Plagiarism/Student understandings of plagiarism questionnaire: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→References) |
m (→Results) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
== Results == | == Results == | ||
Four factors accounting for 51% of the variance could be extracted and three factors were finally retained. {{quotation|the first factor deals with dishonest acts, the second factor mainly with the issue of group work and the third factor with poor referencing. These three factors were examined for their reliability as subscales. Cronbach suggests that alphas above 0.7 indicate a reliable scale. Analysis indicated that the Dishonest scale had good reliability (α=0.85) while the Group Work scale was reasonably reliable (0.69). The Poor Referencing scale, however, had a relatively low alpha (0.57); care should therefore be taken with interpretation.}} <ref name="sutton2014"/> | Four factors accounting for 51% of the variance could be extracted and three factors were finally retained. {{quotation|1=the first factor deals with dishonest acts, the second factor mainly with the issue of group work and the third factor with poor referencing. These three factors were examined for their reliability as subscales. Cronbach suggests that alphas above 0.7 indicate a reliable scale. Analysis indicated that the Dishonest scale had good reliability (α=0.85) while the Group Work scale was reasonably reliable (0.69). The Poor Referencing scale, however, had a relatively low alpha (0.57); care should therefore be taken with interpretation.}} <ref name="sutton2014"/> | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
| Resubmit own work||4.04||1.173||.269||.113||.247||.142 | | Resubmit own work||4.04||1.173||.269||.113||.247||.142 | ||
|} | |} | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 17:46, 13 May 2016
Introduction
The Student understandings of plagiarism questionnaire was published in Appendix 1 of Sutton, Taylor and Johnston, (2014) [1]
The survey was conducted in two UK universities and an australian one and over 2500 responses were collected.
Items and Instructions
Please rate the action described in terms of seriousness on the following five-point scale (1 = not plagiarism, 2 = not serious, 3 = minor offence, 4 = serious, 5 = very serious)
- Copying sentences and making small changes such as replacing or changing the order of the words, without referencing the source
- Re-submitting an assignment from the previous year with the order of the paragraphs changed.
- Using a piece of text from a journal word for word without including it in the reference list
- Taking short phrases of 10–15 words from different sources and adding original wording – referencing the sources correctly
- Using a paragraph from an article – placing it in quotation marks and citing the source in the text and the reference list
- Putting an idea from a journal article in your own words – not citing this on the page, but listing the article in the reference list
- Proposing an idea or view without knowing this has been proposed by others and so not listing relevant articles in the reference list
- With a friend, dividing an assignment into sections, each writing different parts, putting these together then submitting this as individual work
- Downloading from the internet or journals an essay, adding to it your own introduction and conclusion
- Copying, without acknowledgement, someone else's PhD thesis for an MA/MSc dissertation
- Getting a relative or friend to write your assignment
- Taking the assignment of a fellow student without permission (e.g. from a computer) and handing this in as your own
- Passing your finished assignment to a fellow student to help them with their assignment
- Taking text from the assignment of another student (e.g. one e-mailed by a ‘friend' to ‘help') without telling the ‘friend'
- Forcing/coercing another student into writing an assignment (e.g. by bullying)
- Buying an assignment off the internet and submitting this
- Working as a study group exchanging text by e-mail but not using the text in the submitted individual assignments
- Working as a study group exchanging text by e-mail using the text in individual assignments
- Passing an assignment outline as an e-mail attachment to a fellow-student to help them
- Using the references from an article in the list of references for an assignment, not having read the references, only the article
Results
Four factors accounting for 51% of the variance could be extracted and three factors were finally retained. “the first factor deals with dishonest acts, the second factor mainly with the issue of group work and the third factor with poor referencing. These three factors were examined for their reliability as subscales. Cronbach suggests that alphas above 0.7 indicate a reliable scale. Analysis indicated that the Dishonest scale had good reliability (α=0.85) while the Group Work scale was reasonably reliable (0.69). The Poor Referencing scale, however, had a relatively low alpha (0.57); care should therefore be taken with interpretation.” [1]
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stealing assignment | 4.81 | .634 | .807 | -.085 | .139 | -.101 |
| Buying assignment | 4.72 | .733 | .801 | .000 | .110 | -.042 |
| Coercing other | 4.67 | .812 | .766 | .006 | -.018 | -.054 |
| Friend writes | 4.45 | .904 | .756 | .108 | .117 | -.014 |
| Stealing text | 4.25 | .874 | .662 | .268 | .119 | .009 |
| Download plus own intro | 4.44 | .854 | .558 | .044 | .464 | -.126 |
| Copying Thesis | 4.54 | .944 | .543 | -.015 | .280 | -.104 |
| Passing on outline | 2.20 | 1.169 | .003 | .755 | -.024 | .116 |
| Study group using text | 3.14 | 1.119 | .183 | .634 | .241 | -.083 |
| Study group not using text | 1.79 | 1.113 | -.076 | .622 | -.113 | .259 |
| Passing on assignment | 3.45 | 1.148 | .382 | .596 | -.009 | .043 |
| Unread references | 2.64 | 1.066 | .045 | .506 | .243 | .061 |
| Unwitting idea duplication | 1.69 | .978 | -.183 | .446 | .155 | .360 |
| Unreferenced small changes | 3.40 | 1.055 | .128 | .036 | .734 | .116 |
| Unreferenced quote | 4.34 | .934 | .364 | -.003 | .625 | -.149 |
| Referenced at end only | 1.96 | 1.029 | -.041 | .205 | .535 | .360 |
| Combine with friend | 3.89 | 1.046 | .379 | .270 | .426 | -.113 |
| Referenced quote | 1.29 | .764 | -.096 | .138 | -.054 | .779 |
| Changed quote with ref | 1.64 | 1.008 | -.023 | .101 | .104 | .764 |
| Resubmit own work | 4.04 | 1.173 | .269 | .113 | .247 | .142 |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Sutton Anna, David Taylor & Carol Johnston, (2014) A model for exploring student understandings of plagiarism. Journal of Further and Higher Education 38:1, pages 129-146. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0309877X.2012.706807