1 / 30

Diana Razera Harko Verhagen Teresa Cerratto Pargman Robert Ramberg

Plagiarism awareness, perception, and attitudes among students and teachers in Swedish higher education – a case study. Diana Razera Harko Verhagen Teresa Cerratto Pargman Robert Ramberg. Agenda. Introduction Context of the Study The Swedish Context Methodology Analysis of Results

ataret
Download Presentation

Diana Razera Harko Verhagen Teresa Cerratto Pargman Robert Ramberg

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plagiarism awareness, perception, and attitudes among students and teachers in Swedish higher education – a case study Diana Razera Harko Verhagen Teresa Cerratto Pargman Robert Ramberg 4th International Plagiarism Conference - 2010

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Context of the Study • The Swedish Context • Methodology • Analysis of Results • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Motivation – Increasing number of: • Students entering university • Non-Swedish students attending international master courses in Swedish universities • Goal • To better understand plagiarism and cheating • Find out, formulate and implement a strategy to deter plagiarism and cheating

  4. Context of the Study • Department of Computer and Systems Science (DSV) at Stockholm University • Largest and oldest computer science department in Sweden • Over 3000 registered students

  5. The Swedish Context • Henriksson’s and Nilsson’s research (Uppsala University) • How teachers and students regard plagiarism in the context of Swedish universities • Henriksson • Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the question of plagiarism in academic settings • Nilsson • How students reason about using existing texts and asking others for help when writing research reports

  6. Methodology • Online surveys based • Immediate availability to digital data • Lack from a low level of participation • Participants • 10% of the invited students (47) • 25% of the invited teachers (24)

  7. Analysis of Results • Awareness of plagiarism • Attitude towards plagiarism • Perception of plagiarism • Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University

  8. Analysis of Results Awareness of plagiarism Attitude towards plagiarism Perception of plagiarism Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University 8

  9. Awareness of Plagiarism (Student) • Need for extra information to feel more comfortable for dealing with plagiarism • Look forward to more and more open use of electronic plagiarism detection tools

  10. Awareness of Plagiarism (Teacher) • More confident about the information available to them • Prioritize integration of the information into education • Clear policy documents • Clear set of guidelines > detection tools • Students + detection tools = possibly wrong approach

  11. Analysis of Results Awareness of plagiarism Attitude towards plagiarism Perception of plagiarism Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University 11

  12. Attitude Towards Plagiarism (Teachers x Students) • 9 set of sample situations of cases of plagiarism • Teachers and students share more or less the same opinion • Fluctuation about where to draw the line between cheating, plagiarism and non-plagiarism on an individual level • More resources to invest • In teaching/in teaching of scientific writing • In initiating discussions and making clear the uncertainty between acceptable and unacceptable conduct

  13. Attitude Towards Plagiarism (European x Non-European Students) • Two groups of 15 students each • Non-European • Pakistan and China • European • Greece, Sweden, Norway, Poland, France and Ukraine

  14. Attitude Towards Plagiarism(European x Non-European Students) • Slight variation per example situation • In some cases, the majority of European students categorized it as plagiarism x non-European students did not categorize it as plagiarism or cheating

  15. Attitude Towards Plagiarism(European x Non-European Students) To submit someone else’s work as if it was yours

  16. Attitude Towards Plagiarism(European x Non-European Students) To submit someone else’s work as if it was yours

  17. Attitude Towards Plagiarism(European x Non-European Students) To submit an essay that a friend wrote and gave you the permission to use it as if it was yours

  18. Attitude Towards Plagiarism(European x Non-European Students) To submit an essay that a friend wrote and gave you the permission to use it as if it was yours

  19. Analysis of Results Awareness of plagiarism Attitude towards plagiarism Perception of plagiarism Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University 19

  20. Perception of Plagiarism(Teachers x Students) • Both agreed that: • Students should have a better knowledge about academic writing • Students should learn what is allowed and not allowed • Different opinions about detection tools • Students have higher hopes on the benefits of detection tools

  21. Perception of Plagiarism(Teachers x Students) • Students • Better training in the type of assignment gives better self-esteem • Lack of motivation • Teachers • Poorly designed examinations

  22. Perception of Plagiarism(Teachers x Students) • Reason for plagiarizing • Combination of several variables • Lack of training due to not having received enough training in scientific writing • Lack of time due to poorly designed assessment procedures • Lack of student motivation

  23. Perception of Plagiarism(European x Non-European Students) • Great difference on reasons for plagiarism • Understanding that studying is aimed at independent and critical thinking (53% NE x 27% E) • Lack of knowledge of the rules and regulations (60% NE x 27% E) • Course demands too high (20% NE x 0% E) • Lack of motivation (67% NE x 27% E) • Laziness (60% NE x 47% E) • Plagiarism as an easy way out especially today, with spread of computer and the internet (33% NE x 73% E)

  24. Analysis of Results Awareness of plagiarism Attitude towards plagiarism Perception of plagiarism Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University 24

  25. Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University – Common Reasons for plagiarism • DSV – Teachers • Lack of clear definition on how students are supposed to do things • Students do not know enough about how to write scientifically • Uppsala – Teachers • An easy way out • Lack of time

  26. Comparison between DSV/Stockholm University and Uppsala University – Plagiarism Detection • Agreement on most of the options given • Plagiarism detection programs signal warnings as a prevention option • 50% of DSV teachers • 27% of Uppsala teachers

  27. Conclusion • DSV is technology-oriented • Teachers believe in the use of electronic plagiarism detection tools • Lack of consensus on when a text can be regarded as cheating, plagiarism or unproblematic • Strive for a common knowledge about what is acceptable and what is not

  28. Conclusion – Policy Changes • DSV is making clearer rules for both students and teachers • Supplementary policy of the use of electronic software detection • Investigation on what forms and procedures of assessment are used, when and how students are introduced to proper ways of writing to avoid plagiarism

  29. Conclusion – Future Research • Comparison between English and non-native English speaking students • Take into account the level of English for both groups • Plagiarism in computer programming

  30. Thanks for Listening!!

More Related