Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New Era UniversityCOLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Factors that Prompt Students to Commit
Plagiarism
In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements of the Course English 2-05:Writing in the Discipline
A mini-survey research Presented to:
Prof. Hazel Lucy PlazaAdviser
Eric M. DumlaoMaria Mae TolosaMarx JovenTulale
FrunellZilei S. EstrellaMa. Vanessa E. Dela Cruz
Ma.Karina Eloisa B. MadriagaResearchers
Dedication
This book is lovingly dedicated to our respective parents who have been our
constant source of inspiration. They have given us the drive and discipline to
tackle any task with patience and determination. Without their love and support
this project would not have been made possible.
With all our heart
And love,
Researchers
Acknowledgement
We have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all of them.
We are highly indebted to our English 2 professor, Ma’am Hazel Plaza, for her guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project & also for her support in completing the project.
Our sincere appreciation is extended to all of our friends: Anne, Yeoj, Kc and Maricris for their advice during my research.
We would also like to extend our deepest gratitude to our Family. For all their love and constant support.
Last but not the least, we thank Almighty God for the guidance and unending love .
Psalm 40:6Researchers
Table of Contents
Title Page iAbstract iiDedication iiiAcknowledgement ivChapter 1: Problem and Its Background 1-3
1.1 Research Questions 31.2 Thesis Statement 31.3 Significance of the Study 41.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study 4 1.5 Definitions of Terms 5
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies 6-15 Chapter 3: Methodology 16-17
3.1 Population 3.2 Instrument 3.3 Library Materials and Researches 3.4 Treatment of Data
Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of Data 18-24Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation 25-27Appendices - A 28
Letter to the Dean 29 Clean Questionnaire 30
Bibliography 31Appendices – B
Curriculum Vitae
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Background of the Research According to a dictionary,Plagiarism is defined as the practice of using or
copying someone else’s idea or work and pretending that you thought of it or
created it.
The Josephson Institute Center for Youth Ethics surveyed 43,000 high school
students in public and private schools and found that 59% of high school students
admitted cheating on a test during the year 2011. 34% self-reported doing it
more than two times. One out of three high school students admitted that they
used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment .For more survey results from
the “2010 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth,”
see http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/2010/installment02_r
eport-card_honesty-integrity.html
We really cannot deny the fact that we are in the Digital Age Literacy where
in all things we do can be manipulated by machines. This modern technologies
really brought as many advantages and one of this is that it can make our
everyday lives easier and comfortable but still there are disadvantages, especially
to students like us. Children now a day are computer literate. Even at the age of
3, he/she can manipulate a certain gadget.
Way back in the times when computers or gadgets were not yet really
popularized, our parents and the teachers in their time use books,go to some
places , and make interviews and surveys as their references for their projects or
assignments, but now for just a simple “CLICK” information’s can easily appear on
the screen, see how easy our lives today? But it also make our lives in danger
because more of us just simply copy things in the internet without editing it or just
simply not recognizing the author of the certain information.
According to the Philippine law, Philippine copyright law is enshrined in
the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known
as Republic Act No. 8293. The law is partly based on United States copyright
law and the principles of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works. Unlike many other copyright laws, Philippine copyright laws also
protect patents, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property.
There are also other laws that protect copyrights: the Optical Media Act
(which protects music, movies, computer programs, and video games) is an
example of such.
The law is enforced through a body established by the law: the Intellectual
Property Office, or IPO, and its various branches. Copyright implementation is
done with the coordination of the IPO and the Copyright Division of the National
Library of the Philippines.
Using someone else's ideas or phrasing and representing those ideas or
phrasing as our own, either on purpose or through carelessness, is a serious
offense known as plagiarism. Many people are not aware of this offense; they just
think that taking up someone’s idea will not affect anyone or anything.
Plagiarism has always been a major problem in the field of internet
marketing, article promotion, and most specially, in the field of education.
Students very often use the internet to prepare theses, term papers, essays and
reports. Any information that they want is available on the internet today, which
makes it easy for them to find whatever they need and copy it, too!
People nowadays almost have forgotten how to give importance to the work
of others. Mostly in college, we are continually engaged with other people’s ideas:
we read them in texts, hear them in lecture, discuss them in class, and
incorporate them into our own writing. Therefore, it is very important that we give
credit to where it came from originally.
