by J. Biggs and C. Tang, Maidenhead, England,
Open University Press, 2007, 360 pp., £29.99, ISBN-13: 978-0-335-22126-4

Teaching for quality learning at university

Thank you very much for downloading mindset the new psychology of success. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search hundreds times for their chosen novels like this mindset the new psychology of success, but end up in harmful downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they are facing with some infectious virus inside their laptop. mindset the new psychology of success is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our book servers hosts in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Kindly say, the mindset the new psychology of success is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Mindset The New Psychology Of Success

The Quark and the Jaguar

If media reports are to be believed, Australian universities are facing a significant and growing problem of students outsourcing their assessment to third parties, a behaviour commonly known as ‘c...

/pdf/contract-cheating-a-survey-of-australian-university-students-2fixkdgajk.pdf

Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students

Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment

The results of a large online student survey (n = 15,304), on academic integrity at six Australian universities, indicate that a majority of respondents reported a good awareness of academic integrity and knowledge of academic integrity policy at their university and were satisfied with the information and support they receive. Response varied across cohorts, with international students expressing a lower awareness of academic integrity and academic integrity policy, and lower confidence in how to avoid academic integrity breaches. Postgraduate research student respondents were the least satisfied with the information they had received about how to avoid an academic integrity breach. The results from this survey provide an opportunity to explore the student perspective and inform the higher education sector in relation to communicating with and educating students about academic integrity. The students have indicated that Australian universities need to move beyond the mere provision of information to ensu...

‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey

This paper reports on one important aspect of the preliminary findings from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project, Academic integrity standards: Aligning policy and practice in Australian universities (Bretag et al., 2010) Our project aims to identify approaches to the complex issues of academic integrity, and then to build on these approaches to develop exemplars for adaptation across the higher education sector. Based on analysis of publicly available online academic integrity policies at each of the 39 Australian universities, we have identified five core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy. These have been grouped under the headings, Access, Approach, Responsibility, Detail and Support, with no element given priority over another. In this paper we compare the five core elements identified in our research with best practice guidelines recommended by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) in the UK. We conclude that an exemplar policy needs to provide an upfront, consistent message, reiterated throughout the entire policy, which indicates a systemic and sustained commitment to the values of academic integrity and the practices that ensure it. Whereas the HEA created two discrete resources, the key aim and challenge of this project will be to develop exemplars that demonstrate a strong alignment between policy and practice.

/pdf/core-elements-of-exemplary-academic-integrity-policy-in-1rgcmwimth.pdf

Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education

Self-plagiarism requires clear definition within an environment that places integrity at the heart of the research enterprise. This paper explores the whole notion of self-plagiarism by academics and distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate textual re-use in academic publications, while considering research on other forms of plagiarism such as student plagiarism. Based on the practical experience of the authors in identifying academics’ self-plagiarism using both electronic detection and manual analysis, a simple model is proposed for identifying self-plagiarism by academics.

Self-Plagiarism or Appropriate Textual Re-use?

