One page response for this discussion post. Must be APA three scholarly references.
A Brief Statement that Summarizes the Literature I Have Reviewed to Date
Researchers have found that approximately half of all undergraduate college students have committed some form of plagiarism (Blum 2011). However this number may be inaccurate because some students may not admit to plagiarism and because it does not take into account all ways in which students can plagiarize (Colella-Sandercock 2015). A relatively new way for students to plagiarize is to use paraphrasing websites (Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). These are free websites where students can copy information from a source onto the website and the website will then rewrite the information for students free of charge (Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). Although these websites are called paraphrasing websites they do not actually paraphrase information. Instead they replace words found in the original text with synonyms (Kannangara 2017). This is also known as patchworking which is considered a form of plagiarism (Howard 1992). Sometimes the patchworking done by these paraphrasing websites makes the new passage to sound unintelligible (Kannangara 2017). Despite this it has been suggested that students might use paraphrasing websites because they believe their papers will go undetected by plagiarism detection software (Kannangara 2017; Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). However more research is needed to support this claim (Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). There might be other reasons why students use these websites (Rogerson & McCarthy 2017).
Academic locus of control is one theory that explains why some students choose to commit other forms of plagiarism (Bretag et al. 2014; Pino & Smith 2003; Power 2009). Academic locus of control refers to whether students take personal responsibility or blame others for their academic successes or failures (Pino & Smith 2003). Researchers have found that students with high internal locus of control which means that they take personal responsibility for their academic successes and failures are less likely to plagiarize than students with high external locus of control which means that students believe that someone else besides them is to blame for academic successes and failures (Power 2009). However past research findings on academic locus of control should not be generalized to students who use paraphrasing websites because researchers did not measure this type of plagiarism in their studies (Pino & Smith 2003; Power 2009).
Gaps/Limitations in the Literature
Most research on the use of paraphrasing websites by college students has focused on what these websites do and the quality of the passages that are created by these websites. Less is known about why students choose to use these websites (Kannangara 2017; Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). Researchers have found that poor time management skills as well as a lack of understanding of how to paraphrase cite and reference are reasons why students commit other forms of plagiarism such patchwork plagiarism or buying a paper from a paper mill (Emerson Reese & MacKay 2005; Hart & Friesner 2004; Pino & Smith 2003). In addition and as previously mentioned academic locus of control is also a factor that contributes to other types plagiarism committed by college students (Pino & Smith 2003). However these results should not be generalized to students who use paraphrasing software since the researchers did not choose to measure this type of plagiarism in their studies (Colella-Sandercock 2017; Emerson Reese & MacKay 2005; Hart & Friesner 2004; Pino & Smith 2003).
In addition one limitation of current research on plagiarism is that results may not be valid (Colella-Sandercock 2017; Walker 2010). In addition and as previously stated while it is estimated that nearly half of all college students have plagiarized at some point in their college careers the rate of plagiarism among college students may actually be higher because some students may be afraid to admit to plagiarism (Blum 2011; Colella-Sandercock 2017). Some researchers have suggested that having students answer closed-ended questions can lead students to lie on surveys even when told their answers will be anonymous and admitting to plagiarism will not affect their grades in any way (Colella-Sandercock 2017). As a result some researchers have suggested that students might be more honest if given a chance to openly discuss any instances of plagiarism that they have engaged in (Colella-Sandercock 2017; Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). According to Colella-Sandercock (2017) this is because students may welcome the opportunity to have their voices heard. In addition Power (2009) found that when participants are allowed to openly discuss plagiarism a lot of rich data can be collected.
Problem Statement
While researchers have found that approximately half of all undergraduate college students have committed some form of plagiarism the rate of plagiarism among undergraduate college students may be even higher due to students reluctance to admit to plagiarism (Blum 2011; Colella-Sandercock 2017). While plagiarism detection software can decrease the likelihood that students will plagiarize in some instances this software is not perfect (Heckler Rice & Hobson-Bryan 2013; Owens & White 2013; Warn 2010). When students use paraphrasing websites or websites that rewrite information for them this rewritten information often goes undetected by plagiarism detection software (Kannangara 2017). Researchers have found that plagiarism detection software does not always pick up every single instance of plagiarism and this may encourage students to use paraphrasing websites (Warn 2006; Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). However this assumption is based on small sample size and conjecture (Kannangara 2017; Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). Although students may see using plagiarism websites as an easy way to plagiarize without getting caught using such websites will not prepare students learn the material necessary to succeed in future courses as well as their chosen careers (Gullifer & Tyson 2010; Warn 2006). In addition being able to paraphrase sufficiently is a skill that needs to be mastered by students in many disciplines such as psychology where paraphrasing is preferred over quoting (American Psychological Association [APA] 2010; Owens & White 2013). While academic locus of control might explain other forms of plagiarism to-date academic locus of control among not been studied in students who use paraphrasing websites (Bretag et al. 2014; Pino & Smith 2003; Power 2009).
For my dissertation I will address the issue of plagiarism among undergraduate college students. More specifically I will examine the use of paraphrasing websites by undergraduate psychology students and whether academic locus of control is a factor in these students use of paraphrasing websites. Finally so that participants feel more comfortable discussing a difficult topic like plagiarism I will allow participants the opportunity to openly discuss their use of paraphrasing websites by conducting qualitative interviews.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this mixed methods study is to understand the lived experience of locus of control in undergraduate college students who use paraphrasing websites. Paraphrasing websites will be defined as any website a student uses where they copy information from an Internet source or textbook and the website rewords this information for the student (Rogerson & McCarthy 20177. Examples of paraphrasing websites include paraphrasing-tool.com Spin-Bot.com and Free-Best-Spinner.com (Kannangara 2017; Rogerson & McCarthy 2017). At this stage in the research process locus of control will be defined as scores on the academic locus of control scale for college students (Trice 1985).
References
American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Blum S. D. (2011). My word!: Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca NY: Cornell University
Press.
Bretag T. Mahmud S. Wallace M. Walker R. McGowan U. East J. … & James C. (2014).
Teach us how to do it properly! An Australian academic integrity student survey.
Studies in Higher Education 39(7) 1150-1169.
Colella-Sandercock J. A. (2017). Self-reporting in plagiarism research: How honest is this
approach? Journal of Research Practice 12(2).
Curtis G. J. & Vardanega L. (2016). Is plagiarism changing over time? A 10-year time-lag
study with three points of measurement. Higher Education Research & Development
35(6) 1167-1179.
Gullifer J. & Tyson G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A
focus group study. Studies in Higher Education 35(4) 463-481.
Heckler N. C. Rice M. & Hobson-Bryan C. (2013). Turnitin systems: A deterrent to
plagiarism in college classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education
45(3) 229-248.
Howard R. M. (1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing 11(2) 233-245.
Kannangara D. N. (2017). Quality ethics and plagiarism issues in documents generated using
word spinning software MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practices
7(1) 24-32.
Owens C. & White F. A. (2013). A 5year systematic strategy to reduce plagiarism among
firstyear psychology university students. Australian Journal of Psychology 65(1) 14-21.
Pino N. W. & Smith W. L. (2003). College students and academic dishonesty. College Student Journal 37(4) 490-500.
Power L. (2009). University students perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher
Education 80(6) 643-662.
Rogerson A. M. & McCarthy G. (2017). Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original
work patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational
Integrity 13(1) 1-15.
Trice A. D. (1985). An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 61(3) 1043-1046.
Walker J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do not what they say they
do. Studies in Higher Education 35(1) 41-59.
Warn J. (2006). Plagiarism software: No magic bullet! Higher Education Research &
Development 25(2) 195-208.