Research Questions
This is a mini-survey on “Factors that Prompt Students to Commit
Plagiarism” during 1st semester of SY 2013-2014. Specifically, it aims to answer
the following:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents?
2. How do respondents define plagiarism?
3. What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents?
4. Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing?
5. Have the respondents already committed plagiarism?
6. In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?
Thesis Statement
1. There are numerous number of students/respondents who are involved in
plagiarism.
2. Students really know that “copy and paste” is an example of plagiarism.
3. There are students who do not understand or not aware of the punishment
for plagiarizing.
Significance of the Study
This study aims to help people especially students, to become more
knowledgeable and aware of the very serious academic offense of plagiarism. This
will also help them to avoid or lessen this problem.
As regards, it shall benefit the student wherein they will be responsible
enough, Knowing that imitating is also a form of cheating. Hence, they will learn
how to work on their own ideas and concepts which is more good.
This will also help the teachers,parents and the school administrator in the
way that they can assure to produce competitive and well learned and educated
students.
Scope and Limitations of the Study This study is limited to only 40 respondents from the College of Education,
New Era University who have knowledge about plagiarism. There is no age
required in answering the questionnaire, as long as he/she is a student of College
of Education and can respond to the questions that will be given.
There will be 10 respondents from 1styear ,10 respondents from 2nd year. 10
respondents from 3rd year and 10 respondents from 4th year.
Definition of Terms
Plagiarism- illegally copying someone else’s work and presenting it as your own
Digital Age Literacy- the ability to use the computer and its various applications
to search, process, organize and present information.
Literate-able to read and write. It also mean that they are intelligent and well
educated especially about literature and arts.
Imitation- copying someone else’s action
Commit- a crime or a sin they do something illegal or bad
Prompt-someone to do something means to make them decide to do it.
Fraud – turning in a paper that was written or partially written by anyone else.
Mosaic plagiarism– refers when a person changes the construction of the
sentence but does not bother to change the original wording.
Copyright – gives the author or creator the rights related to selling, publishing,
and distributing creative work
Paraphrase– put research into your own words
References – sources such as books or articles that a person checks or uses
during the research stage
Citation – a line of text that details one reference material
Chapter II
Review of Related Literature and Studies
While English academics are becoming increasingly anxious about student
plagiarism, the prevailing climate of concern has proved favorable for the growth
of a new area of academic enquiry: plagiarism studies. Richard Terry (University
of Sunderland) reflects on the phenomenon.
Student plagiarism is now arguably the biggest dilemma facing
universities. That cheating of this kind should have become so rife threatens to
undermine the very idea of the university as a morally responsible community of
learners and to call into disrepute the awards that such institutions confer. A
concerted determination to confront the issue has in recent years spawned its
own mini-industry. Conferences and symposia mull over the repercussions for
pedagogy posed by the plagiarism outbreak; new software products have become
available to assist in the detection of it; and assessment and infringement
regulations across the sector have been re-drafted and fine-tuned in order to
deter and penalize it.
The current malaise is unprecedented in two respects. For one thing,
students have probably never plagiarized so widely, and the growth of the
internet and the rise of companies dedicated to selling ‘specimen’ assignments
have certainly made plagiarism seem a more viable way of gaining modular
credits than was ever the case before. The buying of essays from the internet,
moreover, conspires uncomfortably with an increasingly functionalist view of what
universities themselves are: namely, organizations dedicated to selling
certification to customers. In one sense, companies selling assignments to
students are simply challenging universities’ longstanding monopoly as vendors
of higher educational credits.
What also makes our current circumstances so novel is that not just do
universities feel confronted by a problem that has spiralled into an epidemic, but
they also feel so constrained in their ability to counteract it. In the old days, it was
easy to arraign a student with having copied from a source and so having acted
with an intention to cheat. Nowadays, however, the whole idea of ‘intention’
needs to be negotiated like a minefield in a culture in which students might well
be inclined to contest through law a university’s ability to divine infallibly the
nature of their intentions. Many institutions, including my own, have retreated
from such dangerous territory and defined plagiarism as essentially a property of
a text, not as an act of mental will behind the creation of that text. At the
University of Sunderland, the gravity of a plagiarism offence is determined by a
combination of factors: the amount of material copied, expressed as a fraction of
an entire assignment; the level of the programme at which the student is
studying; and whether he or she happens to be a first-time or repeat offender.
