Examining students' perceptions of plagiarism: A

This article was downloaded by: [Karadeniz Teknik Universitesi] On: 18 March 2015, At: 13:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further and Higher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level a

a

b

M. Naci Kayaoğlu , Şakire Erbay , Cristina Flitner & Doğan a

Saltaş a

Western Languages and Literature Department, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey b

Click for updates

Center for International Relations, University of BOKU, Vienna, Austria Published online: 09 Mar 2015.

To cite this article: M. Naci Kayaoğlu, Şakire Erbay, Cristina Flitner & Doğan Saltaş (2015): Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level, Journal of Further and Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Karadeniz Teknik Universitesi] at 13:28 18 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320

Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level M. Naci Kayaoğlua*, Şakire Erbaya, Cristina Flitnerb and Doğan Saltaşa


a

Western Languages and Literature Department, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey; bCenter for International Relations, University of BOKU, Vienna, Austria (Received 17 June 2014; accepted 26 October 2014) Plagiarism continues to dominate the academic world as one of its greatest challenges, and the existing literature suggests cross-cultural investigation of this critical issue may help all shareholders who detect, are confronted by and struggle with this issue to address it. Therefore, the present study, drawing upon a cross-cultural investigation using a questionnaire, aimed to investigate the differences between three groups of students, namely, Turkish (n = 106), Georgian (n = 83) and German (n = 72) regarding their tendency to conduct academic theft. It also investigated ways in which to plagiarise and reasons for and awareness of this issue. The results show that lack of time, busy schedules and weak academic writing skills are the most frequent reasons for plagiarism. However, in contrast to previous studies, the role of the Internet was found to be minimal in relation to increasing plagiarism. It is also worth noting that the German participants were found to have a higher level of sensitivity to this academic malpractice and were seen to be much more successful at identifying it. The article concludes with workable suggestions on how to discourage academic theft at universities. Keywords: plagiarism; academic dishonesty; perception; cross-cultural; awareness

Introduction For over 60 years, the tendency to cheat among students as one form of academic dishonesty has been a common concern within academic and teaching circles, characterised by a large existing literature from various contexts (Ashworth et al. 1997; Chao et al. 2009). Among these cheating behaviours, plagiarism has attracted much attention. To complicate the matter even further, some scholars, including Shenton (2012), describe it as ‘one of the greatest challenges currently facing academia’ (10). The tendency of students to see writing as a product rather than a process *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2015 UCU


2

M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

(Ellery 2008) may increase plagiarism, thereby complicating the picture even further. Although the topic of plagiarism is a contentious one in academic circles, there seems to be little disagreement on the literal definition found in a standard English dictionary, at least in most academic institutions. Although there are several variant definitions of plagiarism, it is commonly described as stealing others’ ideas and presenting them as one’s own thoughts (Park 2003). That said, however, there appears to be no consistent definition of plagiarism (Aziz et al. 2012). This may in part be explained by dissention over the meaning of the word by those who are aware of it, but it may also be due to a lack of universal knowledge of the term itself. Certainly, cultural differences can play a role in differing perspectives as any discourse on culture is complex as a result of variations within groups and subgroups in a nearly infinite number of contexts. Literature review Plagiarism in practice: cultural differences In the geographical context, numerous studies have explored possible differences in culture to explain discrepancies in perception, policy and enforcement, especially with respect to Eastern and Western societies (Ramanathan and Kaplan 1996). The theory is that Western values tend toward individualism and Eastern toward collectivism (Kutz et al. 2011). Ammari (2010) also refers to the possible culture clash between Eastern and Western values when overseas students are confronted by cultural expectations for which they have not been prepared or made aware of. It is noted that in Western academic institutions, writing is about the use of sources to extract new meaning and develop a ‘voice of one’s own’ rather than reproducing text (Sun 2012). This may prove challenging to Asian students who have not been taught to develop a voice of their own or ‘reach new meaning through interaction with the text’ (Abasi et al. 2006, cited in Sun 2012, 304). Another aspect that should be considered within the context of plagiarism and cultural diversity is that of common knowledge. Amsberry (2010) states that the idea of common knowledge varies in Asian and Western cultures, giving rise to different interpretations about whether copying is considered a form of plagiarism. However, the question about what constitutes common knowledge appears to extend beyond the borders of East and West. Amsberry also underlines that multiple interpretations exist, which extend beyond students and faculties. Hayes and Introna (2005) reported that the number of non-European students in the UK increased by 39% between 1996–1997 and 2002–2003. The authors of the study state that plagiarism by non-Western students in the UK is frequently the result of cultural influences of an intricate and


Journal of Further and Higher Education

3

contextual nature. As background information, they examined previous research investigating plagiarism as it applied to both Western and overseas students in Western institutions. The reasons given were as follows: unclear ideas about the definition of plagiarism, lack of universally clear policy per institution, differences in detection and handling the problem, lack of time, the pressure of assignment-based assessment, and poor time management skills. A possible outcome of the above issues is students’ lack of interest and effort due to dissatisfaction with the course. Hayes and Introna also list different academic experience at home, time pressure, fear of failure, doubts about their ability to improve on a given text, preference for using the original and lack of writing experience as reasons for non-European students’ plagiarism. Similarly, Amsberry (2010) provides a review of some of the cultural factors that may account for ‘textual borrowing’ by international students. These factors may include students’ lack of preparation and their lack of awareness of Western academic writing standards, which may result in unintentional plagiarism. Moreover, Western writing conventions may represent a substantial stumbling block for non-Westerners due also to their belonging to a collective value system rather than an individual one. In terms of technical vocabulary and within the discussion of patch writing, Amsberry (2010) refers to others who state that altering technical words via paraphrasing would result in loss of meaning and therefore could justify ‘borrowing’ in the scientific context, where meaning takes priority over originality of expression. Furthermore, non-native speakers may have difficulty in identifying words that should be paraphrased and words that should remain unchanged. In other words, the border between technical and non-specialist vocabulary would most likely be unclear for non-native speakers, increasing their tendency to copy text verbatim. Reasons for plagiarism Park (2003) also provides several reasons for plagiarism as stated in the existing literature: lack of understanding of the basics of academic writing, the tendency to save time and effort, lack of trust in teachers, self-deception about their own cheating, including justifying or blaming others for it, little risk of being caught and minor punishment if caught. Sun (2012) adds to this list the inability to adequately paraphrase. In addition to the reasons outlined above, the Internet has been blamed for the increasing amount of plagiarism witnessed in recent years. In a study on Internet use in the UK, Selwyn (2008) found that approximately threefifths of the 1,222 participating undergraduate students in the UK selfreported having engaged in some online plagiarism in the previous year. While acknowledging that the Internet is a major and ubiquitous presence at higher institutions of learning, Selwyn cautions against allowing ‘the


