This article was downloaded by: [Karadeniz Teknik Universitesi]On: 18 March 2015, At: 13:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Further and HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Examining students’ perceptions ofplagiarism: A cross-cultural study attertiary levelM. Naci Kayaoğlua, Şakire Erbaya, Cristina Flitnerb & Doğan

Saltaşaa Western Languages and Literature Department, KaradenizTechnical University, Trabzon, Turkeyb Center for International Relations, University of BOKU, Vienna,AustriaPublished online: 09 Mar 2015.

To cite this article: M. Naci Kayaoğlu, Şakire Erbay, Cristina Flitner & Doğan Saltaş (2015):Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level, Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-culturalstudy at tertiary level

M. Naci Kayaoğlua*, Şakire Erbaya, Cristina Flitnerb and Doğan Saltaşa

aWestern Languages and Literature Department, Karadeniz Technical University,Trabzon, Turkey; bCenter for International Relations, University of BOKU, Vienna,Austria

(Received 17 June 2014; accepted 26 October 2014)

Plagiarism continues to dominate the academic world as one of its great-est challenges, and the existing literature suggests cross-cultural investi-gation of this critical issue may help all shareholders who detect, areconfronted by and struggle with this issue to address it. Therefore, thepresent study, drawing upon a cross-cultural investigation using a ques-tionnaire, aimed to investigate the differences between three groups ofstudents, namely, Turkish (n = 106), Georgian (n = 83) and German(n = 72) regarding their tendency to conduct academic theft. It alsoinvestigated ways in which to plagiarise and reasons for and awarenessof this issue. The results show that lack of time, busy schedules andweak academic writing skills are the most frequent reasons for plagia-rism. However, in contrast to previous studies, the role of the Internetwas found to be minimal in relation to increasing plagiarism. It is alsoworth noting that the German participants were found to have a higherlevel of sensitivity to this academic malpractice and were seen to bemuch more successful at identifying it. The article concludes with work-able suggestions on how to discourage academic theft at universities.

Keywords: plagiarism; academic dishonesty; perception; cross-cultural;awareness

Introduction

For over 60 years, the tendency to cheat among students as one form ofacademic dishonesty has been a common concern within academic andteaching circles, characterised by a large existing literature from variouscontexts (Ashworth et al. 1997; Chao et al. 2009). Among these cheatingbehaviours, plagiarism has attracted much attention. To complicate the mat-ter even further, some scholars, including Shenton (2012), describe it as‘one of the greatest challenges currently facing academia’ (10). Thetendency of students to see writing as a product rather than a process

*Corresponding author. Email: nacikayaoglu@yahoo.com

© 2015 UCU

Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

(Ellery 2008) may increase plagiarism, thereby complicating the pictureeven further.

Although the topic of plagiarism is a contentious one in academic cir-cles, there seems to be little disagreement on the literal definition found in astandard English dictionary, at least in most academic institutions. Althoughthere are several variant definitions of plagiarism, it is commonly describedas stealing others’ ideas and presenting them as one’s own thoughts (Park2003). That said, however, there appears to be no consistent definition ofplagiarism (Aziz et al. 2012). This may in part be explained by dissentionover the meaning of the word by those who are aware of it, but it may alsobe due to a lack of universal knowledge of the term itself. Certainly, cul-tural differences can play a role in differing perspectives as any discourseon culture is complex as a result of variations within groups and subgroupsin a nearly infinite number of contexts.

Literature review

Plagiarism in practice: cultural differences

In the geographical context, numerous studies have explored possible differ-ences in culture to explain discrepancies in perception, policy and enforce-ment, especially with respect to Eastern and Western societies (Ramanathanand Kaplan 1996). The theory is that Western values tend toward individu-alism and Eastern toward collectivism (Kutz et al. 2011). Ammari (2010)also refers to the possible culture clash between Eastern and Western valueswhen overseas students are confronted by cultural expectations for whichthey have not been prepared or made aware of. It is noted that in Westernacademic institutions, writing is about the use of sources to extract newmeaning and develop a ‘voice of one’s own’ rather than reproducing text(Sun 2012). This may prove challenging to Asian students who have notbeen taught to develop a voice of their own or ‘reach new meaning throughinteraction with the text’ (Abasi et al. 2006, cited in Sun 2012, 304).

Another aspect that should be considered within the context of plagia-rism and cultural diversity is that of common knowledge. Amsberry (2010)states that the idea of common knowledge varies in Asian and Western cul-tures, giving rise to different interpretations about whether copying is con-sidered a form of plagiarism. However, the question about what constitutescommon knowledge appears to extend beyond the borders of East and West.Amsberry also underlines that multiple interpretations exist, which extendbeyond students and faculties.

Hayes and Introna (2005) reported that the number of non-European stu-dents in the UK increased by 39% between 1996–1997 and 2002–2003.The authors of the study state that plagiarism by non-Western students inthe UK is frequently the result of cultural influences of an intricate and

2 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

contextual nature. As background information, they examined previousresearch investigating plagiarism as it applied to both Western and overseasstudents in Western institutions. The reasons given were as follows: unclearideas about the definition of plagiarism, lack of universally clear policy perinstitution, differences in detection and handling the problem, lack of time,the pressure of assignment-based assessment, and poor time managementskills. A possible outcome of the above issues is students’ lack of interestand effort due to dissatisfaction with the course. Hayes and Introna also list

different academic experience at home, time pressure, fear of failure,doubts about their ability to improve on a given text, preference for usingthe original and lack of writing experience as reasons for non-European stu-dents’ plagiarism.

Similarly, Amsberry (2010) provides a review of some of the culturalfactors that may account for ‘textual borrowing’ by international students.These factors may include students’ lack of preparation and their lack ofawareness of Western academic writing standards, which may result in unin-tentional plagiarism. Moreover, Western writing conventions may representa substantial stumbling block for non-Westerners due also to their belongingto a collective value system rather than an individual one. In terms of tech-nical vocabulary and within the discussion of patch writing, Amsberry(2010) refers to others who state that altering technical words via paraphras-ing would result in loss of meaning and therefore could justify ‘borrowing’in the scientific context, where meaning takes priority over originality ofexpression. Furthermore, non-native speakers may have difficulty in identi-fying words that should be paraphrased and words that should remainunchanged. In other words, the border between technical and non-specialistvocabulary would most likely be unclear for non-native speakers, increasingtheir tendency to copy text verbatim.