The imposed penalty remains indifferent to whether the copying in question is
deliberate or accidental. Not surprisingly, what has emerged as the orthodox view
is that the best way to deal with plagiarism is perhaps not to confront it but to
circumvent it: to design assignments that are plagiarism-proof. This avoids the
problems of detection and penalization, but it represents its own form of
capitulation, not so much to the students but to the intransigent nature of the
problem itself.
In concert with the growth of plagiarism as a problem for pedagogy has
been a different sort of mini-epidemic: the growth of plagiarism studies. Literary
historians have always taken some degree of interest in issues of copying or theft
among authors as well as in a few celebrated plagiarism controversies, but never
previously could such a scholarly byway be thought to constitute its own
academic ‘field’. The last decade, however, has seen an explosion of such studies,
including Laura J. Rosenthal’s Playwrights and Plagiarists in Early Modern
England (1996), Rebecca Moore Howard’s Standing in the Shadow of Giants:
Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators (1999), Shelley Angélil-Carter’s Stolen
Language? Plagiarism in Writing (2000), Marilyn Randall’s Pragmatic
Plagiarism(2001), as well as a collection of essays edited by Paulina Kewes
on Plagiarism in Early Modern England (2003). There seems little prospect of any
immediate let-up in the flood of such works, with two further ones, Tilar J.
Mazzeo’s Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period and Robert
Macfarlane’s Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century
Literature, already having appeared in 2007. My credentials for writing this
current essay rest on the several years I have spent trying to write my own study
of literary plagiarism between Dryden and Sterne.
What seems to unite most of these books, and to differentiate them from
older studies of the same topic, is a concern to investigate not just the incidence
of plagiarism but also its very nature as a concept. What precisely is plagiarism
that we should nowadays be so horrified by it? Where did it come from and did
former ages necessarily have quite the same scruples about the matter as we do
now? It is, of course, convenient for modern universities to represent their
injunctions against plagiarism as upholding a moral absolute, but to what extent
is this really the case? Might our condemnation of plagiarism be considered
instead as less a matter of pure ethics than of narrow professional etiquette?
Plagiarism studies, then, is a field that explores the provenance of plagiarism as a
concept, the fluidities concerning what at various times it has been understood to
consist of, and the moral reception of plagiarism at different historical moments.
Such books also have the added effect of convincing that textual copying,
whether condemned or condoned, is scarcely a new phenomenon. Student
plagiarists, however much we might be dismayed by their practices, are in good
historical company.
The first recorded use of the word ‘plagiarism’ is by the Roman poet Martial
when complaining, as he often had cause to do, about a rival poet reading out his
verses and passing them off as his own. It is actually a figurative coinage, since
plagiarism referred in literal terms to the act of stealing slaves or even abducting
children. Even from the outset ‘plagiarism’ as a term means something bad, to be
reprehended. While it’s not true to say that verbal copying has always and
everywhere been deplored, the application of the word ‘plagiarism’ to any act of
copying seems never not to have had the effect of stigmatizing it. Martial’s
indignation about being plagiarized, however, while it might seem to suggest his
possession of the same moral standards as ourselves, is not entirely as it seems.
What riles him is not in fact the spectacle of another writer claiming authorship of
his own poems, for he could have endured that without the least pang if only he
had been paid for the works in question. It is the loss of remuneration that
infuriates him. He is happy enough in principle to conspire in a fraud over the
actual ownership of the poems.
When the idea of ‘plagiarism’ migrates to England in the mid-seventeenth
century, it preserves the same suppositions behind Martial’s usage of the term.
One of these is that plagiarism has to do not with how a work is composed but
how it is put before an audience: it means stealing someone else’s work while
stating it to be your own. As a corollary of this, it also means stealing a work in its
entirety as distinct from lifting discrete passages or ideas, as we now tend to view
the offence. When seventeenth-century writers express their sense of grievance
at being plagiarized, they routinely stigmatize the plagiarist as a thief, thus
reflecting a notion that plagiarists actually assume possession of the works that
they target.