4


relative novelty of the internet to obscure the underlying issues behind this data’ (476). Furthermore, due to the lack of restrictions on the Internet, students also perceive the information as theirs for the taking; in other words, as a kind of well of information that they are free to dip into at will (Gomez 2012; Park 2003). Gomez points to a common misunderstanding between ‘use and ownership’ and makes the further distinction between everyday practice and use of the Internet and use for academic work. Similar thoughts are expressed by Kutz et al. (2011), who note that the availability of free materials with no author encourages students to use them as their own. nother factor is the influence of social media and non-academic use of the Internet. Park (2003) suggests that the use of social media and other online leisure activities blurs the line between what is acceptable and what is not. Many students fail to draw a line between their personal use, which may involve the taking and using of a variety of information available online without restrictions (Bolin 2010) and Internet use for academic purposes. In addition, Trinchera (2002) notes that the Internet has allowed ‘new methods of plagiarism’ to develop, in particular the practice of ‘cutting and pasting’. According to Trinchera, the cutting and pasting method of writing bypasses important learning skills: paraphrasing, critical thinking and proper researching. Although Trinchera infers that instruction on proper citation should be the job of faculty, he discusses how the role of the librarian can provide support in teaching students to use online sources correctly, namely, through further training. An additional important factor to be considered in relation to the growing tendency for students to engage in textual borrowing is the influence of their peers. Students seem to feel that the likelihood of being caught is minimal and that they are justified in doing what everyone else is doing (Selwyn 2008). Carrell et al. (2008) concentrated on peer influence as a contributing factor in US military academies. While they acknowledge that the military setting might differ considerably from that of US universities, the study does confirm that peer cheating has a considerable effect on individual cheating. Other research points to a new and distinct set of values, referred to as ‘post-modern’, which contrast with more ‘traditional-modern’ values (Gross 2011). Among post-modern trends is leaning toward the idea of communal property; that is, a move away from private ownership, which would also include a distancing from the idea of textual ownership, traditional rules about citation, authority and academic objectivity. Discouraging plagiarism In order to resolve the problem of plagiarism, electronic detection methods are increasingly used (and referred to in the existing literature). In particular,



5

the software program Turnitin.com® enables tutors to better detect plagiarism (Jocoy and DiBiase 2006). Similar conclusions were reached by Chao et al. (2009), who suggest that program such as Turnitin.com® can be positively presented to students in the form of an additional tool to prescreen their writing for signs of plagiarism. The authors, however, suggest that further instruction on and practice in documenting and paraphrasing are imperative in order to reduce plagiarism. Likewise, Okoro (2011) states that relying on Turnitin.com® or similar software detection programs is no substitute for ‘consistent and collective’ efforts on the part of faculty to educate students thoroughly by issuing clear instructions, requiring draft papers and providing individual tutoring. Kutz et al. (2011) also support the statement that software programs such as Turnitin.com® and SafeAssign® might be helpful but certainly are not ‘foolproof’. A similar viewpoint is expressed by Postle (2009), who outlines some of the limitations of Turnitin.com®, which include inability to locate copied text from written materials unavailable on the Internet and inability to distinguish between correctly and incorrectly referenced quotations. Postle also asserts that detection does not contribute to the learning process. Masters (2005) refers to the dual function of correct citation practice. The first and probably most commonly mentioned reason is to give credit to the author. Perhaps educators would be wise to remind their students of the second function of correct citation, namely, to ensure accuracy of content. Masters also underlines the importance of accuracy in academic writing, and encourages the use of primary sources whenever possible in order to avoid misquoting and misinformation. Furthermore, Masters clearly shows the consequences of a misquotation in a particular case by showing the replication of the error when the article was picked up by subsequent writers and reproduced in multiple publications. Noting that further training on avoiding plagiarism by the instructor may not be sufficient for teaching students to think critically with regard to using multiple sources, Callison (2006) suggests collaboration, in particular between media specialists, instructors and students, providing concrete ideas on creating projects that emphasise the sharing of ideas in relation to students’ own contributions. This strategy places the focus on learning to form new ideas by building on existing acknowledged sources. On the point of responsibility, Hrasky and Kronenberg (2011) imply that students currently bear the full weight of error and conclude that the best way to reduce plagiarism is by shifting the entire responsibility from the student alone to one that is shared by student, staff and institution. Methodology Aiming to cast further light on the subject of plagiarism, the present study drew on a cross-cultural survey conducted with university students from


