English Version
Abstract
Based upon a pilot study of the leading online plagiarism detection service, this article examines the views of faculty and students as the main stakeholders in the controversy over online plagiarism detection. Rather than give advice outside of a specific institutional context, this study offers an understanding of the reasoning that informs the diverging points of view, explaining both support of and resistance to online plagiarism detection among each group. The article makes recommendations of best practices for those who choose to incorporate plagiarism detection services into course management. More importantly, the article closes with recommendations for addressing academic integrity on a campus-wide scalea practice that could alleviate the pressures that encourage many campuses to adopt online plagiarism detection.
Based upon a pilot study of the leading online plagiarism detection service, this article examines the views of faculty and students as the main stakeholders in the controversy over online plagiarism detection. Rather than give advice outside of a specific institutional context, this study offers an understanding of the reasoning that informs the diverging points of view, explaining both support of and resistance to online plagiarism detection among each group. The article makes recommendations of best practices for those who choose to incorporate plagiarism detection services into course management. More importantly, the article closes with recommendations for addressing academic integrity on a campus-wide scalea practice that could alleviate the pressures that encourage many campuses to adopt online plagiarism detection.
A May 20, 2007, Associated Press story trumpets one of the greatest challenges to higher education: “Dishonesty persists at U.S. universities” (Pope). Studies continue to demonstrate that academic dishonesty is on the rise, with technology-assisted forms of plagiarism fueling a significant portion of the apparent surge. A 2002 study of 4,500 high school students conducted by the Rutgers Management Education System revealed that 75% had cheated, and, more disturbing, 50% of them saw nothing wrong with it (Shaw, 2005). Rutgers’ Don McCabe, perhaps the nation’s leading authority on trends in academic dishonesty, also surveyed 45,000 college students, finding that “37% admitted to what’s called ‘cut and paste’ plagiarism” (Shaw, 2005).
Our own informal surveys found that 89% of our students had cheated in high school, but less than 7% of the same respondents admitted to cheating in college. Perhaps some of the discrepancy results from the increasing maturity of the students as they progress through college, or the success of various strategies to prevent cheating, or the expectation of a more punitive outcome if the students are caught. The problems with self-reporting as a measurement tool cast a shadow of skepticism over any results; however, if this percentage held true, then 871 of our university’s 13,000 students have knowingly engaged in acts of academic dishonesty. Using McCabe’s figures, the number would be closer to 4,800 students cheating.
Journals for full download on the link below
Our own informal surveys found that 89% of our students had cheated in high school, but less than 7% of the same respondents admitted to cheating in college. Perhaps some of the discrepancy results from the increasing maturity of the students as they progress through college, or the success of various strategies to prevent cheating, or the expectation of a more punitive outcome if the students are caught. The problems with self-reporting as a measurement tool cast a shadow of skepticism over any results; however, if this percentage held true, then 871 of our university’s 13,000 students have knowingly engaged in acts of academic dishonesty. Using McCabe’s figures, the number would be closer to 4,800 students cheating.
Journals for full download on the link below
RSS Feed 
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar