Teaching Students About Plagiarism: What It Looks Like and How It Is Measured
Diana Stout, MFA, Ph.D
A case study that has been downloaded over 1700 times from 92 countries, 269 institutions, including libraries, educational institutions, hospitals, governments, military, organizations both for-profit and non-profit, and commercial businesses.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/172/
Doctoral Committee: Jonathan Bush, Ph.D., Chair Ellen Brinkley, Ph.D. Karen Vocke, Ph.D. Cheryl Almeda, Ph.D
Description
This case study examines how full-time faculty, adjunct instructors, and graduate teaching assistants teach students how to avoid plagiarism. Additionally, this case study includes a cross-section of teachers who encounter plagiarism in writing assignments across the curriculum. While many studies in the past have focused on students, this study places the spotlight on teachers. For this study, participants have been asked how they can be sure whether their instruction is correct or not, what it means to paraphrase and rewrite correctly, and how do they assess their students to determine if correct learning has taken place. Additionally, these instructors were asked how they would feel if they were to learn that their knowledge of using sources was not totally correct. On that foundation, the goal of this study is to learn how instructors teach students to avoid plagiarism, what methodology and activities are used, how they ensure students learned what was taught, what happens when they encounter plagiarism, and what is their attitude toward their students’ plagiarism when it occurs. This study attempts to reveal instructional knowledge regarding plagiarism, how that knowledge is taught to students, and how to determine whether that knowledge was properly learned. Overall, this study makes an attempt to understand why plagiarism continues to be an academic problem.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………………….. viii
I. AN UNINTENTIONAL JOURNEY TURNS INTENTIONAL………………………………………. 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Early History……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Twentieth Century and Modern History: The Headlines……………………………………… 25
Studies – Why and How Students Plagiarize………………………………………………………. 30
Ethical Perspective…………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Teacher- and Teaching-Based Literature……………………………………………………………. 45
When Confronting Plagiarism…………………………………………………………………………… 53
Institutional-Directed Literature……………………………………………………………………….. 55
Current Important Literature……………………………………………………………………………. 59
Student-Based Literature………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
III. METHODOLOGY: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STUDY………………………………….. 64
Goal and Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………… 64
Guiding Question……………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Sub Questions………………………………………………………………………………………….. 65
The Case Study Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….. 67
Subject Recruitment…………………………………………………………………………………. 68
Survey Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………………. 70
Phase I – online survey questions & short activity………………………………………………. 71
Phase II – e-mail survey……………………………………………………………………………………. 77
Terminology – Analysis Frame………………………………………………………………………….. 81
Tier 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 82
Tier 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 82
Tier 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 83
IV. WHAT THE STUDY REVEALS……………………………………………………………………………… 87
The Participants……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 90
The Major Participants………………………………………………………………………………………. 91
Ann – The Reluctant Proactive Adjunct………………………………………………………. 91
Betty – The Tough, Self-Contained Graduate Teaching Assistant………………….. 93
Conway – The Conscientious, Online Business Adjunct Instructor……………….. 95
Fran – The Frustrated, Hindered but Intentional Full-Time Professor………….. 97
Hannah – The Direct-Approach Coach Full-Time Professor…………………………. 99
The Other Participants…………………………………………………………………………………….. 100
Dakota – The Passive Proactive Online Adjunct…………………………………………. 101
Elliott – The Concerned-for-Self, but Correct Adjunct Instructor…………………. 102
Gray – The Waiting, Full-Time Professor of Comp……………………………………… 103
Terminology & Tier Paradigm…………………………………………………………………………… 105
Terminology……………………………………………………………………………………………. 106
Tier Paradigm…………………………………………………………………………………………. 108
Phase I – Online Survey & Short Activity……………………………………………………………. 113
Online Survey Questions…………………………………………………………………………… 113
Short Activity…………………………………………………………………………………………… 133
Phase II – E-mail Survey…………………………………………………………………………………… 137
Assurance………………………………………………………………………………………………… 138
Testing…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 141
Institutional Support………………………………………………………………………………… 143
Plagiarism Free………………………………………………………………………………………… 145
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 146
V. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?……………………………………………………………………….. 153
Potential Implications of the Study…………………………………………………………………….. 157
What Can Be Learned From This Study?…………………………………………………………….. 161
One Example of a Changing Institution………………………………………………………………. 165
Future Projects…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 167
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 170
APPENDIX
A. Plagiarism Activity………………………………………………………………………………………… 185
B. Plagiarism Activity – Instructor Key……………………………………………………………….. 186
C. Defining Plagiarism, Paraphrasing, and Rewriting……………………………………………. 187
D. English Course Survey…………………………………………………………………………………… 190
E. Online Survey Questions & Short Activity………………………………………………………… 191
F. Phase II E-mail Survey Questions……………………………………………………………………. 193
G. Approval Letter from the Human Subjects International Review Board……………… 195
H. Revised Approval Letter from the Human Subjects International Review Board…. 196