6


three different countries: Turkey, Germany and Georgia. The impetus for the study comes from daily-life concerns of the researchers. When the researchers from different countries came together at a conference, quite similar concerns regarding the frequency of this kind of academic dishonesty were commonly articulated despite the diversity of their educational contexts. This study was a response to immediate practical necessity. More specifically, it was the result of a shared desire to examine differences and similarities between experiences of plagiarism in varying cultures. While the Turkish participants were students majoring in English (n = 106), their Georgian and German counterparts merely have an English-medium education (n = 83, n = 72, respectively). All the participants were second-year students, and they were found to have taken approximately the same number of writing credits at their institutions. Furthermore, all stated that they were familiar with the rules of academic writing, as they had taken academic writing courses. Convenience sampling was preferred because the study aimed to collect in-depth data in a less complicated and expensive way than is necessary when generalising the findings to wider populations (Cohen et al. 2007). The study draws upon a survey as the main data-gathering technique, and the questionnaire was the fruit of a detailed literature review. The researchers adapted the questionnaires designed by Hochstein et al. (2008), who conducted a survey with 128 undergraduate and graduate degree students in Ohio to explore students’ self-perception regarding their understanding of plagiarism, and by Wilkinson (2009), who similarly conducted a survey with undergraduate nursing students to understand the frequency of this malpractice, reasons for committing it and perceptions of its seriousness. The final questionnaire comprised a wide range of mostly closed and structured items, including dichotomous, multiple-choice, ratio scales and constant sum questions. It aimed to gather information on demographics, ways to plagiarise, reasons for academic theft and participant awareness regarding plagiarism. As confidentiality was assured because the questionnaires were completed at the participants’ own convenience with no risk of revealing their identity (Cohen et al. 2007), it was hoped that they would provide honest answers to the sensitive questions. Furthermore, the participants were fully informed about the aims of the study and how the results would be used. Their informed consent was also obtained. To deal with intelligibility and instrument reliability concerns, four PhD candidates with MAs and two experts in the field were asked to check the format of the instrument, ensure the absolute clarity of the items and avoid possible comprehension problems. A few wording issues were tackled as a result of common consensus and the format was altered to make it more participantfriendly. The self-administered questionnaires were completed when the researchers were absent. The SPSS Version 20.0 program was used to perform the numerical analysis. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were



7

employed to describe and present the data theme by theme. To investigate the differences between the three groups, the Kruskal–Wallis test, as the non-parametric equivalent of analysis of variance, was conducted. The level of significance was set at 0.05. The findings were organised around three main sub-categories: (1) forms of unwanted behaviour in academic writing, (2) reasons for plagiarism, and (3) plagiarism awareness; these were presented via cross-tabulations. While explaining the statistics in the tables below, the researchers mostly preferred to add the frequencies and percentages so as to stress the general attitude clearly and avoid the risk of repetition of similar sets of data. For instance, while elaborating on copying a whole source without giving citation as one form of plagiarism, summarised in Table 1, the researchers added the percentages of rarely (R) and never (N) (29.2% and 47.2%, respectively) for the Turkish participants and reached a total of 76.4%. This total high percentage of the two negative answers was interpreted as the low frequency of this unwanted behaviour among the Turkish participants. Findings The quantitative data analysis of the questionnaires aims to illustrate the forms of plagiarism and the reasons why the participants coming from three different countries opt to plagiarise in their written assignments. It also attempts to present participants’ awareness of plagiarism. At the end of the questionnaire, ten extracts taken from various academic sources were provided to the participants. Three of the extracts were plagiarised, and the rest were academically appropriate. The participants were asked to identify whether the extracts were plagiarised or not. The results are presented below. Forms of plagiarism These five questionnaire items aimed to identify which forms of plagiarism the participants use in their written assignment. Table 1 summarises the results related to these problematic behaviours. Although there are differences among the three nationalities, it can be clearly seen that copying a whole source without providing a reference is not a common behaviour. Most of the Turkish students (76.4%, the added percentages of rarely and never) stated that they do not copy. Similarly, it can be seen that this tendency is not common among German students either (n = 32 out of 72). However, when compared with these two groups, the Georgians were much more frequently found to copy a whole source without taking citation rules into consideration; 23 participants stated that they frequently copy sources. Still, 51.3% (the added percentages of rarely and never) of the Georgian participants were found not to copy.

1 0.9 3 2.8 5 4.8 3 2.9 2 1.9

A*

O 1 0.9 3 2.8 5 4.8 3 2.9 2 1.9

Notes: *A = always; O = often; R = rarely’; N = never.

n % 2. Using articles from the Internet n % 3. Doing an individual work with a n friend % 4. Paying others to do your homework n % 5. Using a paragraph without source n %

1. Copying a whole source

Items

Table 1. Forms of plagiarism.

19 17.9 32 30.2 34 32.7 11 10.5 21 20

S

R 31 29.2 34 32.1 29 27.9 6 5.7 22 21

Turkish 50 47.2 33 31.1 27 26 83 79 52 49.5

N 3 4.2 – – – – – – – –

A 9 12.5 4 5.6 1 1.4 4 5.6 – –

O 28 38.9 4 5.6 17 23.6 3 4.2 4 5.6

S

R 14 19.4 12 16.7 28 38.9 9 12.5 17 23.6

German 18 25 52 72.2 26 36.1 56 77.8 52 70.8

N


3 3.8 6 7.5 4 4.8 7 8.4 – –

A

20 25 10 12.5 12 14.5 8 9.6 – –

O

16 20 27 33.8 20 24.1 10 12 20 24.1

S

R 25 31.3 14 17.5 15 18.1 7 8.4 20 24.1

Georgian 16 20 23 28.7 32 38.6 51 61.4 33 39.8

N

8 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.



9

The second problematic behaviour is using articles from the Internet or web-based studies without providing references. More than half of the Turkish students (n = 67) stated that they do not steal from the Internet. The results reflect the same picture for the German students, in that 64 of the participants wrote that they rarely or never use the Internet for this reason. Lastly, although the percentage is a little bit lower for the Georgians, almost half of the participants (46.2%) stated that they do not misuse the Internet for their assignments. As Table 1 illustrates, completing an assignment alone when they are supposed to do so is a much more common behaviour than copying without referencing and stealing from the Internet. While 53.9% of the Turkish students were found not to collaborate with their friends, the other half stated that they study individually even when they are not expected to do so. German participants also prefer not to collaborate with their friends (75%). The Georgians were found to be similar to the Turks in terms of collaboration rates in their individual studies, as half of the participants (56.7%) stated that they do not tend to study with their friends to complete their individual work. The fourth problematic behaviour is paying others to do their homework. As Table 1 clearly shows, there is considerable agreement in all three groups: most participants do not offer money to others to complete their homework – 84.7, 90.3, and 69.8%, respectively. The last behaviour is using a paragraph they need without providing a reference. According to the results obtained by adding the percentages of rarely and never in Table 1, this behaviour is not common among the three nationalities. While 70.5% of the Turkish participants stated that they keep away from this habit, 94.4% of the German were found to respond negatively to it. Along similar lines, more than half of the Georgians (63.9%) wrote that they do not place paragraphs in their assignments without giving sources The overall picture of the findings presented in Table 1 shows that the degree of tolerance for these problematic behaviours is low in all groups although the sensitivity of Germans is much higher than that of Turks and the Georgians, respectively. Reasons for plagiarism In addition to identifying forms of plagiarism, the questionnaire also addresses the reasons why the participants tend to plagiarise in their written assignments. The data presented in Table 2 concerns seven commonly stated reasons in the existing literature. The first possible reason for plagiarism is having a busy schedule and being lazy. Although 27.2% of the Turkish participants attributed plagiarism to a busy schedule and laziness, more than half of them (52.4%) did not

