Explaining Variations in the Level of Academic Dishonesty in Studies of College Students: Some New Evidence
By Bob S. Brown, Dennis C. Emmett. 2001
91 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e365e1bf9f74f1d9b3403a63ac4d80ada2578469
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Therese C. Grijalva
- E. Labeff
- Clifford Nowell
- Michael A. Vandehey
- Hongwei Yu
- Brandon L. Moore
- Byron R. Johnson
- G. Diekhoff
Citations in the corpus
- FACTORS INFLUENCING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ DECISIONS TO CHEAT BY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT (2006, background): “These four implications of the prevalence and severity of cheating have inspired a substantial body of research on cheating among college students, including eleven review articles published since 1977 (Brown and Emmett, 2001; Bushway and Nash, 1977; Cizek, 1999; Cole and McCabe, 1996; Crown and Spi”
- Rational Ignorance in Education: A Field Experiment in Student Plagiarism (2010, unknown): “However, the reliability of much of this evidence has been questioned because it is based on student self-reports of a behavior which they may not understand well (Brown and Emmett 2001, Power 2009).”
- Academic Honesty and Online Courses (2006, background): “In this paper we provide initial evidence of the magnitude of cheating in online courses.”
- College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-Up and the Addition of an Honor Code (2007, background): “Several authors have critiqued the academic dishonesty literature, questioning the validity of comparing historical and recent studies (Brown & Emmett, 2001; Graham, Monday, O’Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Whitley, 1998; Whitley, Nelson, & Jones, 1999) since different studies have measured academic…”
- What Contributes to College Students’ Cheating? A Study of Individual Factors (2017, background): “For instance, Brown and Emmett (2001) suspected that studies reporting a high cheating rate among college students simply defined the term too broadly.”