Araştırma Makalesi

Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic Writing

Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2 26 Eylül 2018
PDF İndir
EN

Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic 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.

Keywords

Kaynakça

  1. 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.
  2. Brown, B. S. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: a survey, Journal of Education for Business, 70(3), 151–156.
  3. 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.
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th edition). Boston: Pearson.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. Gerdeman, R. D. (2000). Academic Dishonesty and the Community College. ERIC Digest.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

İrina Rets * Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi

26 Eylül 2018

Gönderilme Tarihi

15 Nisan 2018

Kabul Tarihi

-

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 1970 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA
Rets, İ., & Ilya, A. (2018). Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic Writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.464115

Cited By