n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

7 6.8 4 3.9 4 3.8 2 1.9 1 1 4 3.8 9 8.7

SA 21 20.4 23 22.3 4 3.8 6 5.8 16 15.4 17 16.3 26 25

A 20 19.4 19 18.4 19 18.3 16 15.5 13 12.5 15 14.4 19 18.3

N

D 33 32 29 28.2 37 35.6 27 26.2 35 33.7 32 30.8 35 33.7

Turkish 21 20.4 28 27.2 40 38.5 52 50.5 39 37.5 36 34.6 15 24.4

SD 7 9.7 7 9.7 3 4.2 – – 4 5.6 1 1.4 8 11

SA 6 8.3 13 18.1 4 5.6 – – 8 11.1 22 30.6 25 34.7

A

Notes: SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neutral; D = disagree; SD = strongly disagree.

7. Not knowing how to cite sources correctly

6. Not understanding homework

5. Homework load

4. Lack of serious consequences

2. Easyness of locating Internet sources 3. Unaware instruction

1. Busy schedule and laziness

Items

Table 2. Reasons for plagiarising.

11 15.3 12 16.7 28 38.9 19 26.4 24 33.3 18 25 16 22.2

N

D 15 20.8 25 34.7 23 31.9 31 43.1 16 22.2 23 31.9 11 15.3

German 33 45.8 15 20.8 14 19.4 22 30.6 20 27.8 8 11.1 12 16.7

SD


5 6 11 13.4 5 6.4 3 3.8 6 7.6 7 8.5 12 15

SA

35 42.2 15 18.3 24 30.8 20 25.6 27 34.2 12 14.6 20 25

A

16 19.3 28 34.1 31 39.7 26 33.3 22 27.8 26 31.7 31 38.8

N

D 12 14.5 14 17.1 11 14.1 21 26.9 10 12.7 29 35.4 8 10

Georgian 13 15.7 14 17.1 7 9 8 10.3 14 17.7 8 9.8 9 11.3

SD




11

agree with the statement. Similar results were found for the German participants: 18% accepted this statement but the majority (66.6%) did not. In contrast to the Turkish and German participants, almost half the Georgian students (48.2%) stated that they tend to plagiarise as a result of heavy schedules and laziness. Easy access to academic sources on the Internet is listed as one of the possible reasons for academic theft. The majority of the Turkish and German participants (55.4 and 55.5%, respectively) did not accept this convenience as the reason for plagiarism; their Georgian counterparts were almost equally divided on this issue (31.7 for and 34.2% against, respectively). One of the reasons cited for plagiarism in the existing literature is the fact that students believe that instructors are unlikely to recognise their plagiarised texts. The majority of the Turkish students (74.1%) and half of the Germans (51.3%) demonstrated negative reactions to this item. In contrast, the majority of the Georgian participants (70.5%) stated that they tend to plagiarise because their instructors might not recognise the academic theft in their written assignments. As Table 2 shows, the majority of the Turkish (76.7%) and German (73.7%) participants did not agree with the statement that the lack of serious penalties for plagiarism encouraged them to engage in academic theft, which shows that serious consequences for this unwanted behaviour discourage them from stealing others’ work. Fewer Georgian students (37.2%) would be discouraged from plagiarising the work of others as a result of harsh penalties. The results regarding homework load as a possible reason for plagiarism are similar for Turkish and German participants: most of them (71.2 and 50%, respectively) do not think this load is a cause of academic theft. The Georgians however differed: 41.8% agree that the amount of homework is one reasons for plagiarism; only 30.4% do not regard it as such. Table 2 also shows the role played by not understanding an assignment in the tendency to commit academic theft. Although 20.1% of the Turkish students stated that they tend to plagiarise when they do not fully understand the task, most of them (65.4%) still do not see it as an excuse. Similarly, there were more negative than positive responses to this item among the Germans (43.5 and 32%, respectively). Along similar lines, most of the Georgians (45.2%) did not find an unclear assignment a possible reason for plagiarism. The last possible reason for academic theft is not knowing how to cite correctly. As Table 2 shows, more than half of the Turkish participants (58.1%, the total percentage of disagreement and strong disagreement) disagreed with this. This finding can be interpreted as demonstrating that more than half of the Turkish participants were familiar with the basic rules of academic writing. However, fewer German students were found to know

12



correct citation rules (31%). A much lower percentage of Georgians (21%) knew how to cite sources correctly. Awareness of plagiarism The last part of the questionnaire aimed to elicit each group of students’ awareness of plagiarism. The participants were provided with 10 sample extracts, three of which were not plagiarised. As Table 3 illustrates, although the Germans were most successful at identifying plagiarised text, most of the participants in the other two groups were also able to do so. The second extract was an unproblematic citation and most of the students in all three groups gave the correct answer to the question. Ninety per cent of the German and Turkish participants answered this question correctly. The third extract was plagiarised; however, more students answered this question wrongly than correctly. Almost 70% of the Turks and Germans provided the wrong answer and 65.8% of the Georgians did so. The fourth extract was plagiarised, and most of the participants in all three groups managed to identify the problem, although the Germans (88.9%) were more successful than the Georgians and Turks (63.6 and 59.6%, respectively). The fifth extract was not plagiarised, and most of the Table 3. Awareness of plagiarism. Turkish

Items 1. Plagiarised 2. Not plagiarised 3. Plagiarised 4. Plagiarised 5. Not plagiarised 6. Plagiarised 7. Plagiarised 8. Plagiarised 9. Not plagiarised 10. Pagiarised