Reasons for plagiarism

Park (2003) also provides several reasons for plagiarism as stated in theexisting literature: lack of understanding of the basics of academic writing,the tendency to save time and effort, lack of trust in teachers, self-deceptionabout their own cheating, including justifying or blaming others for it, littlerisk of being caught and minor punishment if caught. Sun (2012) adds tothis list the inability to adequately paraphrase.

In addition to the reasons outlined above, the Internet has been blamedfor the increasing amount of plagiarism witnessed in recent years. In a studyon Internet use in the UK, Selwyn (2008) found that approximately three-fifths of the 1,222 participating undergraduate students in the UK self-reported having engaged in some online plagiarism in the previous year.While acknowledging that the Internet is a major and ubiquitous presence athigher institutions of learning, Selwyn cautions against allowing ‘the

Journal of Further and Higher Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

relative novelty of the internet to obscure the underlying issues behind thisdata’ (476).

Furthermore, due to the lack of restrictions on the Internet, students alsoperceive the information as theirs for the taking; in other words, as a kindof well of information that they are free to dip into at will (Gomez 2012;Park 2003). Gomez points to a common misunderstanding between ‘use andownership’ and makes the further distinction between everyday practice anduse of the Internet and use for academic work. Similar thoughts areexpressed by Kutz et al. (2011), who note that the availability of free mate-rials with no author encourages students to use them as their own.

nother factor is the influence of social media and non-academic use ofthe Internet. Park (2003) suggests that the use of social media and otheronline leisure activities blurs the line between what is acceptable and whatis not. Many students fail to draw a line between their personal use, whichmay involve the taking and using of a variety of information availableonline without restrictions (Bolin 2010) and Internet use for academic pur-poses. In addition, Trinchera (2002) notes that the Internet has allowed‘new methods of plagiarism’ to develop, in particular the practice of ‘cuttingand pasting’. According to Trinchera, the cutting and pasting method ofwriting bypasses important learning skills: paraphrasing, critical thinkingand proper researching. Although Trinchera infers that instruction on propercitation should be the job of faculty, he discusses how the role of the librar-ian can provide support in teaching students to use online sources correctly,namely, through further training.

An additional important factor to be considered in relation to the grow-ing tendency for students to engage in textual borrowing is the influence oftheir peers. Students seem to feel that the likelihood of being caught is min-imal and that they are justified in doing what everyone else is doing(Selwyn 2008). Carrell et al. (2008) concentrated on peer influence as acontributing factor in US military academies. While they acknowledge thatthe military setting might differ considerably from that of US universities,the study does confirm that peer cheating has a considerable effect on indi-vidual cheating.

Other research points to a new and distinct set of values, referred to as‘post-modern’, which contrast with more ‘traditional-modern’ values (Gross2011). Among post-modern trends is leaning toward the idea of communalproperty; that is, a move away from private ownership, which would alsoinclude a distancing from the idea of textual ownership, traditional rulesabout citation, authority and academic objectivity.

Discouraging plagiarism

In order to resolve the problem of plagiarism, electronic detection methodsare increasingly used (and referred to in the existing literature). In particular,

4 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

the software program Turnitin.com® enables tutors to better detectplagiarism (Jocoy and DiBiase 2006). Similar conclusions were reached byChao et al. (2009), who suggest that program such as Turnitin.com® can bepositively presented to students in the form of an additional tool to pre-screen their writing for signs of plagiarism. The authors, however, suggestthat further instruction on and practice in documenting and paraphrasing areimperative in order to reduce plagiarism. Likewise, Okoro (2011) states thatrelying on Turnitin.com® or similar software detection programs is no sub-stitute for ‘consistent and collective’ efforts on the part of faculty to educatestudents thoroughly by issuing clear instructions, requiring draft papers andproviding individual tutoring. Kutz et al. (2011) also support the statementthat software programs such as Turnitin.com® and SafeAssign® might behelpful but certainly are not ‘foolproof’. A similar viewpoint is expressedby Postle (2009), who outlines some of the limitations of Turnitin.com®,which include inability to locate copied text from written materials unavail-able on the Internet and inability to distinguish between correctly and incor-rectly referenced quotations. Postle also asserts that detection does notcontribute to the learning process.

Masters (2005) refers to the dual function of correct citation practice.The first and probably most commonly mentioned reason is to give credit tothe author. Perhaps educators would be wise to remind their students of thesecond function of correct citation, namely, to ensure accuracy of content.Masters also underlines the importance of accuracy in academic writing,and encourages the use of primary sources whenever possible in order toavoid misquoting and misinformation. Furthermore, Masters clearly showsthe consequences of a misquotation in a particular case by showing the rep-lication of the error when the article was picked up by subsequent writersand reproduced in multiple publications. Noting that further training onavoiding plagiarism by the instructor may not be sufficient for teaching stu-dents to think critically with regard to using multiple sources, Callison(2006) suggests collaboration, in particular between media specialists,instructors and students, providing concrete ideas on creating projects thatemphasise the sharing of ideas in relation to students’ own contributions.This strategy places the focus on learning to form new ideas by building onexisting acknowledged sources.

On the point of responsibility, Hrasky and Kronenberg (2011) imply thatstudents currently bear the full weight of error and conclude that the bestway to reduce plagiarism is by shifting the entire responsibility from thestudent alone to one that is shared by student, staff and institution.

Methodology

Aiming to cast further light on the subject of plagiarism, the present studydrew on a cross-cultural survey conducted with university students from

Journal of Further and Higher Education 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

three different countries: Turkey, Germany and Georgia. The impetus forthe study comes from daily-life concerns of the researchers. When theresearchers from different countries came together at a conference, quitesimilar concerns regarding the frequency of this kind of academic dishon-esty were commonly articulated despite the diversity of their educationalcontexts. This study was a response to immediate practical necessity. Morespecifically, it was the result of a shared desire to examine differences andsimilarities between experiences of plagiarism in varying cultures. While theTurkish participants were students majoring in English (n = 106), theirGeorgian and German counterparts merely have an English-medium educa-tion (n = 83, n = 72, respectively). All the participants were second-yearstudents, and they were found to have taken approximately the same num-ber of writing credits at their institutions. Furthermore, all stated that theywere familiar with the rules of academic writing, as they had taken aca-demic writing courses. Convenience sampling was preferred because thestudy aimed to collect in-depth data in a less complicated and expensiveway than is necessary when generalising the findings to wider populations(Cohen et al. 2007).

