Conceptions of Plagiarism and Problems in Academic Writing in a Changing Landscape of External Regulation
- 761 Downloads
The aim of this study was to investigate the consequences of the use of text-matching software on teachers’ and students’ conceptions of plagiarism and problems in academic writing. An electronic questionnaire included scale items, structured questions, and open-ended questions. The respondents were 85 teachers and 506 students in a large Finnish university. Methods of analysis included exploratory factor analysis, t-test, and inductive content analysis. Both teachers and students reported increased awareness of plagiarism and improvements in writing habits, as well as concerns and limitations related to the system. The results suggest that teachers are inclined to think of plagiarism as part of a learning process rather an issue of morality, which may have consequences for how they understand the role of text matching. The introduction of text-matching software has supported teachers’ work, but at the same time teachers emphasized their own responsibility in detecting problems in student writing. The survey provides a limited sample of “Case Finland,” where implementation of text-matching software nationwide has been remarkably rapid; it offers a glimpse into one institution’s implementation of a newly introduced policy for mandatory plagiarism detection.
KeywordsAcademic writing Conceptions of plagiarism Text-matching software Student plagiarism
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 252813] to the first author.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
- Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language?: Plagiarism in writing. London: Pearson education.Google Scholar
- Bertram Gallant, T., & Kalichman, M. (2011). Academic ethics. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in the academy. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.), Creating the ethical academy. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 27–44). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Breen, L., & Maassen, M. (2005). Reducing the incidence of plagiarism in an undergraduate course: The role of education. Issues in Educational Research, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Crisp, G. (2007). Staff attitudes to dealing with plagiarism issues: Perspectives from one Australian university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 3(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
- Davies, L. J. P., & Howard, R. M. (2016). Plagiarism and the Internet. Fears, facts, and pedagogies. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 591–606). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
- Davis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software? International Journal of Educational Integrity, 5(2), 58–70.Google Scholar
- Ellis, C. (2012). Streamlining plagiarism detection: The role of electronic assessment management. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 46–56.Google Scholar
- Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012) Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Retrieved 12 Feb 2014 from http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf.
- Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. Helsinki. http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2015.
- George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11, 233–245.Google Scholar
- Howard, R. M., & Davies, L. J. P. (2009). Plagiarism in the Internet age. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 64–67.Google Scholar
- Jamieson, S. (2016). Is it plagiarism or patchwriting? Toward a nuanced definition. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 503–518). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
- Jurowska, J. E., & Thompson, J. P. (2012). “opening doors early to academic integrity” – Aiding the transition to and managing expectations of academic practice at university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 4–20.Google Scholar
- Löfström, E. (2011). “Does plagiarism mean anything? LOL” Students’ conceptions of writing and citing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 257–275.Google Scholar
- Löfström, E., & Kupila, P. (2013). The instructional challenges of student plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(3), 231–242.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2013). Research design explained (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Savage, S. (2004). Staff and student responses to a trial of Turnitin plagiarism detection software. In Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum (pp. 2–7).Google Scholar
- Serviss, T. (2016). Creating faculty development programming to prevent plagiarism: Three approaches. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 551–567). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
- Tuhkanen, T. (Ed.) (2014). Sähköinen plagiaatintunnistus Suomen korkeakouluissa 2013 (In Finnish. Electronic plagiarism detection in Finnish higher education 2013). CSC IT Centre for Science.Google Scholar
- Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literacy practice: Recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1), 89–109.Google Scholar
- Weber-Wulff, D. (2016). Plagiarism detection software: Promises, pitfalls, and practices. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 625–638). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
- Wilkinson, J. (2009). Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism and cheating. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 98–105.Google Scholar