’ perception and Responses to Academic Dishonesty acknowledged that even though the rules were very clear on dishonesty, students still involve themselves in cheating. In Addis Ababa University, the control measures in handbook included: written reprimand, detection and by instruct or and finally probation and suspension while in Jemma University only simple warning, denial of total marks and expulsion was recommended. They concluded that teachers’ knowledge of the institution academic rules and regulations, failure to discus course policies, recognition of effectiveness of rules enforcement, cruelty of penalties for violation and low levels of awareness of incidences of academic dishonesty were the major factors contributing to this menace. To alleviate this menace, they recommended a strict enforcement of rules and regulation, improved communication of these rules, serious penalties on victims, education structures quality improvement and finally providing tutorial services to students. Additionally, they recommended that academic rules and regulation of any institutions be revised to be more reactive, increase the level of education for academic staff and students. Finally, faculty administrators should be more responsible with clear communication of rules and standards of academic conduct.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Analysis of trends of Academic Dishonesty specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The changing job market and stiff competition for limited vacancies is a strain on graduate students’ performance. These pressures make students to resort to unethical behaviours like cheating. McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield 2001 on a study of academic cheating amongst the U.S. institutions acknowledged that the prevalence of cheating was greater now than 30 years ago. They suggested that both individual and contextual factors were the major influencers of cheating. However, contextual factors like students’ perceptions on their peers’ behavior was rated the topmost influencing factor. Moreover, they noticed that institution’s academic integrity programs and policies like honor codes also had a significant influence on students’ beha vior. They recommended a dialogue between students and academic staff and during such meetings, the contents of code rules and regulations be revisited, excellent inter working relationship between faculties and academic unions and strong messages be sent to student concerning the consequences of cheating. Information technology has revolutionized education system through its distance learning initiatives. These initiatives have improved financial and infrastructural capabilities of most academic institutions in the areas like classroom allocation, parking, and faculty utilization. To students, on line classes offer minimal travel time wastages, greater flexibility and enjoy education at the comfort of their homes without any geographical hindrance. However, Lanier, 2006 on a study to determine whether previous studies of cheating can foretell who will cheat in the online class observed that cheating was a common practice in online classes than in traditional classroom environment. He observed that online education was gaining more attention due to its cost saving function and improved access by target population. Secondly, constrained budgets and local needs facilitate decision to increase on line investment in education. However, quality of education was the least considered of all the factors. The common models of online delivery include: a video tape method and interactive television coupled with web based instructions. The classes are of the two types: web based where internet is used and secondly a mix media which requires class attendance added to an online instruction.Advertising Looking for report on education? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More He therefore concluded that gender, age of students, race and ethnicity, the GPA levels and type of course whether social science of not of students were the main factors affecting cheating levels in institutions. He added that to curb cheating, apprehension and deterrence were necessary. In addition, researchers should increase explanatory variables to gain correct prediction and explanation on academic dishonesty. Academic integrity is grounded on the principle of honesty, fairness, trust, responsibility and respect. Several universities build on cultures supporting guanine research and teaching. According to Camilla and Hai-Jew 2009 on a study of Issues of Academic Integrity at Kansas State University noted that the university has honor code supported by the K-State Honor and Integrity System, a clear student judiciary system, and an integrity course for students involved in the act. They noted that academic identity was important to learners’ identity, university mission achievement, reputation and the qualification it offers to its learners. They accepted that causal factors of democracy can best be understood from two perspectives: external and internal factors. They also noted that the use of multimedia was important in increasing students’ participation in this on line exercise. They recommended that such initiatives are important to universities approach to curtailing academic dishonesty thereby increasing the learning processes. References Camilla, J. and Hai-Jew, S. (2009). Issues of Academic Integrity: An Online Course for Students Addressing Academic Dishonesty. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/roberts_0609.pdf Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, vol. 17(2). Retrieved from uri.edu/online/integrity/academic_integrity_lanier.pdf McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty and educational opportunity. Liberal Education, Summer/Fall. McCabe, D. L., Trevino L. K. and Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, vol.11 (3): pp. 219–232. Retrieved from swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/plagiarism/docs/McCabe_et_al.pdf Tadesse, T. and Getachew, K. (2009). Faculties’ perception and responses to academic dishonesty of undergraduate students in education, business and economics. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Science, vol. 4 (2). Retrieved from ajol.info/index.php/ejesc/article/viewFile/51675/40322 The Center for Academic Integrity. (1999). The Fundamental Values of academic integrity. Retrieved from academicintegrity.org/fundamental_values_project/pdf/FVProject.pdf

Treaty of Portsmouth