Martial’s concept of plagiarism should not be mistaken for the one we
possess nowadays: for us plagiarism involves not so much theft, in any
meaningful sense, as deception. Moreover, plagiarists do not as a rule try to lay
claim to entire books actually composed by other authors but to components of
them: to ideas, passages or expressions. This modern understanding of plagiarism
seems to me to be a product of the mid-eighteenth century and involves a fresh
understanding of the psychology behind plagiarism. Plagiarism had tended
previously to be characterized as a bold, audacious act but from this point it
becomes viewed instead as something furtive and secretive. From this point, too,
dates the idea that textual referencing provides a sort of antidote to potential
plagiarism. Writers of an allusive nature, who want to ward off any possible
imputation of plagiarism, start to add footnotes to their works identifying the
source of any borrowings.
The current OED definition of plagiarism as ‘the wrongful appropriation...
and publication as one’s own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas... of
another’ bears close similarities to one originally penned in 1775. By this point,
the modern concept of plagiarism has crystallized. Plagiarism committed by
today’s students does not fall under the rubric of theft, as it did originally, but of
deception. The victim the offence creates tends not to be seen as the author
whose words have been cribbed but instead the lecturer who gets duped by the
plagiarism, or perhaps the other students in the cohort who play by the rules. For
us plagiarism is not so much about borrowing material but about not declaring
you have done so. This indeed points to a limitation of some current software
products designed to identify student plagiarism by calculating the proportion of
an assignment that has been appropriated. The problem is that the issue of
plagiarism is not primarily one of appropriation but of disclosure, or the absence
of it.
This essay is an attempt to bring two things into each other’s orbit. Nearly
all academics in English departments will at some point find themselves faced
with the issue of student plagiarism, but how many are aware of the existence of
a field of literary study expressly dedicated to the understanding of plagiarism as
an historical phenomenon? How perhaps can our present malaise be usefully
informed by the past? Studying plagiarism in earlier periods certainly convinces
that standards were not inevitably higher in the past, but also reassures that
scope for condemning plagiarists has always existed. Even in Martial’s day,
thieving poets risked being publicly exposed. Yet what has not remained constant
is exactly what constitutes the offence, the amount of appropriation necessary to
count as plagiarism, and the relation between it and related, though innocent,
literary practices such as imitation and allusion. My own research has also
cautioned me in particular to distrust the allegers of plagiarism. In earlier times,
as in our own, the allegation is one not infrequently tainted by an impurity of
motive, either of commercial advantage or professional rivalry.
The plagiarism issue in a university context, however, remains crucially
different from plagiarism as a general phenomenon. Though often confused with
the legal offence of breach of copyright, plagiarism has never been subject to
juridical regulation. It remains a matter of professional integrity and individual
ethics. Student plagiarism, on the other hand, is proscribed by the regulations of
(one imagines) all universities, regulations by which students become bound once
they enter an institution. Moreover students, even though they may not always
appreciate it, are as much beneficiaries as victims of this regime, in so far as
universities’ outlawing of plagiarism helps preserve a level playing field from
which the student body in general stands to benefit. Ultimately, whether the
example of history recommends lenience or severity in dealing with current-day
plagiarism is perhaps not the point. It is an offence, and accordingly subject to
penalty, because universities have the rightful prerogative to declare it to be one.
Perceptions of Plagiarism
For several reasons, learners have a different perception of what plagiarism
is. In some cases, the learners have received ambiguous or conflicting education
on plagiarism. In other cases it is social identity where learners are comparing
themselves to others. If learners perceive “everyone” to be a cheater or perceive
faculty not to care about plagiarism, their perception on plagiarism may be
skewed.
Public Perception of Plagiarism
Weiss and Bader (2003) report that the public perception of academic
dishonesty in higher education is that it is a serious problem. Because public
perception is so poor, they argue it will be difficult to change the perception
where mistrust and disinterest are prevalent. Peirce and Allshouse (1999) suggest
that situations such as take-home tests, previous tests kept on file, and online
services that practically beg learners to download ready-to-submit papers only
exacerbate the public perceptions on cheating. Another finding by Heberling
(2002) indicates the public perception on cheating is that it takes place online
more than in the classroom on ground wherein the reality is that academic
dishonesty takes place in both environments.
