Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic Writing

Irina RETS; Ali ILYA

Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2018 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic Writing

Irina RETS

Ali ILYA

Dergi: Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Sayı: 2018 · Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2
Sayfa: 193–211
DOI: —

🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.

DergiPark Kaydı ↗

✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight

⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The study also uncovered discrepancies in how the students view the aforementioned types of plagiarism.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯

Amaç & Hipotez: Given that the term ‘plagiarism’ is open to multiple interpretations, resulting in confusion among students and teachers alike, research that investigates the current state of empirical evidence and sheds light on students’ ability to define and detect this notion has important pedagogical implications.

📊

Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study examines undergraduate English Language Teaching (ELT) students’ understanding of plagiarism in academic writing through qualitative data collection methods.

💡

Sonuç & Katkı:The study also uncovered discrepancies in how the students view the aforementioned types of plagiarism.

🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması

📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem

⚙️Değişkenler:Paraphrasing and unacknowledged copying · plagiarism · scientific writing

Abstract

Given that the term ‘plagiarism’ is open to multiple interpretations, resulting in confusion among students and teachers alike, research that investigates the current state of empirical evidence and sheds light on students’ ability to define and detect this notion has important pedagogical implications. This study examines undergraduate English Language Teaching (ELT) students’ understanding of plagiarism in academic writing through qualitative data collection methods. After the focus group filled in the open-ended questionnaire, they were exposed to two sets of texts each containing an original, a plagiarized and non-plagiarized copy. The copy in the first set featured mainly word-for-word plagiarism while the copy in the second set was plagiarized in terms of illicit paraphrasing. The students were asked to identify whether there is any plagiarism in each copy and assess the texts regarding their acceptability in the format of an interview and think-aloud protocols. The results of the open-ended questionnaire and interviews were compared revealing that although all the students were able to define plagiarism correctly, most of them failed to identify it in the written text. The study also uncovered discrepancies in how the students view the aforementioned types of plagiarism.

Anahtar kelimeler

Paraphrasing and unacknowledged copying plagiarism scientific writing think-aloud protocols undergraduate research experience

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

RETS, I., ILYA, A. (2018). Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic Writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 193–211. https://ajindex.com/articles/284916

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Yeni Sekmede Aç ↗

↗Yeni Sekme

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

BavaHarji, M., Chetty, T. N., Ismail, Z. B., Letchumanan, K. (2016). A Comparison of the Act and Frequency of Plagiarism between Technical and Non-Technical Programme Undergraduates. English Language Teaching, 9(4), 106-118.
Brown, B. S. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: a survey, Journal of Education for Business, 70(3), 151–156.
Buckley, M. R., Wiese, D. S., Harvey, M. G. (1998). An investigation into the dimensions of unethical behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 73(5), 284-290.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th edition). Boston: Pearson. Decoo, W. (2008). Substantial, verbatim, unattributed, misleading: Applying criteria to assess textual plagiarism. In Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions. IGI Global. 228-243
Fishman, T. (2009). We know it when we see it is not good enough: Toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright. Proceedings of 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI) (pp. 1-5).
Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongong NSW Australia. Gerdeman, R. D. (2000). Academic Dishonesty and the Community College. ERIC Digest. Gu, Q., Brooks, J. (2008). Beyond the accusation of plagiarism. System, 36(3), 337-352.
Gullifer, J., Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students' perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463-481.
Hansen, B. (2003). Combating plagiarism. The CQ Researcher, 13(32), 775-792.
Hayes, N. (2003). Alienation and plagiarism: Coping with otherness in our assessment practice. Working Paper. The Department of Organisation, Work and Technology, Lancaster University. Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/48693/
Hayes, N., Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213-231.Harvard Guide to Using Sources (n.d). Retrieved from https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/
Ivanic, R. (2004). Intertextual practices in the construction of multimodal texts in inquiry-based learning. Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research, 279-314.
Jackson, P. A. (2006). Plagiarism instruction online: Assessing undergraduate students’ ability to avoid plagiarism.