Treaty of Portsmouth The Treaty of Portsmouth was a peace agreement signed on September 5, 1905, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, United States, which officially ended the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 – 1905. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in brokering the pact. Fast Facts: Treaty of Portsmouth The Treaty of Portsmouth was a peace agreement between Russia and Japan, brokered by the United States. It put an end to the Russo-Japanese War, fought from February 8, 1904 to September 5, 1905, when the treaty was signed.Negotiations focused on three key issues: access to Manchurian and Korean ports, control of Sakhalin Island, and payment of the financial costs of the war.The Treaty of Portsmouth led to nearly 30 years of peace between Japan and Russia, and earned President Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906. The Russo-Japanese War The Russo-Japanese War of 1904 – 1905 was fought between the Empire of Russia, a modernized world military power, and the Empire of Japan, a largely agrarian nation just starting to develop its industrial sector. Since the end of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, both Russia and Japan had clashed over their competing imperialistic ambitions in areas of Manchuria and Korea. By 1904, Russia controlled Port Arthur, a strategically important warm water seaport on the southern tip of Manchuria’s Liaodong Peninsula. After Russia helped put down an attempted Japanese coup in adjacent Korea, war between the two nations seemed inevitable. On February 8, 1904, the Japanese attacked the Russian fleet harbored at Port Arthur before sending a declaration of war to Moscow. The surprise nature of the attack helped Japan gain an early victory. Over the next year, Japanese forces won important victories in Korea and the Sea of Japan. However, casualties were high on both sides. In the bloody Battle of Mukden alone, some 60,000 Russian and 41,000 Japanese soldiers were killed. By 1905, the human and financial costs of war led both countries to seek peace. Terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth Japan asked U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt to act as the intermediary to negotiating a peace agreement with Russia. Hoping to maintain an equal balance of power and economic opportunity in the region, Roosevelt desired a pact that would allow both Japan and Russia to maintain their influence in East Asia. Though he had publicly supported Japan at the start of the war, Roosevelt feared that America’s interests in the region could suffer if Russia was driven out completely. Russian and Japanese diplomats seated at the negotiating table during the Portsmouth Peace Conference. Buyenlarge / Getty Images Negotiations focused on three key issues: access to Manchurian and Korean ports, control of Sakhalin Island, and payment of the financial costs of the war. Japan’s priorities were: the division of control in Korea and South Manchuria, the sharing of war costs, and control of Sakhalin. Russia demanded continued control of Sakhalin Island, flatly refused to reimburse Japan for its war costs, and sought to maintain its Pacific fleet. Payment of war costs turned out to be the most difficult negotiation point. In fact, the war had so badly depleted Russia’s finances, it would have probably been unable to pay any war costs even if required to do so by the treaty. Delegates agreed to declare an immediate cease-fire. Russia recognized Japan’s claim to Korea and agreed to withdraw its forces from Manchuria. Russia also agreed to return its lease of Port Arthur in southern Manchuria to China and give up its railroad and mining concessions in southern Manchuria to Japan. Russia retained control of the Chinese Eastern Railway in northern Manchuria. When negotiations stalled over control of Sakhalin and payment of war debts, President Roosevelt suggested that Russia â€Å"buy back† the northern half of Sakhalin from Japan. Russia flatly refused to pay money its people might see as an indemnity for territory their soldiers had paid for with their lives. After a lengthy debate, Japan agreed to drop all of its claims for reparations in return for the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Historical Significance The Treaty of Portsmouth led to nearly 30 years of peace between Japan and Russia. Japan emerged as the main power in East Asia, as Russia was forced to drop its imperialistic aspirations in the region. However, the agreement did not sit well with the people of either country. Postcard shows the building at the Portsmouth Navy Yard where the peace talks were held, the Hotel Wentworth, and flags of Japan and Russia, all superimposed on an American flag. Buyenlarge / Getty Images The Japanese people considered themselves the victors and saw the refusal of war reparations as an act of disrespect. Protests and riots broke out in Tokyo when the terms were announced. At the same time, being forced to give up half of Sakhalin Island angered the Russian people. However, neither the average Japanese nor Russian citizen was aware of how badly the war had damaged the economies of their respective countries. During the war and the peace talks, the American people generally felt Japan was fighting a â€Å"just war† against Russian aggression in East Asia. Viewing Japan as being fully committed to the U.S. Open Door policy of preserving the territorial integrity of China, Americans were anxious to support it. However, the negative, sometimes anti-American reaction to the treaty in Japan surprised and angered many Americans. Indeed, the Treaty of Portsmouth marked the last meaningful period of U.S.-Japanese cooperation until the post-World War II reconstruction of Japan in 1945. At the same time, however, relations between Japan and Russia warmed as a result of the treaty. While he never actually attended the peace talks, and the actual extent of his influence on leaders in Tokyo and Moscow remained unclear, President Roosevelt was widely praised for his efforts. In 1906, he became the first of three sitting U.S. presidents to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Sources and Further Reference â€Å"The Treaty of Portsmouth and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905.† U.S. Department of State. Office of the Historian Kowner, Rotem. â€Å"Historical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War.† The Scarecrow Press, Inc. (2006). â€Å"Text of Treaty; Signed by the Emperor of Japan and Czar of Russia.† The New York Times. October 17, 1905. â€Å"Partial record of Privy Council meeting to ratify the treaty.† National Archives of Japan. Figes, Orlando. â€Å"From Tsar to U.S.S.R.: Russias Chaotic Year of Revolution.† National Geographic.