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

German

Georgian

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

72 69.2 9 8.7 32 30.8 62 59.6 6 5.9 34 33.7 28 27.5 30 29.1 30 29.1 59 56.7

32 30.8 95 91.3 72 69.2 42 40.4 95 94.1 67 66.3 74 72.5 73 70.9 73 70.9 45 43.3

56 77.8 7 9.7 21 29.2 64 88.9 5 6.9 31 43.1 34 47.2 12 16.7 34 47.2 64 88.9

16 22.2 65 90.3 51 70.8 8 11.1 67 93.1 41 56.9 38 52.8 60 83.3 38 52.8 8 11.1

40 49.4 32 43.8 27 34.2 49 63.6 34 43 31 41.9 23 31.1 19 26 32 43.2 48 64

38 46.9 41 56.2 52 65.8 28 36.4 45 57 43 58.1 51 68.9 54 74 42 56.8 27 36

Turkish German Georgian T G G T G G T G G T G G

1. Copying a whole source

5. Using a paragraph without a source

4. Paying others to do homework

3. Doing individual work with a friend

2. Using articles from the Internet

Groups

Items

Table 4. Test statistics of forms of plagiarism.

106 72 80 106 72 80 104 72 83 105 72 83 105 72 83

n 157.20 112.87 107.77 120.97 172.08 102.48 118.88 148.33 128.04 138.54 138.65 113.26 124.98 161.17 110.87

Mean rank

21.668

10.538

7.224

39.282

26.883

Chi-square


2

2

2

2

2

df

.000

0.05

0.27

.000

.000

Asymp. sig.

Journal of Further and Higher Education 13


14


students in all groups gave the wrong answer; however, this time the Georgians were much more successful at identifying the text correctly. The sixth extract was plagiarised, yet most of the participants gave the wrong answer. Again, the Georgians were more successful in answering this question (41.9%). The seventh text was plagiarised; however, the majority of the Turks and Georgians could not provide the correct answer. Nearly half of the Germans managed to identify the correct answer. The eighth item included a plagiarised text, but the majority of the participants in all three groups gave the wrong answer. The ninth item included an unproblematic extract, and most of the participants in all three groups gave the correct answer. However, the results show that the Turkish participants were more successful than their German and Georgian counterparts: 70.9% answered correctly. The last extract was plagiarised, and most of the participants in each group gave the correct answer. However, the Germans (88.9%) were more successful than the Georgians and the Turks (64 and 56.7%, respectively). Overall, it can be seen that the German participants were much more successful at identifying plagiarism in sample academic texts than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts. The Georgian students follow the Germans, and the Turkish participants come last. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test A Kruskal–Wallis test, which is the non-parametric alternative to the oneway ANOVA, was also conducted to investigate group differences among the three nationalities. The results are tabulated below. The Kruskal–Wallis statistics were calculated to identify the differences between the nationalities regarding their plagiarism habits and unwanted behaviours in academic writing. Results indicate that there are statistically significant differences regarding all five behaviours among the three groups as displayed in Table 4. When the test statistics were calculated to determine whether there is any difference in the act of copying a whole source without taking citation rules into account in written assignments, of the three groups (x² = 26.883, p = 0.000 < 0.05), a statistically significant difference was found between the groups. The results show that it is much more common among the Turkish participants, with a mean rank of 157.20. Similarly, the results regarding use of articles from the Internet or webbased academic studies without providing references show that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups, and the German participants do this more frequently than the Turks and Georgians (mean rank = 172.08). A statistically significant difference between the groups was also found for completing an individual task with a friend (x² = 7224, p = 0.027 < 0.05). The Germans, with a mean rank of 148.33, were found to do so more frequently than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts. In relation to



15

paying others to do their work, the difference between the groups is statistically significant (x² = 10.538, p = 0.05 < 0.05), and both the Turkish and German participants were found to have thought about doing so. Lastly, a significant difference was found between groups regarding the use of one paragraph without providing a reference, and the Germans were again found to be guiltier of this behaviour than the Turks and Georgians. In addition to identifying forms of plagiarism, Kruskal–Wallis statistics were calculated to see whether the three groups differ in their reasons for plagiarism in academic writing. Table 5 summarises the findings in a comparative way. Similar to the results regarding forms of unwanted behaviour in academic writing, the results in Table 5 indicate that there are statistically significant differences regarding all reasons for plagiarism among the three groups. A statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding their tendency to plagiarise as a result of busy schedules and their own laziness (x² = 18.215, p = 0.000 < 0.05). The results show that this reason was much more frequently given by the Germans, with a mean rank of 155.99. Similarly, the results regarding the ease with which the Internet allows for access to academic sources show that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups, and the Turkish participants were found to state this reason more frequently than the Germans and Georgians (mean rank = 139.30). Again, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups for the item asking whether instructors’ lack of awareness of plagiarised texts may be a reason for academic theft (x² = 48.734, p = 0.000 < 0.05). Again, the Turkish participants, with a mean rank of 158.97, were found to state this as a reason for their unwanted behaviour. The lack of serious consequences was stated as one of the causes of plagiarism among the students, and the Turks, with a mean rank 152.65, were found to state this reason much more frequently than the Germans and Georgians. Similarly, a statistically significant difference was found for homework load and problems with understanding homework; again, more Turks gave these as two reasons for plagiarism. Lastly, the analysis indicates a statistically significant difference between the groups (x² = 5995, p = 0.000 < 0.05) in terms of their awareness of citation rules. The results in Table 6 indicate that there are statistically significant differences between the groups in their responses to the first two items; the Georgian and Turkish participants provided the most correct answers to the first and second items, with mean ranks of 150.43 and 138.23. There is no statistically significant difference for the third item (p = 0.792 > 0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found for the fourth and fifth items, in both of which the Turkish participants provided the correct answer more frequently. Again, the difference between the groups in the sixth item was not statistically different (x² = 1.960, p = 0.375 > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was found for the seventh item but not the

Turkish German Georgian T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G

1. Busy schedule and laziness

7. Not knowing how to cite sources correctly

6. Not understanding homework

5. Homework load

4. Lack of serious consequences

3. Unaware instructors

2. Eeasyness of locating Internet sources

Groups

Items

Table 5. Test statistics of reasons for plagiarism.