The results of a three study analysis by Education Testing Services (1999)
indicates the general “public perception is that cheating is more prevalent and
accepted today;” the respondents to the surveys see cheating “in many facets of
life: politics, business, home, and school,” and “collaborative environments like
the Internet are making the definition of cheating even murkier”. ETS also reports
that “56% of educators and 31% of the public (including parents, and learners)
say that they hear about cheating incidents. However, only 35% of educators and
41% of the public (including learners and parents) agree that there is a problem
with cheating on tests”. The fact that these respondents know plagiarism is taking
place but don’t consider it to be a problem makes addressing the problem from a
preventative nature in higher education more important.
Learner Perception of Plagiarism
Many researchers argue that there is ambiguity on what is perceived as
academic dishonesty among learners (Ashworth et al., 1997; Heron, 2001;
Lathrop & Foss, 2000; Peirce &Allshouse, 1999; & Weiss & Bader, 2003). Learners
have claimed that they don’t know what instructors consider to be dishonest or
cheating. An example of an area of ambiguity might include peer collaboration
and knowing to what extent the collaboration is considered inappropriate. Lathrop
and Foss agree that there is an inherent conflict between an instructor’s desire to
assign collaborative work to learners for preparation for future careers and the
need to teach learners to do their own work. The point of crossing the line to
cheating may differ by each instructor. Even though there is ambiguity among
learners on what constitutes academic dishonesty, there is also a cavalier attitude
toward cheating by learners in higher education.
Research consistently reports that learners feel their cheating will not affect
others (Weinstein &Dobkin, 2002). Some researchers argue that students
understand plagiarism to be a victimless crime; the only person that plagiarism is
cheating is oneself. Studies on self-reported plagiarism indicate that plagiarism is
accepted among their peers, the likelihood of getting caught is slim, and if the
learner does get caught, the punishment will be minimal. Gibbs suggests that
learners will not be deterred from misconduct, in this case cheating, unless they
perceive they will get caught and that the punishment is perceived to be severe.
Learners will simply weigh the cost and benefits of plagiarizing based on
their personal beliefs. The potential cost is the probability of getting caught and
the perceived punishment. The perceived benefit is based on learner perception
of how much plagiarism will improve his or her grade. Under this theory, faculty
must establish policy, inform learners of the policy, and enforce the policy with
strict consequences in order to deter plagiarism in the course. Learners accepting
plagiarism as the “norm” are the people responsible for the future “civil society
and the economy” and, unfortunately, this cavalier attitude of learners is not
ending at graduation, but is continuing with resume fraud, crib notes for the CPR
exam, and altering of other learner scores.
In 1993, Sims published an article on the relationship between academic
dishonesty and unethical business practices. Sixty people were surveyed and 91%
of the respondents admitted they had been dishonest in college and 98% of the
respondents admitted to dishonest work behaviors. The author of this study
concludes that his data is consistent with the results of a 2001 study by Nonis and
Swift who found that many students accept academic dishonesty as acceptable
behavior and that learners that are dishonest in college are more likely to carry
the dishonesty into the work place. For learners to have this cavalier attitude
toward dishonesty is of concern because, in most cases, institutions of higher
education have a learner conduct code and in many cases this code is published
right on the course syllabus. What learners don’t understand is the credibility of
their alma mater and that their degree is at risk due to this behavior
Given the high-profile plagiarism cases over the last few years, one would
believe that scholars would know and understand the definition of plagiarism. One
would also assume that all high-ranking academics would be especially careful to
maintain their esteemed reputations and role-model statuses. Modern technology
has made it easy for researchers to avoid such pitfalls. Even so, two studies shed
light on the problem of plagiarism in higher education research.
Cheema, Mahmood, Mahmood, and Shah (2011) found that while some
plagiarism in higher education research is intentional, some is unintentional and a
matter of ignorance of plagiarism facts. The authors found that while most
researchers do have a general idea of what constitutes plagiarism, many were not
aware of the differing types of plagiarism (Cheema et al, 2011). A substantial
number of researchers also did not realize the penalties involved in committing
plagiarism. In the study’s conclusion, Cheema et al. (2011) suggested that
researchers be educated in correct citation usage and intellectual property laws.
