Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkiye’de Akademik Yazı: İntihal ve Özgünlük

Year 2017, Volume: 34 Issue: 2, 1 - 12, 31.10.2017

Abstract

Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitime olan ilgi son yıllarda ciddi bir hızla artma eğilimine girmiştir. Bu artış ile ortaya çıkan tezlerin niteliği sorgulanması gereken bir ihtiyaç olarak karşımıza çıkmakla birlikte buna dönük yapılmış herhangi bir çalışmaya rastlamamaktayız. Akademik yazı ve tezlerin niteliği ile ilgili olarak iki temel sorunsal ile karşılaşmaktayız. Bunlardan ilki özgünlük sorunu diğeri ise intihal sorunudur. Bu çalışmada bu iki sorunsal çevresinde Türkiye’de yazılmış yüksek lisans ve doktora tezleri incelenmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerini özgünlük ve intihal parametreleri çerçevesinde inceleyerek Türkiye akademisinin akademik yazı kalitesini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Çalışma kapsamında eğitim bilimleri alanında yazılmış 600 adet yüksek lisans ve doktora tezi Turnitin intihal denetleme programı aracılığı ile incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre tezlerin benzerlik oranı %28,7 (SS=11.58) olarak belirlenirken, yüksek derecede intihal içeren tezlerin oranı ise %34,5 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları Türkiye akademisinin yazı ile olan ilişkisini gözden geçirmesi gerekliliği ortaya koymaktadır.

References

  • Angélil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Pearson education.
  • Ballard. Iva. B. (2013). The impact of academic integrity module and Turnitin on similarity index scores of undergraduate student papers. Research in the Schools, Vol, 20 (2) 1-13.
  • Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language. London: Blackwell.
  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric, pp. 79-101. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (2002). Genre and identity: Citizenship in the age of the internet and the age of global capitalism. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre, pp. 13-37. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
  • Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009b). A model for determining student plagiarism: electronic detection and academic judgment. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1).
  • Derrida, J. (1998). Of grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Garden, C. (2009). What does my Turnitin report mean? Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University.
  • Gibb, B. (2014). Citation-based plagiarism detection. London: Springer.
  • Ison, D.C. J Acad Ethics (2015) 13: 151. doi:10.1007/s10805-015-9233-7
  • Ison, D.C. J Acad Ethics (2012) 10: 227. doi:10.1007/s10805-012-9165-4
  • Ivanič, Roz. (2004) Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220-245,
  • Martin, D., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. (2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and plagiarism: a criterion study of unethical academic conduct. Human Organization, 70(1), 88–96.
  • Miller, Carolyn R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151- 167.
  • Paré, A. (2002). Genre and identity: Individuals, institutions, and ideology. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre, pp. 57- 71. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
  • Paré, A. (2005). Texts and power: Toward a critical theory of language. In L. Davies & P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work in a corporate era: Practices of power and resistance, pp. 76-90. Hants, UK: Ashgate.
  • Paré, A. (2014). Rhetorical genre theory and academic literacy. Journal of Academic Language & Learning Vol. 8 (1), A83-A84.
  • Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. New York Continuum.
  • Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism how to promote good source use. New York: Open University Press.
  • Starke-Meyerring, D. (2011). The paradox of writing in doctoral education: Student experiences. In Lynda McAlpine & Cheryl Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators, pp. 75-95. New York: Springer.
Year 2017, Volume: 34 Issue: 2, 1 - 12, 31.10.2017

Abstract

References

  • Angélil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Pearson education.
  • Ballard. Iva. B. (2013). The impact of academic integrity module and Turnitin on similarity index scores of undergraduate student papers. Research in the Schools, Vol, 20 (2) 1-13.
  • Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language. London: Blackwell.
  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric, pp. 79-101. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (2002). Genre and identity: Citizenship in the age of the internet and the age of global capitalism. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre, pp. 13-37. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
  • Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009b). A model for determining student plagiarism: electronic detection and academic judgment. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1).
  • Derrida, J. (1998). Of grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Garden, C. (2009). What does my Turnitin report mean? Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University.
  • Gibb, B. (2014). Citation-based plagiarism detection. London: Springer.
  • Ison, D.C. J Acad Ethics (2015) 13: 151. doi:10.1007/s10805-015-9233-7
  • Ison, D.C. J Acad Ethics (2012) 10: 227. doi:10.1007/s10805-012-9165-4
  • Ivanič, Roz. (2004) Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220-245,
  • Martin, D., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. (2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and plagiarism: a criterion study of unethical academic conduct. Human Organization, 70(1), 88–96.
  • Miller, Carolyn R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151- 167.
  • Paré, A. (2002). Genre and identity: Individuals, institutions, and ideology. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre, pp. 57- 71. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
  • Paré, A. (2005). Texts and power: Toward a critical theory of language. In L. Davies & P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work in a corporate era: Practices of power and resistance, pp. 76-90. Hants, UK: Ashgate.
  • Paré, A. (2014). Rhetorical genre theory and academic literacy. Journal of Academic Language & Learning Vol. 8 (1), A83-A84.
  • Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. New York Continuum.
  • Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism how to promote good source use. New York: Open University Press.
  • Starke-Meyerring, D. (2011). The paradox of writing in doctoral education: Student experiences. In Lynda McAlpine & Cheryl Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators, pp. 75-95. New York: Springer.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Original Articles
Authors

Ziya Toprak

Publication Date October 31, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 34 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Toprak, Z. (2017). Türkiye’de Akademik Yazı: İntihal ve Özgünlük. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 34(2), 1-12.