103 72 83 103 72 82 104 72 78 103 72 78 104 72 79 104 72 82 104 72 80

n 129.90 155.99 106.02 139.30 132.47 113.02 158.97 128.35 84.76 152.65 138.13 82.86 150.53 129.72 96.77 150.97 113.33 116.46 141.46 123.22 116.41

Mean rank

5.995

15.458

25.365

46.391

48.734

6.235

18.215

Chi-square


2

2

2

2

2

2

2

df

.000

.000

0.000

.000

.000

0.44

.000

Sump. sig.


Turkish German Georgian T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G T G G

1. Plagiarised

10. Plagiarised

9. Not plagiarised

8. Plagiarised

7. Plagiarised

6. Plagiarised

5. Not plagiarised

4. Plagiarised

3. Plagiarised

2. Not plagiarised

Groups

Items 104 72 81 104 72 73 104 72 79 104 72 77 101 72 79 101 72 74 102 72 74 103 72 73 103 72 74 104 72 75

n

Table 6. Test statistics of awareness of plagiarism.

123.58 112.72 150.43 138.23 136.90 94.42 128.77 130.81 124.42 139.09 102.06 134.00 141.51 140.25 94.77 130.43 118.83 120.26 132.96 108.44 128.46 118.88 134.33 122.73 136.74 114.21 119.16 140.30 99.94 131.18

Mean rank

21.018

6.808

3.646

7.770

1.960

49.575

18.612

.467

39.899

15.720

Chi-square


2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

df

0.000

0.33

.162

0.21

.375

.000

.000

.792

.000

.000

Asymp. sig.

Journal of Further and Higher Education 17

18



eighth. The results indicate that there are statistically significant differences between the groups in the last two items; the Turkish participants provided the most correct answers, with mean ranks of 136.74 and 140.30. Discussion and conclusion The aim of the present study was to find out whether university students from Turkey, Germany and Georgia differ in their tendency to engage in academic malpractice, their justification for doing so and their level of awareness of this issue. The findings show that these three countries show both similarities and differences regarding students’ tendency to plagiarise, their so-called justification and their level of sensitivity regarding this issue. As is evident from the analysis above, no students in the three groups were found to be frequently engaging in online plagiarism. In the pursuit of an answer to the question of why they plagiarise, the researchers found that the participants who do so from time to time justified their actions by alluding to lack of time, busy schedules and weak academic skills, which sometimes urge them to take others’ words and ideas without due acknowledgement. These findings concur with those of Wilkinson (2009), who found lack of understanding of citation rules, laziness and bad time management to be the commonest reasons for this malpractice. What is most telling about these findings is that the German participants were found to be more sensitive to academic theft than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts. While all three groups stated that the problems in their assignments resulted from their weak academic skills and lack of adequate information about the issue rather than from their intention to cheat, the German participants seemed more hesitant about committing this type of academic malpractice. Given the media coverage of recent plagiarism scandals in Germany, German students may be especially aware that they ought to avoid this practice. For instance, the Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was forced to resign when it was discovered that he had copied some of the material in his doctoral dissertation from other sources (Kimmelman 2011). This could be an important point to make, as these scandals seem to have an impact on students’ perceptions, i.e. the dire consequences of plagiarism such as loss of position and reputation. This point would also confirm that, despite often conflicting research results found in the existing literature, attitudes toward and occurrence of plagiarism seem to be, to some extent, determined by the particular institution and its policies rather than a ‘purely’ cultural phenomenon. Moreover, when students believe or realise that legal procedures outlawing plagiarism are not properly followed, they tend to plagiarise more. However, in the case of Germany, high profile individuals were investigated for and charged with plagiarism, indicating not only that detection is possible, but also that it can be conducted even on work completed years before, and measures can be taken retroactively to rectify any



19

misconduct. The fear factor may thus lie at the root of the higher sensitivity to plagiarism seen in the German participants. It should also be noted that German students practise citation at high school (Shi 2006), and this may also serve as a reason why the German participants were found to be much more successful at identifying the plagiarised texts in the last part of the questionnaire and more aware of the ways in which to avoid it in their academic life. In the case of Turkey, it was found that the Turkish participants were less sensitive than their German counterparts, although this difference was not statistically significant. This could be related to the ‘“textbook based” teaching approach’ (Hayes and Introna 2005, 225), which refers to focusing on the material in the textbook and asking students to write down what they recall in the exams. This means that teachers do not encourage students to analyse and synthesise to obtain information, and interpretations and comments may not be openly welcome by teachers who see themselves as the authority on information production and sharing. To complicate the matter even further, as Turkish students learn English as a second language, one which they have no chance of using in writing or speaking outside the classroom, they may feel a lack of confidence in their English, and as a result, as highlighted by Hayes and Introna (2005), tend to use others’ words to formulate their thoughts. In addition, it should be noted that Turkey has an exam-driven education system in which exam scores determine which school or university the students can attend. Because such exams largely determine their future, this over-assessment, as noted by Carroll (2002) and Wilkinson (2009), puts pressure on students to obtain high marks; thus, they naturally do not feel hesitant about plagiarising in order to achieve high exam scores. It should also be noted that plagiarism may go unpunished in Turkey and this, in turn, encourages students to avoid making due acknowledgement in their assignments. In addition, Unal et al. (2012) maintain that satisfactory awareness-raising activities have not been held for students in vocational schools, universities and graduate programmes in Turkey. What is more, there are mainly two types of penalty for this kind of academic theft, namely, a warning and expulsion from the institution. As the latter is regarded as a severe punishment, the former is mostly administered; however, it cannot deter people from committing this academic malpractice. Moreover, ambiguous legislative language concerning violation of academic ethics makes effective handling of the problem difficult. The ethics boards at various Turkish universities may administer quite different penalties for similar examples of plagiarism. Hence, this kind of academic malpractice has recently become more prevalent recently in Turkey. Lastly, Georgian participants in the present study tended to plagiarise more frequently than their German and Turkish counterparts. The underlying explanation for this could be the fact that Georgia is a Eurasian country, which is geographically located in both Western Asia and Eastern Europe;