The study draws upon a survey as the main data-gathering technique,and the questionnaire was the fruit of a detailed literature review. Theresearchers adapted the questionnaires designed by Hochstein et al. (2008),who conducted a survey with 128 undergraduate and graduate degree stu-dents in Ohio to explore students’ self-perception regarding their under-standing of plagiarism, and by Wilkinson (2009), who similarly conducted asurvey with undergraduate nursing students to understand the frequency ofthis malpractice, reasons for committing it and perceptions of its serious-ness. The final questionnaire comprised a wide range of mostly closed andstructured items, including dichotomous, multiple-choice, ratio scales andconstant sum questions. It aimed to gather information on demographics,ways to plagiarise, reasons for academic theft and participant awarenessregarding plagiarism. As confidentiality was assured because the question-naires were completed at the participants’ own convenience with no risk ofrevealing their identity (Cohen et al. 2007), it was hoped that they wouldprovide honest answers to the sensitive questions. Furthermore, the partici-pants were fully informed about the aims of the study and how the resultswould be used. Their informed consent was also obtained. To deal withintelligibility and instrument reliability concerns, four PhD candidates withMAs and two experts in the field were asked to check the format of theinstrument, ensure the absolute clarity of the items and avoid possiblecomprehension problems. A few wording issues were tackled as a result ofcommon consensus and the format was altered to make it more participant-friendly. The self-administered questionnaires were completed when theresearchers were absent. The SPSS Version 20.0 program was used to per-form the numerical analysis. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were

6 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

employed to describe and present the data theme by theme. To investigatethe differences between the three groups, the Kruskal–Wallis test, as thenon-parametric equivalent of analysis of variance, was conducted. The levelof significance was set at 0.05. The findings were organised around threemain sub-categories: (1) forms of unwanted behaviour in academic writing,(2) reasons for plagiarism, and (3) plagiarism awareness; these were pre-sented via cross-tabulations. While explaining the statistics in the tablesbelow, the researchers mostly preferred to add the frequencies and percent-ages so as to stress the general attitude clearly and avoid the risk of repeti-tion of similar sets of data. For instance, while elaborating on copying awhole source without giving citation as one form of plagiarism, summarisedin Table 1, the researchers added the percentages of rarely (R) and never(N) (29.2% and 47.2%, respectively) for the Turkish participants andreached a total of 76.4%. This total high percentage of the two negativeanswers was interpreted as the low frequency of this unwanted behaviouramong the Turkish participants.

Findings

The quantitative data analysis of the questionnaires aims to illustrate theforms of plagiarism and the reasons why the participants coming from threedifferent countries opt to plagiarise in their written assignments. It alsoattempts to present participants’ awareness of plagiarism. At the end of thequestionnaire, ten extracts taken from various academic sources were pro-vided to the participants. Three of the extracts were plagiarised, and the restwere academically appropriate. The participants were asked to identifywhether the extracts were plagiarised or not. The results are presentedbelow.

Forms of plagiarism

These five questionnaire items aimed to identify which forms of plagiarismthe participants use in their written assignment. Table 1 summarises theresults related to these problematic behaviours.

Although there are differences among the three nationalities, it can beclearly seen that copying a whole source without providing a reference isnot a common behaviour. Most of the Turkish students (76.4%, the addedpercentages of rarely and never) stated that they do not copy. Similarly, itcan be seen that this tendency is not common among German studentseither (n = 32 out of 72). However, when compared with these two groups,the Georgians were much more frequently found to copy a whole sourcewithout taking citation rules into consideration; 23 participants stated thatthey frequently copy sources. Still, 51.3% (the added percentages of rarelyand never) of the Georgian participants were found not to copy.

Journal of Further and Higher Education 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Table

1.Formsof

plagiarism

.

Item

sTurkish

German

Georgian

A*

OS

RN

AO

SR

NA

OS

RN

1.Copying

awhole

source

n1

119

3150

39

2814

183

2016

2516

%0.9

0.9

17.9

29.2

47.2

4.2

12.5

38.9

19.4

253.8

2520

31.3

202.

Using

articlesfrom

theInternet

n3

332

3433

–4

412

526

1027

1423

%2.8

2.8

30.2

32.1

31.1

–5.6

5.6

16.7

72.2

7.5

12.5

33.8

17.5

28.7

3.Doing

anindividual

workwith

afriend

n5

534

2927

–1

1728

264

1220

1532

%4.8

4.8

32.7

27.9

26–

1.4

23.6

38.9

36.1

4.8

14.5

24.1

18.1

38.6

4.Payingothers

todo

your

homew

ork

n3

311

683

–4

39

567

810

751

%2.9

2.9

10.5

5.7

79–

5.6

4.2

12.5

77.8

8.4

9.6

128.4

61.4

5.Using

aparagraphwith

outsource

n2

221

2252

––

417

52–

–20

2033

%1.9

1.9

2021

49.5

––

5.6

23.6

70.8

––

24.1

24.1

39.8

Notes:*A

=always;O

=often;

R=rarely’;N

=never.

8 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

The second problematic behaviour is using articles from the Internet orweb-based studies without providing references. More than half of theTurkish students (n = 67) stated that they do not steal from the Internet.The results reflect the same picture for the German students, in that 64 ofthe participants wrote that they rarely or never use the Internet for thisreason. Lastly, although the percentage is a little bit lower for theGeorgians, almost half of the participants (46.2%) stated that they do notmisuse the Internet for their assignments.

As Table 1 illustrates, completing an assignment alone when they aresupposed to do so is a much more common behaviour than copying withoutreferencing and stealing from the Internet. While 53.9% of the Turkish stu-dents were found not to collaborate with their friends, the other half statedthat they study individually even when they are not expected to do so.German participants also prefer not to collaborate with their friends (75%).The Georgians were found to be similar to the Turks in terms ofcollaboration rates in their individual studies, as half of the participants(56.7%) stated that they do not tend to study with their friends to completetheir individual work.

The fourth problematic behaviour is paying others to do their homework.As Table 1 clearly shows, there is considerable agreement in all threegroups: most participants do not offer money to others to complete theirhomework – 84.7, 90.3, and 69.8%, respectively.

The last behaviour is using a paragraph they need without providing areference. According to the results obtained by adding the percentages ofrarely and never in Table 1, this behaviour is not common among the threenationalities. While 70.5% of the Turkish participants stated that they keepaway from this habit, 94.4% of the German were found to respond nega-tively to it. Along similar lines, more than half of the Georgians (63.9%)wrote that they do not place paragraphs in their assignments without givingsources

The overall picture of the findings presented in Table 1 shows that thedegree of tolerance for these problematic behaviours is low in all groupsalthough the sensitivity of Germans is much higher than that of Turks andthe Georgians, respectively.