This paper provides insights based on the authors’ own practice as university instructors, researchers and arbitrators of student plagiarism. Recognising the difficulty in defining plagiarism while still acknowledging the practical importance of doing so, the authors find the common element between the various types of plagiarism to be the lack of appropriate attribution to the original source. The use of electronic text-matching software to detect different types of plagiarism is explored, and a model presented for identifying potential plagiarism in students’ work. The authors conclude that despite its shortcomings, electronic detection in combination with manual analysis, nuanced academic judgement and clear processes provide the means to determine if plagiarism has occurred. Cover Page Footnote Saadia Mahmud, previously known as Saadia Carapiet. This journal article is available in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol6/iss1/6 Journal o f Univer s i t y Teaching and Learn ing Prac t ic e A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic detection and academic judgement. Tracey Bretag and Saadia Mahmud School of Management, University of South Australia tracey.bretag@unisa.edu.au; saadia.mahmud@unisa.edu.au Abstract This paper provides insights based on the authors’ own practice as university instructors, researchers and arbitrators of student plagiarism. Recognising the difficulty in defining plagiarism while still acknowledging the practical importance of doing so, the authors find the common element between the various types of plagiarism to be the lack of appropriate attribution to the original source. The use of electronic text-matching software to detect different types of plagiarism is explored, and a model presented for identifying potential plagiarism in students’ work. The authors conclude that despite its shortcomings, electronic detection in combination with manual analysis, nuanced academic judgement and clear processes provide the means to determine if plagiarism has occurred.This paper provides insights based on the authors’ own practice as university instructors, researchers and arbitrators of student plagiarism. Recognising the difficulty in defining plagiarism while still acknowledging the practical importance of doing so, the authors find the common element between the various types of plagiarism to be the lack of appropriate attribution to the original source. The use of electronic text-matching software to detect different types of plagiarism is explored, and a model presented for identifying potential plagiarism in students’ work. The authors conclude that despite its shortcomings, electronic detection in combination with manual analysis, nuanced academic judgement and clear processes provide the means to determine if plagiarism has occurred. 1 Saadia Mahmud, previously known as Saadia Carapiet. A m o d e l f o r d e t e r m i n i ng s t u d en t p la g i a r i s m : E l e c t r o n i c d e te c t i on an d a c ad e m i c j u d ge m e n t T r a c e y B r e t a g a nd S aa d i a Ma h mu d Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice Vol 6.1, 2009 50 Introduction The public perception that plagiarism is on the rise has resulted in a proliferation of discussion and research on student plagiarism (Angelil-Carter, 2000; Bretag, 2005, 2007; Carroll, 2003a; Devlin, 2003; McCabe, Butterfield & Trevino, 2006; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002). Internationally recognised author and practitioner, Jude Carroll, has publicly stated that plagiarism exists in all educational institutions, and those that do not admit to the problem are not being honest (Carroll, 2003b; see also Piety, 2002). What seems to be emerging from commentary and research is the understanding that student plagiarism is here to stay. As Carroll has noted, “definitions matter and agreeing on a good one is harder than you think” (2003a, p. 12). However, despite the difficulties of defining plagiarism, there is a significant body of literature providing detailed advice on how to respond to student plagiarism, in terms of preventative, punitive and educative measures. Researchers have provided practical recommendations at the institutional level, and strategies at the individual educator level to deal with plagiarism, and many of these suggestions overlap. One of the strategies to detect and deter student plagiarism has been the development of electronic software tools. When these tools first became available many educators believed that they would provide an easily implemented solution, which would cut down on the hours of tedious manual detection. However, within a short period of time, it became clear that electronic detection software “is not a magic bullet” (Carroll, 2003a) and that it is just one tool among many to be used within an educative framework. Using our own research and practice as a basis, we argue that despite its shortcomings, electronic detection in combination with manual analysis, nuanced academic judgement and clear processes provide the means to determine if plagiarism has occurred. This paper extends this understanding and provides a simple model to assist in the identification of student plagiarism. We suggest that the most appropriate use of such a model is within an educative framework that encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning while working hand in hand with instructors during the drafting stages of their work. In the initial sections of this paper, the authors review a wide variety of definitions and types of ‘plagiarisms’ identified in the literature. While acknowledging the complex nature of plagiarism, we conclude that the common element in the various ‘plagiarisms’ is the lack of appropriate attribution to the original source. The paper then explores the various responses to student plagiarism recommended in the literature, the use of electronic tools to detect plagiarism, and the way that such tools can be used within an educative framework to enhance student learning.

/pdf/a-model-for-determining-student-plagiarism-electronic-uwptzz4mhu.pdf

A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic detection and academic judgement

https://link-springer-com-443.webvpn.jmu.edu.cn/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-981-287-098-8_24.pdf

Saadia Mahmud

Papers

‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey

Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education

Self-Plagiarism or Appropriate Textual Re-use?

A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic detection and academic judgement

A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Exemplary Academic Integrity Policy in Australian Higher Education