20


thus, it is natural for it to reflect the cultural learning tradition of Asia. As Hayes and Introna (2005) point out, in Asian culture, memorisation and using the words of high-profile and important figures are of the utmost importance, and hence students may plagiarise unintentionally not to deceive but rather to show their respect for and appreciation of authority. In addition, a lack of confidence in their English may foster this academic malpractice in Georgia. However, these findings should not be understood as meaning that all Georgian students steal others’ ideas and thoughts in their academic work. While the present article has furthered knowledge and understanding of the issue, it cannot make fixed generalisations about any of these countries, including Georgia. Rather, it can provide food for thought, and the results could be extended by further qualitative studies. The overall findings outlined above suggest that a consensus on tendency to plagiarise is still some way off across all cultures. A disparity is clearly evident between the findings of the present study and existing literature regarding the role of the Internet on the increasing tendency to cheat (see, for example, Selwyn 2008; Ramzan et al. 2012); here, the majority of the participants in all the three groups were found to rarely or never engage in online plagiarism. However, the findings were consistent with earlier research in which lack of time and weak academic writing skills, i.e. not knowing how to cite sources correctly, were stated as a justification for cheating (Hayes and Introna 2005; Cheema et al. 2011). What is more, it is worth noting that the German participants were found to be much more successful than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts at identifying instances of plagiarism in sample texts. This, however, may indicate conscious and deliberate effort on the part of lecturers to diminish plagiarism. Contrary to the present study, Holt (2012) found that most of the American students representing the Western world were unable to identify problematic texts. Given the current trend of rising numbers of students to declining numbers of staff, this problem necessitates no less than a systemic approach, requiring institutions to examine not only their definitions of correct citation practices but also their role in deciding on how this definition is to be adapted in various disciplines; they must commit themselves to instruction in, compliance with and fair enforcement of that definition. Achieving these goals would probably need to involve students as participating partners, as involvement in the process would most likely ensure a vested interest in both the procedure and the outcome (e.g. Bolin 2010). In this spirit of collaboration, it might benefit educators to present citation practices as an equitable way of sharing information and ideas as opposed to simply taking without proper attribution (see, for example, Callison 2006; Kutz et al. 2011). In addition, the literature shows that academic institutions have difficulty in agreeing on what this problem is and how to address it. Clearly, it cannot be wise to expect students to follow the rules that institutions have failed to define clearly. Therefore, in order to enhance academic integrity,



21

academic authorities should determine clear frameworks regarding what plagiarism is and how to avoid it to enhance academic integrity. As misunderstandings among students about proper citation practices confuse and discourage them further, it can be concluded that clarifying which acts constitute plagiarism is vital. Furthermore, in order for students to write carefully, their tutors should assure them that they are going to read their papers carefully. Lastly, although the researchers are aware of the lack of a ‘recipe’ for an infallible, workable solution that can serve every educational context, they believe that it could be of practical benefit to suggest some ways to mitigate this academic dishonesty at tertiary level. First, as awareness-raising is at the core of the issue, a formal identity could be given to the attempt to solve this problem by formally integrating it as a curriculum module. Second, in line with Divan et al.’s (2013) suggestion, organising writing development training programmes to help students solve those writing problems that may be oiling the wheel of unintentional plagiarism may be of particular value. These programmes could be organised as practical workshops where students are shown real examples of plagiarism and ways to avoid it. In addition, writing centres in the form of ‘centres of excellence’ could be founded where students can get regular academic help. Furthermore, plagiarism detection software could be completely accessible to students rather than solely to lecturers, who frequently resort to using it as a kind of threat. Lastly, a formal declaration could be signed between the lecturer and student at the very beginning of the course so as to create a strong sense of collective responsibility for the work produced by students. The present study is not without limitations. As the second-year university students still have time to improve their academic behaviour, different results could be obtained with older students who develop greater awareness of plagiarism, show desirable academic behaviour and identify the problematic texts more successfully. This limitation justifies the need for further studies with older students so as to compare and contrast the findings and thus depict the situation holistically. Furthermore, the researchers are aware that the foregoing statistical data analysis could provide just a starting point to further elaborate in greater depth on possible justifications for this malpractice. Although the findings manage to give a comprehensive picture of plagiarism in these three different cultures, they are still incomplete and do not offer definitive answers without a qualitative dimension. Thus, it is of paramount importance to support the present data with further qualitative studies that could help reveal more about this type of academic malpractice –, in Snape and Spencer’s (2003, 23) words, ‘the level of meaning rather than cause’. To conclude, in keeping with Hrasky and Kronenberg (2011), who argue that on the point of responsibility, it is worth repeating that the best way to reduce plagiarism is by shifting the entire responsibility from the student alone to shared responsibility by student, staff and institution.

22


Notes on contributors


M. Naci Kayaoğlu holds a PhD from the University of Bristol. He is the author of Language Learning Strategies: Theory, Practice and Issues (2011) and co-author of Music, Language and Second Language Acquisition. He is the coordinator of the Applied Linguistics Graduate Programme (MA-PhD) at Karadeniz Technical University and has been supervising graduate studies for a long time. He has also published numerous articles and contributed to various projects. Lecturer Şakire Erbay holds an MA from the Applied Linguistic Department at Karadeniz Technical University. She is a PhD candidate in the same department. She is interested in English as an International Paradigm (EIL), teaching material evaluation and development, intercultural communicative competence, and critical language awareness. Cristina Flitner holds a US degree in Economics, plus an Italian Diploma in Painting and an Italian certificate in the restoration of wall and panel painting. She has over 20 years’ teaching experience in English as a foreign language in Italy and Austria. She is currently working as an English language instructor in Vienna on topics such as life sciences, technology and business English at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), the Technikum Wien and the BFI, Vienna. Doğan Saltaş holds a research assistant position at the Department of Western Languages and Literature at Karadeniz Technical University. He is a PhD candidate in the Applied Linguistic Department. He is interested in the integration of social media with education.