Reasons for plagiarism

In addition to identifying forms of plagiarism, the questionnaire alsoaddresses the reasons why the participants tend to plagiarise in their writtenassignments. The data presented in Table 2 concerns seven commonly statedreasons in the existing literature.

The first possible reason for plagiarism is having a busy schedule andbeing lazy. Although 27.2% of the Turkish participants attributed plagiarismto a busy schedule and laziness, more than half of them (52.4%) did not

Journal of Further and Higher Education 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Table

2.Reasons

forplagiarising.

Item

sTurkish

German

Georgian

SA

AN

DSD

SA

AN

DSD

SA

AN

DSD

1.Busyschedule

andlaziness

n7

2120

3321

76

1115

335

3516

1213

%6.8

20.4

19.4

3220.4

9.7

8.3

15.3

20.8

45.8

642.2

19.3

14.5

15.7

2.Easynessof

locatin

gInternet

sources

n4

2319

2928

713

1225

1511

1528

1414

%3.9

22.3

18.4

28.2

27.2

9.7

18.1

16.7

34.7

20.8

13.4

18.3

34.1

17.1

17.1

3.Unawareinstruction

n4

419

3740

34

2823

145

2431

117

%3.8

3.8

18.3

35.6

38.5

4.2

5.6

38.9

31.9

19.4

6.4

30.8

39.7

14.1

94.

Lackof

seriousconsequences

n2

616

2752

––

1931

223

2026

218

%1.9

5.8

15.5

26.2

50.5

––

26.4

43.1

30.6

3.8

25.6

33.3

26.9

10.3

5.Hom

eworkload

n1

1613

3539

48

2416

206

2722

1014

%1

15.4

12.5

33.7

37.5

5.6

11.1

33.3

22.2

27.8

7.6

34.2

27.8

12.7

17.7

6.Not

understandinghomew

ork

n4

1715

3236

122

1823

87

1226

298

%3.8

16.3

14.4

30.8

34.6

1.4

30.6

2531.9

11.1

8.5

14.6

31.7

35.4

9.8

7.Not

know

inghow

tocite

sources

correctly

n9

2619

3515

825

1611

1212

2031

89

%8.7

2518.3

33.7

24.4

1134.7

22.2

15.3

16.7

1525

38.8

1011.3

Notes:SA

=strongly

agree;

A=agree;

N=neutral;D

=disagree;SD

=strongly

disagree.

10 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

agree with the statement. Similar results were found for the German partici-pants: 18% accepted this statement but the majority (66.6%) did not. In con-trast to the Turkish and German participants, almost half the Georgianstudents (48.2%) stated that they tend to plagiarise as a result of heavyschedules and laziness.

Easy access to academic sources on the Internet is listed as one of thepossible reasons for academic theft. The majority of the Turkish and Germanparticipants (55.4 and 55.5%, respectively) did not accept this convenienceas the reason for plagiarism; their Georgian counterparts were almost equallydivided on this issue (31.7 for and 34.2% against, respectively).

One of the reasons cited for plagiarism in the existing literature is thefact that students believe that instructors are unlikely to recognise their pla-giarised texts. The majority of the Turkish students (74.1%) and half of theGermans (51.3%) demonstrated negative reactions to this item. In contrast,the majority of the Georgian participants (70.5%) stated that they tend toplagiarise because their instructors might not recognise the academic theftin their written assignments.

As Table 2 shows, the majority of the Turkish (76.7%) and German(73.7%) participants did not agree with the statement that the lack of seriouspenalties for plagiarism encouraged them to engage in academic theft,which shows that serious consequences for this unwanted behaviour dis-courage them from stealing others’ work. Fewer Georgian students (37.2%)would be discouraged from plagiarising the work of others as a result ofharsh penalties.

The results regarding homework load as a possible reason for plagiarismare similar for Turkish and German participants: most of them (71.2 and50%, respectively) do not think this load is a cause of academic theft. TheGeorgians however differed: 41.8% agree that the amount of homework isone reasons for plagiarism; only 30.4% do not regard it as such.

Table 2 also shows the role played by not understanding an assignmentin the tendency to commit academic theft. Although 20.1% of the Turkishstudents stated that they tend to plagiarise when they do not fully under-stand the task, most of them (65.4%) still do not see it as an excuse. Simi-larly, there were more negative than positive responses to this item amongthe Germans (43.5 and 32%, respectively). Along similar lines, most of theGeorgians (45.2%) did not find an unclear assignment a possible reason forplagiarism.

The last possible reason for academic theft is not knowing how to citecorrectly. As Table 2 shows, more than half of the Turkish participants(58.1%, the total percentage of disagreement and strong disagreement) dis-agreed with this. This finding can be interpreted as demonstrating that morethan half of the Turkish participants were familiar with the basic rules ofacademic writing. However, fewer German students were found to know

Journal of Further and Higher Education 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

correct citation rules (31%). A much lower percentage of Georgians (21%)knew how to cite sources correctly.

Awareness of plagiarism

The last part of the questionnaire aimed to elicit each group of students’awareness of plagiarism. The participants were provided with 10 sampleextracts, three of which were not plagiarised.

As Table 3 illustrates, although the Germans were most successful atidentifying plagiarised text, most of the participants in the other two groupswere also able to do so. The second extract was an unproblematic citationand most of the students in all three groups gave the correct answer to thequestion. Ninety per cent of the German and Turkish participants answeredthis question correctly. The third extract was plagiarised; however, more stu-dents answered this question wrongly than correctly. Almost 70% of theTurks and Germans provided the wrong answer and 65.8% of the Georgiansdid so. The fourth extract was plagiarised, and most of the participants inall three groups managed to identify the problem, although the Germans(88.9%) were more successful than the Georgians and Turks (63.6 and59.6%, respectively). The fifth extract was not plagiarised, and most of the

Table 3. Awareness of plagiarism.

ItemsTurkish German Georgian

Yes No Yes No Yes No

1. Plagiarised n 72 32 56 16 40 38% 69.2 30.8 77.8 22.2 49.4 46.9

2. Not plagiarised n 9 95 7 65 32 41% 8.7 91.3 9.7 90.3 43.8 56.2

3. Plagiarised n 32 72 21 51 27 52% 30.8 69.2 29.2 70.8 34.2 65.8

4. Plagiarised n 62 42 64 8 49 28% 59.6 40.4 88.9 11.1 63.6 36.4

5. Not plagiarised n 6 95 5 67 34 45% 5.9 94.1 6.9 93.1 43 57

6. Plagiarised n 34 67 31 41 31 43% 33.7 66.3 43.1 56.9 41.9 58.1

7. Plagiarised n 28 74 34 38 23 51% 27.5 72.5 47.2 52.8 31.1 68.9

8. Plagiarised n 30 73 12 60 19 54% 29.1 70.9 16.7 83.3 26 74

9. Not plagiarised n 30 73 34 38 32 42% 29.1 70.9 47.2 52.8 43.2 56.8

10. Pagiarised n 59 45 64 8 48 27% 56.7 43.3 88.9 11.1 64 36

12 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Table

4.Teststatisticsof

form

sof

plagiarism

.