Plagiarism Among High-Ranking Scholars
In another study on plagiarism in academic research, Honig and Bedi (2012)
concentrated on the demographic and institutional predictors of plagiarism
practices by social science academics. The authors chose to study scholars
because these are the individuals in charge of teaching students. These
researchers have future scholars in their care. Honig and Bedi (2012) focused on
the researchers’ status, country, gender, and education as plagiarism practice
predictors. The results of the study showed that many academic plagiarists live in
countries that are outside of North America. In regard to institutional predictors,
the authors found that an institution’s censure practices, customs, and permitted
procedures have an effect on plagiarism acceptance. The best practices of, for
instance, a university in North America, may not be fully adopted by institutions in
other regions for various reasons, including the fact that the new practices may
conflict with those that have been in use for a long time.
Another finding by Honig and Bedi (2012) was that differences in plagiarism
practices exist between researchers educated in English-speaking countries and
those educated in other places. The authors contended that scholars who are
pressured to publish in English may plagiarize because they do not fully grasp the
English language, but are compelled to publish. In regard to gender, the authors
noted that men are more apt to plagiarize than women.
Honig and Bedi (2012) concluded that plagiarism is higher where there is
more incentive for publishing. Many in academia must publish to advance in their
careers. The authors also noted that senior scholars from high-ranking institutions
have a high plagiarism rate. These esteemed members of the academic
community should be setting an example for their students and other scholars
(Honig & Bedi, 2012). The authors concluded their findings with a call for
monitoring and censure for higher education researchers of all ranks.
Chapter IIIMethodology
This chapter presents the research method, technique and sampling
population and discussion of statistical treatment of data.
A. Population
The target population of the study are students in New Era University
who had experience with plagiarism. Most of the respondents are from Quezon
City. The researcher used qualitative approach in selecting respondents.
B. Research Design
This study employs the descriptive research. A descriptive research
describes and interprets existing phenomenon. It is also gives used to obtain
information concerning the current status of the phenomena to describe “what
exists” with respect to variable or conditions in a situation.
C. Instrument
The researchers constructed a questionnaire that contains best the
needed data. Grammar and structure was consulted to the professor in-charge.
After several deletions and revisions, the researcher finished constructing the
questionnaire and printed it right away. The final output was done in succeeding
days. Respondents were given a day to fill the said questionnaire. One of it was
collected by the researcher personally and the rest were through the persons who
served as a link or messenger to the interviewee. Aside from a questionnaire, the
survey was also supplemented with conversations or dialogs with friends and
other students who are also interested in the research’s topic.
D. Library Materials and Researches
The researchers got the support of technology using the Internet to
complete her study. She retrieved files from a particular website,
www.yahoo.com. They also did book hopping to look for some related facts. The
researchers asked their classmates and acquaintances if they had already
encountered this problem. Through these strategies, the researchers successfully
gathered the needed information’s.
E. Treatment of Data
Upon completing the ten questionnaires that was dispensed to forty
respondents, the researchers tallied the answers. Raw scores for each option
were indicated and this was converted to its percentage. Charts and graphs were
used to interpret the collected data.
Chapter IV Presentation and Analysis of Data
This is a mini-survey on “Factors that Prompt Students to Commit
Plagiarism” during the 1st semester of SY 2012-2013. Specially, it aims to answer
the following:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents?
2. How do respondents define Plagiarism?
3. What activities are considered Plagiarism by respondents?
4. Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of
plagiarizing?
5. How many of the respondents think they have plagiarized?
6. In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?
Problem # 1 Who are the respondents of the study?
