investigating policies for plagiarism and academic ...internet technology makes plagiarism a crucial...

Salim Razı & H. Sümeyra Pektaş

Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University,

Turkey

www.salimrazi.com

Investigating policies

for plagiarism and academic integrity:

The case of Turkey

Challenges of academic writing

Plagiarism, a crime?

Related Academic Integrity projects

The case of plagiarism at COMU

The study

Findings

Discussion & Conclusion

Implications

Q & A

Plagiarism Conference Brno 2017 – Policies – S. Razı & H. S. Pektaş

You can download

this presentation at

www.salimrazi.com

Academic writing is complicated (see Matsuda, 2001):

Brings the risk of plagiarism.

Several factors to be considered:

More common in expanding‐circle.

Cross‐cultural differences (Baurain, 2011).

Cultural influences in writing (Kachru, 2009).

National and institutional attitudes towards plagiarism.

Being naïve in academic writing (Park, 2003; Razı, 2015a; Yeo & Chien, 2007).

Insufficiency in L1 writing (Razı, 2015b).

Plagiarism Conference Brno 2017 – Policies – S. Razı & H. S. Pektaş3

Internet technology makes plagiarism a crucial problem:

Specifically for university assignments (Walker, 2010).

Students might not feel that cheating on assignments is a serious problem

(Brent & Atkinson, 2011).

Plagiarism (Howard, 2007):

not necessarily a crime,

benefit as a teaching strategy.

Academic writing: a complex intellectual skill.

Plagiarism: the first vital step in developing academic writing skills.

Howard’s ‘patchwriting’: weak paraphrasing skills.


Plagiarism occurs when someone:

Uses words, ideas, or work products

Attributable to another identifiable person or source

Without attributing the work to the source from which it was obtained

In a situation in which there is a legitimate expectation of original

authorship

In order to obtain some benefit, credit, or gain which need not be

monetary


Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education across Europe (IPPHEAE):

http://plagiarism.cz/ippheae/ Aimed to identify the actions of combatting plagiarism at 27 European HE institutions.

South‐East Europe Project on Policies for Academic Integrity (SEEPPAI):

http://www.plagiarism.cz/seeppai/

Aims at revealing the perceptions of students, lecturers, and managers in the related

higher education setting.

European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI):

http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/home.php

Aims at understanding culture bounded interaction of plagiarism and academic integrity.

Related infringements requires wider cooperation.


A follow‐up investigation on policies for student plagiarism and

academic integrity:

Aimed at revealing the perceptions of undergraduate and post‐

graduate students, lecturers, and managers at the English

Language Teaching Department of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart

University, Turkey.


Setting:

Fall semester of 2016‐17 academic session

COMU ELT Dept.

BA, MA and PhD Programmes

Participants (N = 135):

Administrators (n = 3, out of 4, response rate = 75%; nmale = 2, nfemale = 1)

Lecturers (n = 6 , out of 9, response rate ≈ 67%; nmale = 3, nfemale = 3)

Students (n = 126 , out of 400, response rate ≈ 32%; nmale 53= 2, nfemale = 73)

BA (n = 72 , out of 320, response rate ≈ 23%)

MA (n = 20 , out of 40, response rate = 50%)

PhD (n = 21 , out of 40, response rate ≈ 53%)


COMU ELT Dept.

No investigation by the ethics board regarding

plagiarism concerns!

Does this necessarily mean, there is no

plagiarism?

NO!Plagiarism Conference Brno 2017 – Policies – S. Razı & H. S. Pektaş11

2011‐12 academic year:

My initial attempt to use a text‐matching software.

No other lecturers used it.

2016‐17 academic year:

5 lecturers use it regularly;

4 lecturers, from time to time; and

3 lecturers, never.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 2015‐2016

Plagiarism

No submission

Accepted

Total


Plagiarism incidents:COMU ELT Dept. Advanced Reading and Writing Skills Course

2010‐11 & 2015‐16 (Razı, 2016b)

Make‐up exam:

Minor plagiarizers revise and resubmit for make‐up exam.

Major plagiarizers cannot resubmit for the make up exam;

repeat the course.


SEEPPAI questionnaire:

Delivered online

(Special thanks to Irene Glendinning for her generosity in

sharing the instruments and managing the online data

collection process.)