Item

sGroups

nMeanrank

Chi-square

dfAsymp.

sig.

1.Copying

awhole

source

Turkish

106

157.20

26.883

2.000

German

72112.87

Georgian

80107.77

2.Using

articlesfrom

theInternet

T106

120.97

39.282

2.000

G72

172.08

G80

102.48

3.Doing

individual

workwith

afriend

T104

118.88

7.224

20.27

G72

148.33

G83

128.04

4.Payingothers

todo

homew

ork

T105

138.54

10.538

20.05

G72

138.65

G83

113.26

5.Using

aparagraphwith

outasource

T105

124.98

21.668

2.000

G72

161.17

G83

110.87

Journal of Further and Higher Education 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

students in all groups gave the wrong answer; however, this time the Geor-gians were much more successful at identifying the text correctly. The sixthextract was plagiarised, yet most of the participants gave the wrong answer.Again, the Georgians were more successful in answering this question(41.9%). The seventh text was plagiarised; however, the majority of theTurks and Georgians could not provide the correct answer. Nearly half ofthe Germans managed to identify the correct answer. The eighth itemincluded a plagiarised text, but the majority of the participants in all threegroups gave the wrong answer. The ninth item included an unproblematicextract, and most of the participants in all three groups gave the correctanswer. However, the results show that the Turkish participants were moresuccessful than their German and Georgian counterparts: 70.9% answeredcorrectly. The last extract was plagiarised, and most of the participants ineach group gave the correct answer. However, the Germans (88.9%) weremore successful than the Georgians and the Turks (64 and 56.7%, respec-tively).

Overall, it can be seen that the German participants were much moresuccessful at identifying plagiarism in sample academic texts than theirTurkish and Georgian counterparts. The Georgian students follow the Ger-mans, and the Turkish participants come last.

Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test

A Kruskal–Wallis test, which is the non-parametric alternative to the one-way ANOVA, was also conducted to investigate group differences amongthe three nationalities. The results are tabulated below.

The Kruskal–Wallis statistics were calculated to identify the differencesbetween the nationalities regarding their plagiarism habits and unwantedbehaviours in academic writing. Results indicate that there are statisticallysignificant differences regarding all five behaviours among the three groupsas displayed in Table 4. When the test statistics were calculated to deter-mine whether there is any difference in the act of copying a whole sourcewithout taking citation rules into account in written assignments, of thethree groups (x² = 26.883, p = 0.000 < 0.05), a statistically significant dif-ference was found between the groups. The results show that it is muchmore common among the Turkish participants, with a mean rank of 157.20.Similarly, the results regarding use of articles from the Internet or web-based academic studies without providing references show that there is astatistically significant difference between the groups, and the German par-ticipants do this more frequently than the Turks and Georgians (mean rank= 172.08). A statistically significant difference between the groups was alsofound for completing an individual task with a friend (x² = 7224, p = 0.027< 0.05). The Germans, with a mean rank of 148.33, were found to do somore frequently than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts. In relation to

14 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

paying others to do their work, the difference between the groups is statisti-cally significant (x² = 10.538, p = 0.05 < 0.05), and both the Turkish andGerman participants were found to have thought about doing so. Lastly, asignificant difference was found between groups regarding the use of oneparagraph without providing a reference, and the Germans were again foundto be guiltier of this behaviour than the Turks and Georgians.

In addition to identifying forms of plagiarism, Kruskal–Wallis statisticswere calculated to see whether the three groups differ in their reasons forplagiarism in academic writing. Table 5 summarises the findings in a com-parative way.

Similar to the results regarding forms of unwanted behaviour in aca-demic writing, the results in Table 5 indicate that there are statistically sig-nificant differences regarding all reasons for plagiarism among the threegroups. A statistically significant difference was found between the groupsregarding their tendency to plagiarise as a result of busy schedules and theirown laziness (x² = 18.215, p = 0.000 < 0.05). The results show that thisreason was much more frequently given by the Germans, with a mean rankof 155.99. Similarly, the results regarding the ease with which the Inter-net allows for access to academic sources show that there is a statisticallysignificant difference between the groups, and the Turkish participants werefound to state this reason more frequently than the Germans and Georgians(mean rank = 139.30). Again, a statistically significant difference was foundbetween the groups for the item asking whether instructors’ lack of aware-ness of plagiarised texts may be a reason for academic theft (x² = 48.734,p = 0.000 < 0.05). Again, the Turkish participants, with a mean rank of158.97, were found to state this as a reason for their unwanted behaviour.The lack of serious consequences was stated as one of the causes of plagia-rism among the students, and the Turks, with a mean rank 152.65, werefound to state this reason much more frequently than the Germans andGeorgians. Similarly, a statistically significant difference was found forhomework load and problems with understanding homework; again, moreTurks gave these as two reasons for plagiarism. Lastly, the analysis indicatesa statistically significant difference between the groups (x² = 5995,p = 0.000 < 0.05) in terms of their awareness of citation rules.

The results in Table 6 indicate that there are statistically significant dif-ferences between the groups in their responses to the first two items; theGeorgian and Turkish participants provided the most correct answers to thefirst and second items, with mean ranks of 150.43 and 138.23. There is nostatistically significant difference for the third item (p = 0.792 > 0.05).However, a statistically significant difference was found for the fourth andfifth items, in both of which the Turkish participants provided the correctanswer more frequently. Again, the difference between the groups in thesixth item was not statistically different (x² = 1.960, p = 0.375 > 0.05). Astatistically significant difference was found for the seventh item but not the

Journal of Further and Higher Education 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Table

5.Teststatisticsof

reasonsforplagiarism

.

Item

sGroups

nMeanrank

Chi-square

dfSum

p.sig.