References Ammari, E. H. 2010. “Cyber Plagiarism and the Digital Revolution: A Cornucopia of Bona-vacantis?” Journal of Language and Literature 4: 4–16. Amsberry, D. 2010. “Deconstructing Plagiarism: International Students and Textual Borrowing Practices.” The Reference Library 51: 31–44. Ashworth, P., P. Bannister, and P. Thorne. 1997. “Guilty in Whose Eyes? University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating and Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment.” Studies in Higher Education 22 (2): 187–203. Aziz, J., F. Hashim, and N. A. Razak. 2012. “Anecdotes of Plagiarism: Some Pedagogical Issues and Considerations.” Asian Social Science 8 (10): 29–34. Bolin, B. 2010. “Addressing Plagiarism with Stasis Theory.” Currents in Teaching and Learning 2 (2): 13–21. Callison, D. 2006. “Key Words in Instruction: Plagiarism.” School Library Media Activities Monthly 3 (4): 41–45. Carrell, S. E., F. V. Malmstrom, and J. E. West. 2008. “Peer Effects in Academic Cheating.” The Journal of Human Resources 43 (1): 173–207. Carroll, J. 2002. “Suggestions for Teaching International Students More Effectively.” Learning and Teaching Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Brookes University. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/briefing-papers/internatio nal_students.pdf. Chao, C., W. J. Wilhelm, and B. D. Neureuther. 2009. “A Study of Electronic Detection and Pedagogical Approaches for Reducing Plagiarism.” Delta Pi Epsilon 51 (1): 31–42.



23

Cheema, Z. A., S. T. Mahmood, A. Mahmood, and M. A. Shah. 2011. “Conceptual Awareness of Research Scholars about Plagiarism at Higher Education Level: Intellectual Property Right and Patent.” International Journal of Academic Research 3 (1): 666–671. Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. Oxon: Routledge. Divan, A., M. Bowman, and A. Seabourne. 2013. “Reducing Unintentional Plagiarism amongst International Students in the Biological Sciences: An Embedded Academic Writing Development Programme.” Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.858674. Ellery, K. 2008. “Undergraduate Plagiarism: A Pedagogical Perspective.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5): 507–516. Gomez, G. 2012. “Do Easily Copied Internet Media in the Library Lead to Plagiarism?” Paper presented at The International Conference on Science and the Internet, Düsseldorf, Germany, 131–143. Accessed http://nfgwin.uni-duesseldorf. de/sites/default/files/Gomez.pdf Gross, E. R. 2011. “Clashing Values: Contemporary Views about Cheating and Plagiarism Compared to Traditional Beliefs and Practices.” Education 132 (2): 435–440. Hayes, N., and L. D. Introna. 2005. “Cultural Values, Plagiarism, and Fairness: When Plagiarism Gets in the Way of Learning.” Ethics and Behavior 15 (3): 213–231. Hochstein, D. D., J. Brewer, M. D. Steinke, and J. D. Taylor. 2008. “Examining the Issue of Academic Plagiarism: What Do Students at Wright State University Lake Campus Know about Plagiarism?” AURCO Journal 14: 59–81. Holt, E. 2012. “Education Improves Plagiarism Detection by Biology Undergraduates.” BioScience 62 (6): 585–592. Hrasky, S., and D. Kronenberg. 2011. “Curriculum Redesign as a Faculty-centred Approach to Plagiarism Reduction.” International Journal for Educational Integrity 7 (2): 23–36. Jocoy, C., and D. DiBiase. 2006. “Plagiarism by Adult Learners Online: A Case Study in Detection and Remediation.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 7 (1): 1–15. Kimmelman, M. 2011. “In Germany, Uproar over a Doctoral Thesis.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/books/merkels-possible-success orresigns-in-plagiarism-scandal.html?ref=plagiarism. Kutz, E., W. Rhodes, S. Sutherland, and V. Zamel. 2011. “Addressing Plagiarism in a Digital Age.” Journal of the Sociology of Self-knowledge 9 (3): 15–36. Masters, K. 2005. “Flawed Evidence: A Case Study of Misquoting and Inaccurate Referencing.” South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science 71 (3): 282–288. Okoro, E. 2011. “Academic Integrity and Student Plagiarism: Guided Instructional Strategies for Business Communication Assignments.” Business Communication Quarterly 74 (2): 173–178. Park, C. 2003. “In Other (People’s) Words: Plagiarism by University Students – Literature and Lessons.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (5): 471–488. Postle, K. 2009. “Detecting and Deterring Plagiarism in Social Work Students: Implications for Learning for Practice.” Social Work Education the International Journal 28 (4): 351–362.


24


Ramanathan, V., and R. B. Kaplan. 1996. “Audience and Voice in Current L1 Composition Texts: Some Implications for ESL Student Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing 5 (1): 21–34. Ramzan, M., M. A. Munir, N. Siddique, and M. Asif. 2012. “Awareness about Plagiarism amongst University Students in Pakistan.” The International of Higher Education 64 (1): 73–84. Selwyn, N. 2008. “‘Not Necessarily a Bad Thing…’: A Study of Online Plagiarism amongst Undergraduate Students.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5): 465–479. Shenton, A. K. 2012. “Plagiarism: A Nettle That Schools Must Grasp.” Education Journal 133: 10–14. Shi, L. 2006. “Cultural Backgrounds and Textual Appropriation.” Language Awareness 15 (4): 264–282. Snape, D., and L. Spencer. 2003. “The Foundations of Qualitative Research.” In Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, edited by J. Ritchie and J. Lewis, 2–23. London: Sage. Sun, Y. 2012. “Does Text Readability Matter? A Study of Paraphrasing and Plagiarism in English as a Foreign Language Writing Context.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 21 (2): 296–306. Trinchera, T. 2002. “Cut and Paste Plagiarism: What It is and What to Do about It.” Community & Junior College Libraries 10 (3): 5–9. Unal, M., M. Toprak, and V. Baspınar. 2012. “Bilim Etiğine Aykırı Davranıslar Ve Yaptırımlar: Sosyal Ve Beseri Bilimler Icin Bir Cerceve Onerisi.” [Ethical Violations and Sanctions in Scientific Publications: A Framework Proposal for Social Sciences and Humanities.] Amme İdaresi Dergisi 45 (3): 1–27. Wilkinson, J. 2009. “Staff and Student Perceptions of Plagiarism and Cheating.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20 (2): 98–105.