Table 1: RESPONDENTS’ PROFILE
A. Age
Assigned No. of respondents
Years of age Gender Year/Level
1 14 Male 1st year2 14 Male 1st year3 14 Female 2nd year4 14 Female 1st year5 15 Male 1st year6 15 Male 2nd year7 15 Male 1ST year8 15 Male 1ST year9 15 Male 1ST year10 15 Female 1st year11 15 Female 1st year12 15 Female 1st year13 16 Female 2nd year14 16 Female 4th year15 16 Female 1st year16 17 Male 2nd year17 17 Male 2nd year18 17 Female 2nd year19 17 Female 2nd year20 18 Male 3rd year21 18 Male 2nd year22 18 Female 3rd year23 18 Female 3rd year24 18 Female 2nd year25 18 Female 2nd year26 18 Female 2nd year27 18 Female 2nd year28 18 Female 3rd year29 19 Male 4th year30 19 Male 3rd year31 19 Male 3rd year32 19 Female 4th year33 19 Female 4th year34 19 Female 3rd year35 20 Female 3rd year36 21 Female 3rd year37 22 Female 4th year38 23 Male 4th year39 25 Male 4th year40 26 Female 3rd year
The oldest age is 26 while the youngest age is 14. Almost half of the respondents are female.
B. Year/level
Figure 1
Frequency Distribution of the respondents’ year/level
This figure shows that the questionnaires are equally distributed to the respondents. In every year level there are 10 questionnaires distributed.
Figure 2
1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1025%
1025%
1025%
1025%
Percentage Distribution of the respondents’ gender
This figure shows that 24 or 60% out of 40 respondents are female while 16
or 40% are male.
Problem # 2 How do respondents define Plagiarism?
60%
40%
Female Male
Figure 3
Percentage Distribution of plagiarism defined by respondents
The Figure shows that 55% of the respondents define plagiarism as stealing
of concepts,while 30 % of them define it as copying. There is 4 % for
paraphrasing,2% for borrowing and 7 % for imitating. However there is 2 % for the
other answer.
Problem #3 What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents?
Figure 4
Percentage Distribution of what activities are considered Plagiarism by the respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
26
0
9
3
17
The Figure shows that copying one’s work is the number 1 activity that is
considered as plagiarism by the respondents,followed by copying a work without
recognizing the author,followed by representing ideas as your own and last
copying during examination.And there is no respondents who answered re-
wording information from a book.
Problem # 4 Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing?
Figure 5
Percentage Distribution of the students awareness of the penalties sued for plagiarism
The figure shows that 28 or 70% out of 40 respondents are aware of the
punishment of getting caught of plagiarizing. We also have 4 or 10% who were
not aware of the punishment. Yet, we got unfamiliar answer from 8 or 20% of the
respondents.
YES
NO
UNFAMILIAR
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
8
4
28
20%
10%
70%
Problem # 5 Have the respondents already committed plagiarism?
Figure 6
Frequency Distribution of how many of the respondents think they have plagiarized
YES28%
NO25%
MAYBE48%
The figure shows that 27 % out of 40 respondents have already done
plagiarism followed by 48% who were not sure if they already done plagiarism.
Meanwhile, there are 25 % who answered No or haven’t done before.
Problem # 6 In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?
Figure 7
Percentage Distribution of instances do respondents do plagiarism
The figure shows that 59 % out of 40 respondents did plagiarize in their
making of assignment, while 18% in report, 21 % in making research. However,
we got from 2 % of the respondents in answering examinations.
making assignment59%
making report18%
making research papers20%
answering examinations2%
CHAPTER VSummary, Conclusion and Recommendation
This is a mini-survey on “Factors that Prompt Students to Commit
Plagiarism” during 1st semester of SY 2013-2014. Specifically, it aims to answer
the following:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents?
2. How do respondents define plagiarism?
3. What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents?
4. Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing?
5. Have the respondents already committed plagiarism?
6. In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?
Summary of the Research
Problem # 1 What is the demographic profile of the respondents?
Problem # 2 How do respondents define plagiarism?
Fifty-five percent (55% ) of the respondents define plagiarism as stealing of
concepts,while 30 % of them define it as copying.There is 4 % for
paraphrasing,2% for borrowing and 7 % for imitating.However there is 2 % for the
other answer.
Problem # 3 What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents?
The survey shows that copying one’s work is the number 1 activity that is
considered as plagiarism by the respondents,followed by copying a work without
recognizing the author,then by representing ideas as your own and last copying
during examination.And there is no respondents who answered re-wording
information from a book.
Problem # 4 Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing?