1.Busyschedule

andlaziness

Turkish

103

129.90

18.215

2.000

German

72155.99

Georgian

83106.02

2.Eeasyness

oflocatin

gInternet

sources

T103

139.30

6.235

20.44

G72

132.47

G82

113.02

3.Unawareinstructors

T104

158.97

48.734

2.000

G72

128.35

G78

84.76

4.Lackof

seriousconsequences

T103

152.65

46.391

2.000

G72

138.13

G78

82.86

5.Hom

eworkload

T104

150.53

25.365

20.000

G72

129.72

G79

96.77

6.Not

understandinghomew

ork

T104

150.97

15.458

2.000

G72

113.33

G82

116.46

7.Not

know

inghow

tocite

sourcescorrectly

T104

141.46

5.995

2.000

G72

123.22

G80

116.41

16 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Table

6.Teststatisticsof

awarenessof

plagiarism

.

Item

sGroups

nMeanrank

Chi-square

dfAsymp.

sig.

1.Plagiarised

Turkish

104

123.58

15.720

2.000

German

72112.72

Georgian

81150.43

2.Not

plagiarised

T104

138.23

39.899

2.000

G72

136.90

G73

94.42

3.Plagiarised

T104

128.77

.467

2.792

G72

130.81

G79

124.42

4.Plagiarised

T104

139.09

18.612

2.000

G72

102.06

G77

134.00

5.Not

plagiarised

T101

141.51

49.575

2.000

G72

140.25

G79

94.77

6.Plagiarised

T101

130.43

1.960

2.375

G72

118.83

G74

120.26

7.Plagiarised

T102

132.96

7.770

20.21

G72

108.44

G74

128.46

8.Plagiarised

T103

118.88

3.646

2.162

G72

134.33

G73

122.73

9.Not

plagiarised

T103

136.74

6.808

20.33

G72

114.21

G74

119.16

10.Plagiarised

T104

140.30

21.018

20.000

G72

99.94

G75

131.18

Journal of Further and Higher Education 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

eighth. The results indicate that there are statistically significant differencesbetween the groups in the last two items; the Turkish participants providedthe most correct answers, with mean ranks of 136.74 and 140.30.

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of the present study was to find out whether university studentsfrom Turkey, Germany and Georgia differ in their tendency to engage inacademic malpractice, their justification for doing so and their level ofawareness of this issue. The findings show that these three countries showboth similarities and differences regarding students’ tendency to plagiarise,their so-called justification and their level of sensitivity regarding this issue.As is evident from the analysis above, no students in the three groups werefound to be frequently engaging in online plagiarism. In the pursuit of ananswer to the question of why they plagiarise, the researchers found that theparticipants who do so from time to time justified their actions by alludingto lack of time, busy schedules and weak academic skills, which sometimesurge them to take others’ words and ideas without due acknowledgement.These findings concur with those of Wilkinson (2009), who found lack ofunderstanding of citation rules, laziness and bad time management to be thecommonest reasons for this malpractice. What is most telling about thesefindings is that the German participants were found to be more sensitive toacademic theft than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts. While all threegroups stated that the problems in their assignments resulted from theirweak academic skills and lack of adequate information about the issuerather than from their intention to cheat, the German participants seemedmore hesitant about committing this type of academic malpractice.

Given the media coverage of recent plagiarism scandals in Germany,German students may be especially aware that they ought to avoid this prac-tice. For instance, the Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg wasforced to resign when it was discovered that he had copied some of thematerial in his doctoral dissertation from other sources (Kimmelman 2011).This could be an important point to make, as these scandals seem to havean impact on students’ perceptions, i.e. the dire consequences of plagiarismsuch as loss of position and reputation. This point would also confirm that,despite often conflicting research results found in the existing literature, atti-tudes toward and occurrence of plagiarism seem to be, to some extent,determined by the particular institution and its policies rather than a ‘purely’cultural phenomenon. Moreover, when students believe or realise that legalprocedures outlawing plagiarism are not properly followed, they tend to pla-giarise more. However, in the case of Germany, high profile individualswere investigated for and charged with plagiarism, indicating not only thatdetection is possible, but also that it can be conducted even on work com-pleted years before, and measures can be taken retroactively to rectify any

18 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

misconduct. The fear factor may thus lie at the root of the higher sensitivityto plagiarism seen in the German participants. It should also be noted thatGerman students practise citation at high school (Shi 2006), and this mayalso serve as a reason why the German participants were found to be muchmore successful at identifying the plagiarised texts in the last part of thequestionnaire and more aware of the ways in which to avoid it in their aca-demic life.

In the case of Turkey, it was found that the Turkish participants wereless sensitive than their German counterparts, although this difference wasnot statistically significant. This could be related to the ‘“textbook based”teaching approach’ (Hayes and Introna 2005, 225), which refers to focusingon the material in the textbook and asking students to write down what theyrecall in the exams. This means that teachers do not encourage students toanalyse and synthesise to obtain information, and interpretations and com-ments may not be openly welcome by teachers who see themselves as theauthority on information production and sharing. To complicate the mattereven further, as Turkish students learn English as a second language, onewhich they have no chance of using in writing or speaking outside theclassroom, they may feel a lack of confidence in their English, and as aresult, as highlighted by Hayes and Introna (2005), tend to use others’words to formulate their thoughts. In addition, it should be noted that Turkeyhas an exam-driven education system in which exam scores determinewhich school or university the students can attend. Because such exams lar-gely determine their future, this over-assessment, as noted by Carroll (2002)and Wilkinson (2009), puts pressure on students to obtain high marks; thus,they naturally do not feel hesitant about plagiarising in order to achievehigh exam scores. It should also be noted that plagiarism may go unpun-ished in Turkey and this, in turn, encourages students to avoid making dueacknowledgement in their assignments. In addition, Unal et al. (2012) main-tain that satisfactory awareness-raising activities have not been held for stu-dents in vocational schools, universities and graduate programmes inTurkey. What is more, there are mainly two types of penalty for this kindof academic theft, namely, a warning and expulsion from the institution. Asthe latter is regarded as a severe punishment, the former is mostly adminis-tered; however, it cannot deter people from committing this academic mal-practice. Moreover, ambiguous legislative language concerning violation ofacademic ethics makes effective handling of the problem difficult. The eth-ics boards at various Turkish universities may administer quite differentpenalties for similar examples of plagiarism. Hence, this kind of academicmalpractice has recently become more prevalent recently in Turkey.

Lastly, Georgian participants in the present study tended to plagiarisemore frequently than their German and Turkish counterparts. The underly-ing explanation for this could be the fact that Georgia is a Eurasian country,which is geographically located in both Western Asia and Eastern Europe;

Journal of Further and Higher Education 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

thus, it is natural for it to reflect the cultural learning tradition of Asia. AsHayes and Introna (2005) point out, in Asian culture, memorisation andusing the words of high-profile and important figures are of the utmostimportance, and hence students may plagiarise unintentionally not todeceive but rather to show their respect for and appreciation of authority. Inaddition, a lack of confidence in their English may foster this academic mal-practice in Georgia. However, these findings should not be understood asmeaning that all Georgian students steal others’ ideas and thoughts in theiracademic work. While the present article has furthered knowledge andunderstanding of the issue, it cannot make fixed generalisations about anyof these countries, including Georgia. Rather, it can provide food forthought, and the results could be extended by further qualitative studies.

