1. Analyze the differences between a summary, a synthesis, and a paraphrase in three brief sentences.

2. Summarize both paragraphs in (i.e., combine both paragraphs into your summary; do not write 2 separate summaries). Do not include any direct quotations. Cite the authors.

3. Paraphrase your choice of one paragraph. Do not include any direct quotations. Cite the authors and add the source of this paragraph at the bottom of your page, following the Walden Writing Center model for citations and reference entries of sources with multiple authors. Notice the special APA required format of punctuation, capitalization, italics, and a hanging indent for reference list items: https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/73210

Reference: Cuadrado, D., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2020). Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology. https://doi- org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/pspp0000285 MMPA 6116/NPMG 6116: Foundations of Graduate Study 2022 Walden University, LLC Page 6 of 7

Excerpts from Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis Paragraph 1: A great deal of research conducted for decades has shown that the prevalence of CAB has reached alarming levels. The empirical evidence shows that this issue affects all types of educational institutions regardless of country, culture, discipline, or educational level. For instance, evidence gathered in elementary schools shows that CAB are even a problem among the youngest students (Ding et al., 2014; Van Lier, Verhulst, van der Ende, & Crijnen, 2003). In the case of secondary education, the evidence related to the prevalence of CAB is more extensive. To this regard, the last biannual report on values, beliefs, and unethical behavior among high school students of the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2012) describes a worrying situation in the United States. With a sample over 23,000 students, results showed that 75% admitted to copying classwork from another classmate and 55% confessed to lying to a teacher about a significant matter. Similar or higher percentages were found in other countries (see, e.g., Farkas & Orosz, 2012). The majority of CAB research was conducted in higher education. In this educational level, data shows a troubling state of affairs again. For instance, using a sample of more than 63,000 American and Canadian college students from different disciplines, McCabe (2005) found that 42% had worked with others on assignments that should have been completed individually, 38% had paraphrased sentences from written sources without footnoting it, and 33% had learned the content of an exam from a peer who had already taken it. These percentages increased to 60%, 80%, and 35%, respectively, when more than 9,000 faculty members were asked to indicate if they had observed one or more instances of these behaviors in the last 3 years. Paragraph 2: Empirical evidence also shows that European universities are affected by this problem. For example, in the research conducted by Teixeira and Rocha (2010), 7,213 university students from different countries were asked to indicate if they had cheated, at least once, during exams. The results showed that 50.7% of participants admitted to be dishonest in Germany, 62.4% in Spain, 63.4% in Italy, 65.4% in Portugal, 71.6% in Austria, and 84.6% in Slovenia. Another example is the study by Trost (2009), in which 61% of the students enrolled at three Swedish universities declared to have copied material for coursework from a book or another publication without acknowledging the source. Considering that most of the research has been done using questionnaires that directly ask respondents to report the frequency with which students have engaged in CAB, the obtained rates are undoubtedly worrying. Indeed, when other techniques such as anonymous randomized-response methods (RRM) have been used with the aim of reducing the discomfort caused by these sensitive questions, the results were even more dramatic. In the context of CAB, Scheers and Dayton (1987) found out that the frequency of commission of CAB was underreported from 39% to 83% when responses to a traditional questionnaire were compared to the estimates obtained by using RRM. Other studies that have highlighted the benefits of using such methods to assess the prevalence of CAB are those by Kerkvliet (1994) and Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999). MMPA 6116/NPMG 6116: Foundations of Graduate Study 2022 Walden University, LLC Page 7 of 7 Reference Cuadrado, D., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2020). Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology. https://doi- org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/pspp0000285