Twenty-eight (28) or 70% out of 40 respondents are aware of the
punishment of getting caught of plagiarizing. We also have 4 or 10% who were
not aware of the punishment. Yet, we got unfamiliar answer from 8 or 20% of the
respondents.
Problem # 5 Have the respondents already committed plagiarism?
Twenty-seven percent (27 %) out of 40 respondents have already done
plagiarism followed by 48% who were not sure if they already done plagiarism.
Meanwhile, there are 25 % who answered No or haven’t done before.
Problem # 6 In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?
Fifty-nine percent (59 %) out of 40 respondents did plagiarize in their
making of assignment, while 18% in report, 21 % in making research. However,
we got from 2 % of the respondents in answering examinations.
ConclusionWe therefore conclude that most of the respondents were not sure if
they already done plagiarism ,they do not really know that simply doing copy and paste is an example of plagiarism but most of the respondents are aware of the punishment of getting of plagiarizing. The survey shows that copying one’s work is the number one activity that is considered as plagiarism by the respondents and respondents define plagiarism as stealing of concepts.
Recommendation/sThe researchers recommended the following:
1. Academic integrity, including plagiarism avoidance, should be taught to young students as soon as they begin to write papers.
2. A respect for intellectual property and one’s reputation should be instilled in learners as early as possible.
3. Take Careful Notes; make sure to take accurate notes. Taking good notes will help you track all of the information from your sources. Using your own words, write down the main points of each source.
4. Make use of citation data. 5. Wrting the information in your own words .
6. Always acknowledge the source or the author of the information.
APPENDICES
New Era UniversityCollege of Education
#9 Central Avenue,NewEra,Quezon CityCenter for Teaching Learning
August 27,2013
Dr. Lydia Libunao, Ph. D.DEAN College Of EducationNew Era University
Dear Ma’m
We are second year students of College of Education taking up of the Course, English 2-05:Writing in the Discipline during this semester.One of the requirements in this subject is to conduct a mini survey.Our research is entitled ‘Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism’.
In this regard we are requesting your permission to allow us to conduct a survey toseclectedCollegeof Education students, faculty members and staff of the department to answer the questionnaires that we have prepared.
Thank you very much.This would surely be an additional learning to our students.
Very truly yours,
Eric M. Dumlao
Maria Mae Tolosa
Marx JovenTulale
FrunellZilei S. Estrella
Ma. Vanessa E. Dela Cruz
Ma.Karina Eloisa B. MadriagaRESEARCHERS
Noted:
________________________Professor Hazel Lucy PlazaADVISER
New Era UniversityCollege of Education
Dear Respondents, Greetings!The researchers are conducting a mini-survey entitled ‘Factors that Prompt Students
to Commit Plagiarism’This survey is a vital part of our feasibility research project. Rest argued that all
information which we would gather would be treated with outmost confidentiality.Thank you so much for participating!
The Researchers,ProfileName:___________________________________ Gender:____ Age _____ Year/Level:_________
Put a check on the space provided and if there is a other answer please specify and write it on the space provided.
1. What is plagiarism for you?
____Copying ____ Imitating ____Stealing Ideas/Concepts ____ Paraphrasing ____ Borrowing ____ Others pls specify _______________
2. What are the acitivities you consider as plagiarizing?
____Copying one’s work
____ re-wording the information from a book____ representing ideas as your own____ copying during examinations____ copying a work without recognizing the author
3. Are you aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing?____ YES ____ NO ____UNFAMILIAR
4. Have you ever plagiarized?____YES ____NO ____MAYBE
5. In what instancesdid you commit plagiarism?____ making assignment ____ making research papers _________Others
please specify____ making report ____ answering examinations
Bibliography
Braumoeller, B. & Gaines, B. (2001). Actions do speak louder than words:
Deterring plagiarism with the use of plagiarism-detection software. The American
Political Science Association Online. Retrieved September 14, 2004 from
Cheema, Z., Mahmood, S., Mahmood, A., & Shah, M. (2011, January). 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. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.
Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 101-123. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.
http://www.apsanet.org/PS/dec01/braumoeller.cfm
http://opinion.inquirer.net/41218/sotto-what-really-happened-in-plagiarism-issue
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/plagiarism/
http://ojs.ml.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view
http://www.plagiarism.org/resources/facts-and-stats/