The overall findings outlined above suggest that a consensus on ten-dency to plagiarise is still some way off across all cultures. A disparity isclearly evident between the findings of the present study and existing litera-ture regarding the role of the Internet on the increasing tendency to cheat(see, for example, Selwyn 2008; Ramzan et al. 2012); here, the majority ofthe participants in all the three groups were found to rarely or never engagein online plagiarism. However, the findings were consistent with earlierresearch in which lack of time and weak academic writing skills, i.e. notknowing how to cite sources correctly, were stated as a justification forcheating (Hayes and Introna 2005; Cheema et al. 2011). What is more, it isworth noting that the German participants were found to be much more suc-cessful than their Turkish and Georgian counterparts at identifying instancesof plagiarism in sample texts. This, however, may indicate conscious anddeliberate effort on the part of lecturers to diminish plagiarism. Contrary tothe present study, Holt (2012) found that most of the American studentsrepresenting the Western world were unable to identify problematic texts.

Given the current trend of rising numbers of students to declining num-bers of staff, this problem necessitates no less than a systemic approach,requiring institutions to examine not only their definitions of correct citationpractices but also their role in deciding on how this definition is to beadapted in various disciplines; they must commit themselves to instructionin, compliance with and fair enforcement of that definition. Achieving thesegoals would probably need to involve students as participating partners, asinvolvement in the process would most likely ensure a vested interest inboth the procedure and the outcome (e.g. Bolin 2010). In this spirit of col-laboration, it might benefit educators to present citation practices as an equi-table way of sharing information and ideas as opposed to simply takingwithout proper attribution (see, for example, Callison 2006; Kutz et al.2011). In addition, the literature shows that academic institutions have diffi-culty in agreeing on what this problem is and how to address it. Clearly, itcannot be wise to expect students to follow the rules that institutions havefailed to define clearly. Therefore, in order to enhance academic integrity,

20 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

academic authorities should determine clear frameworks regarding what pla-giarism is and how to avoid it to enhance academic integrity. As misunder-standings among students about proper citation practices confuse anddiscourage them further, it can be concluded that clarifying which acts con-stitute plagiarism is vital. Furthermore, in order for students to write care-fully, their tutors should assure them that they are going to read their paperscarefully.

Lastly, although the researchers are aware of the lack of a ‘recipe’ for aninfallible, workable solution that can serve every educational context, theybelieve that it could be of practical benefit to suggest some ways to mitigatethis academic dishonesty at tertiary level. First, as awareness-raising is atthe core of the issue, a formal identity could be given to the attempt tosolve this problem by formally integrating it as a curriculum module.Second, in line with Divan et al.’s (2013) suggestion, organising writingdevelopment training programmes to help students solve those writingproblems that may be oiling the wheel of unintentional plagiarism may beof particular value. These programmes could be organised as practicalworkshops where students are shown real examples of plagiarism and waysto avoid it. In addition, writing centres in the form of ‘centres of excellence’could be founded where students can get regular academic help. Further-more, plagiarism detection software could be completely accessible tostudents rather than solely to lecturers, who frequently resort to using it as akind of threat. Lastly, a formal declaration could be signed between the lec-turer and student at the very beginning of the course so as to create a strongsense of collective responsibility for the work produced by students.

The present study is not without limitations. As the second-year universitystudents still have time to improve their academic behaviour, different resultscould be obtained with older students who develop greater awareness ofplagiarism, show desirable academic behaviour and identify the problematictexts more successfully. This limitation justifies the need for further studieswith older students so as to compare and contrast the findings and thus depictthe situation holistically. Furthermore, the researchers are aware that the fore-going statistical data analysis could provide just a starting point to furtherelaborate in greater depth on possible justifications for this malpractice.Although the findings manage to give a comprehensive picture of plagiarismin these three different cultures, they are still incomplete and do not offerdefinitive answers without a qualitative dimension. Thus, it is of paramountimportance to support the present data with further qualitative studies thatcould help reveal more about this type of academic malpractice –, in Snapeand Spencer’s (2003, 23) words, ‘the level of meaning rather than cause’. Toconclude, in keeping with Hrasky and Kronenberg (2011), who argue that onthe point of responsibility, it is worth repeating that the best way to reduceplagiarism is by shifting the entire responsibility from the student alone toshared responsibility by student, staff and institution.

Journal of Further and Higher Education 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Notes on contributorsM. Naci Kayaoğlu holds a PhD from the University of Bristol. He is the author ofLanguage Learning Strategies: Theory, Practice and Issues (2011) and co-authorof Music, Language and Second Language Acquisition. He is the coordinator ofthe Applied Linguistics Graduate Programme (MA-PhD) at Karadeniz TechnicalUniversity and has been supervising graduate studies for a long time. He has alsopublished numerous articles and contributed to various projects.

Lecturer Şakire Erbay holds an MA from the Applied Linguistic Department atKaradeniz Technical University. She is a PhD candidate in the same department.She is interested in English as an International Paradigm (EIL), teaching materialevaluation and development, intercultural communicative competence, and criticallanguage awareness.

Cristina Flitner holds a US degree in Economics, plus an Italian Diploma inPainting and an Italian certificate in the restoration of wall and panel painting. Shehas over 20 years’ teaching experience in English as a foreign language in Italyand Austria. She is currently working as an English language instructor in Viennaon topics such as life sciences, technology and business English at the Universityof Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), the Technikum Wien and theBFI, Vienna.

Doğan Saltaş holds a research assistant position at the Department of Western Lan-guages and Literature at Karadeniz Technical University. He is a PhD candidate inthe Applied Linguistic Department. He is interested in the integration of socialmedia with education.

ReferencesAmmari, E. H. 2010. “Cyber Plagiarism and the Digital Revolution: A Cornucopia

of Bona-vacantis?” Journal of Language and Literature 4: 4–16.Amsberry, D. 2010. “Deconstructing Plagiarism: International Students and Textual

Borrowing Practices.” The Reference Library 51: 31–44.Ashworth, P., P. Bannister, and P. Thorne. 1997. “Guilty in Whose Eyes? Univer-

sity Students’ Perceptions of Cheating and Plagiarism in Academic Work andAssessment.” Studies in Higher Education 22 (2): 187–203.