Administrator version

Lecturer version

Student version

Scale reliability:

α = .73 over 12 items in section 4



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

before undergrad during undergrad during postgrad still not sure


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree Not applicable


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Plagiarism Academic dishonesty


0102030405060708090

Assignment Final


0

20

40

60

80

100

120


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Word for word, noquotations

Word for word, noquotations, correctreferences, no intext citations

Word for word, noquotations, correctreferences and intext citations

Some wordschanged, noquotations,

references or in textcitations

Some wordschanged, no

quotations, correctreferences, no intext citations


quotations, correctreferences and intext citations

Serious plagiarism Plagiarism Not sure Definetely not plagiarism


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Word for word, noquotations

Word for word, noquotations, correctreferences, no intext citations

Word for word, noquotations, correctreferences and intext citations

Some wordschanged, noquotations,

references or in textcitations


quotations, correctreferences, no intext citations


quotations, correctreferences and intext citations

Yes No

Awareness of plagiarism and practising citation:

During BA; should start earlier.

Anonymous multi‐mediated writing model (Razı, 2016a) :

Awareness regarding plagiarism concerns.

Multiple submissions causes drop in plagiarism (Ledwith & Riques, 2008).

Students seem confused regarding institutional policies.

Confirmed by their responses to sanctions.

Awareness of plagiarism and academic dishonesty largely depends on lecturers:

Confirmed by services provided: Lecturers & supervisors.

Finding good quality sources! Module on literature review & 7/24 open library.

Reasons: Similar to previous findings (Razı, 2015c).

Easy to copy from the internet: Similar to Walker (2010).

Responses to fictitious cases:

They need more training regarding what causes plagiarism.


Analyze qualitative data.

Compare students’ responses with lecturers’ and managers’.

Compare COMU results with SEEPPAI.

Adopt ‘Plagiarism Reference Tariff’.

Develop institutional policies.

Institutional policies are core elements of academic integrity

(Bretag, personal communication).


Baurain, B. (2011). Cross‐cultural moral explorations in plagiarism. In L. H. Phan & B. Baurain (Eds.), Voices, identities, negotiations, and conflicts: Writing academic English across cultures. Studies in writing (Vol. 22 – pp. 123‐138). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Brent, E., & Atkinson, C. (2011). Accounting for cheating: An evolving theory and emergent themes. Research in Higher Education,52, 640‐658.

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. Paper presented at the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI) 28–30 September 2009, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09‐4apcei/4apcei‐Fishman.pdf

Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding internet plagiarism. Computers and Composition, 24, 3‐15. Kachru, Y. (2009). Speaking and writing in World Englishes. World Englishes today. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. L. Nelson (Eds.),

The handbook of World Englishes (pp.240‐270 ). Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell.Ledwith, A., & Risquez, A. (2008). Using anti‐plagiarism software to promote academic honesty in the context of peer reviewed

assignments. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 371–384.Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 10, 35–53. Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students – Literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 28, 471–488.Razı, S. (2015a). Development of a rubric to assess academic writing incorporating plagiarism detectors. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1‐13. DOI:

10.1177/2158244015590162Razı, S. (2015b). Plagiarism in academic writing in English medium universities. Paper presented at the 21st Conference of the

International Association for World Englishes, 8‐10 October, Istanbul, Turkey.Razı, S. (2015c). Reasons of plagiarism in undergraduate academic writing and benefiting from Turnitin. Paper presented at the

International conference plagiarism across Europe and beyond 2015, 10‐12 June, Brno, Czech Republic. Razı, S. (2016a). Are review skills and academic writing skills related? An exploratory analysis via multi‐source feedback

tools. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(1), 117‐127.Razı, S. (2016b). Reducing plagiarism incidents in student assignments by implementing anonymous multi‐mediated writing

model. Paper presented at Inaugural Mediterranean Conference: Integrity as a way forward, 8‐10 September, Athens, Greece.

Tennant, P., & Rowell, G. (2010). Plagiarism reference tariff. Retrieved from Plagiarismadvice.orgWalker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what student do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35,

41‐59.

References

Plagiarism Conference Brno 2017 – Policies – S. Razı & H. S. Pektaş

Salim Razı & H. Sümeyra Pektaş

Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University,

Turkey

www.salimrazi.com

Thank youfor your attendance.

investigating policies for plagiarism and academic ...internet technology makes plagiarism a crucial...

Documents