Aziz, J., F. Hashim, and N. A. Razak. 2012. “Anecdotes of Plagiarism: Some Peda-gogical Issues and Considerations.” Asian Social Science 8 (10): 29–34.

Bolin, B. 2010. “Addressing Plagiarism with Stasis Theory.” Currents in Teachingand Learning 2 (2): 13–21.

Callison, D. 2006. “Key Words in Instruction: Plagiarism.” School Library MediaActivities Monthly 3 (4): 41–45.

Carrell, S. E., F. V. Malmstrom, and J. E. West. 2008. “Peer Effects in AcademicCheating.” The Journal of Human Resources 43 (1): 173–207.

Carroll, J. 2002. “Suggestions for Teaching International Students More Effec-tively.” Learning and Teaching Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Brookes Univer-sity. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/briefing-papers/international_students.pdf.

Chao, C., W. J. Wilhelm, and B. D. Neureuther. 2009. “A Study of ElectronicDetection and Pedagogical Approaches for Reducing Plagiarism.” Delta PiEpsilon 51 (1): 31–42.

22 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Cheema, Z. A., S. T. Mahmood, A. Mahmood, and M. A. Shah. 2011. “ConceptualAwareness of Research Scholars about Plagiarism at Higher Education Level:Intellectual Property Right and Patent.” International Journal of AcademicResearch 3 (1): 666–671.

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education.6th ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Divan, A., M. Bowman, and A. Seabourne. 2013. “Reducing Unintentional Plagia-rism amongst International Students in the Biological Sciences: An EmbeddedAcademic Writing Development Programme.” Journal of Further and HigherEducation, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.858674.

Ellery, K. 2008. “Undergraduate Plagiarism: A Pedagogical Perspective.” Assess-ment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5): 507–516.

Gomez, G. 2012. “Do Easily Copied Internet Media in the Library Lead to Plagia-rism?” Paper presented at The International Conference on Science and theInternet, Düsseldorf, Germany, 131–143. Accessed http://nfgwin.uni-duesseldorf.de/sites/default/files/Gomez.pdf

Gross, E. R. 2011. “Clashing Values: Contemporary Views about Cheating and Pla-giarism Compared to Traditional Beliefs and Practices.” Education 132 (2):435–440.

Hayes, N., and L. D. Introna. 2005. “Cultural Values, Plagiarism, and Fairness:When Plagiarism Gets in the Way of Learning.” Ethics and Behavior 15 (3):213–231.

Hochstein, D. D., J. Brewer, M. D. Steinke, and J. D. Taylor. 2008. “Examiningthe Issue of Academic Plagiarism: What Do Students at Wright State UniversityLake Campus Know about Plagiarism?” AURCO Journal 14: 59–81.

Holt, E. 2012. “Education Improves Plagiarism Detection by Biology Undergradu-ates.” BioScience 62 (6): 585–592.

Hrasky, S., and D. Kronenberg. 2011. “Curriculum Redesign as a Faculty-centredApproach to Plagiarism Reduction.” International Journal for EducationalIntegrity 7 (2): 23–36.

Jocoy, C., and D. DiBiase. 2006. “Plagiarism by Adult Learners Online: A CaseStudy in Detection and Remediation.” The International Review of Research inOpen and Distance Learning 7 (1): 1–15.

Kimmelman, M. 2011. “In Germany, Uproar over a Doctoral Thesis.” The NewYork Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/books/merkels-possible-successorresigns-in-plagiarism-scandal.html?ref=plagiarism.

Kutz, E., W. Rhodes, S. Sutherland, and V. Zamel. 2011. “Addressing Plagiarismin a Digital Age.” Journal of the Sociology of Self-knowledge 9 (3): 15–36.

Masters, K. 2005. “Flawed Evidence: A Case Study of Misquoting and InaccurateReferencing.” South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science 71 (3):282–288.

Okoro, E. 2011. “Academic Integrity and Student Plagiarism: Guided InstructionalStrategies for Business Communication Assignments.” Business CommunicationQuarterly 74 (2): 173–178.

Park, C. 2003. “In Other (People’s) Words: Plagiarism by University Students –Literature and Lessons.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (5):471–488.

Postle, K. 2009. “Detecting and Deterring Plagiarism in Social Work Students:Implications for Learning for Practice.” Social Work Education the InternationalJournal 28 (4): 351–362.

Journal of Further and Higher Education 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015

Ramanathan, V., and R. B. Kaplan. 1996. “Audience and Voice in Current L1Composition Texts: Some Implications for ESL Student Writers.” Journal ofSecond Language Writing 5 (1): 21–34.

Ramzan, M., M. A. Munir, N. Siddique, and M. Asif. 2012. “Awareness aboutPlagiarism amongst University Students in Pakistan.” The International ofHigher Education 64 (1): 73–84.

Selwyn, N. 2008. “‘Not Necessarily a Bad Thing…’: A Study of Online Plagiarismamongst Undergraduate Students.” Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation 33 (5): 465–479.

Shenton, A. K. 2012. “Plagiarism: A Nettle That Schools Must Grasp.” EducationJournal 133: 10–14.

Shi, L. 2006. “Cultural Backgrounds and Textual Appropriation.” LanguageAwareness 15 (4): 264–282.

Snape, D., and L. Spencer. 2003. “The Foundations of Qualitative Research.” InQualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students andResearchers, edited by J. Ritchie and J. Lewis, 2–23. London: Sage.

Sun, Y. 2012. “Does Text Readability Matter? A Study of Paraphrasing andPlagiarism in English as a Foreign Language Writing Context.” The Asia-PacificEducation Researcher 21 (2): 296–306.

Trinchera, T. 2002. “Cut and Paste Plagiarism: What It is and What to Do aboutIt.” Community & Junior College Libraries 10 (3): 5–9.

Unal, M., M. Toprak, and V. Baspınar. 2012. “Bilim Etiğine Aykırı Davranıslar VeYaptırımlar: Sosyal Ve Beseri Bilimler Icin Bir Cerceve Onerisi.” [EthicalViolations and Sanctions in Scientific Publications: A Framework Proposal forSocial Sciences and Humanities.] Amme İdaresi Dergisi 45 (3): 1–27.

Wilkinson, J. 2009. “Staff and Student Perceptions of Plagiarism and Cheating.”International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20 (2):98–105.

24 M.N. Kayaoğlu et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

aden

iz T

ekni

k U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

3:28

18

Mar

ch 2

015