ABSTRACT The purpose of the study is to validate a scale to measure attitudes toward plagiarism. The survey questionnaire was administered to a purposive sample of 300 graduate Ph.D. students from private, state, and central universities. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate attitudes and subjective norms toward plagiarism. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, composite reliability, and construct validity. Positive attitudes toward plagiarism, negative attitudes toward plagiarism, and subjective norms demonstrated a high level of convergence among the items (...) thereby supporting the convergent validity of these constructs. The study extends the theory of planned behavior to predict intentions to plagiarize. Positive attitudes, negative attitudes, and subjective norms were related to plagiarism. Positive attitudes toward plagiarism indicate an individual’s tolerance, acceptability, and positive perception toward an unethical task. Negative attitudes condemn plagiarism and the third dimension, subjective norms toward plagiarism, reflect the thinking and the occurrence of plagiarism and the acceptance of such behavior in academic and research settings. (shrink)

Scholarship on faculty and student perceptions of plagiarism is plagued by a vast, scattered constellation of perspectives, context, and nuance. Cultural, disciplinary, and institutional subtitles, among others in how plagiarism is defined and perspectives about it tested obfuscate consensus about how students and faculty perceive and understand plagiarism and what can or should be done about those perspectives. However, there is clear consensus that understanding how students and faculty perceive plagiarism is foundational to mitigating and preventing plagiarism. This study takes (...) up the challenge of investigating its own institution’s student and faculty perspectives on plagiarism by testing whether students and instructors differentiate between different kinds or genres of plagiarism, and measuring differences in their perception of seriousness or severity of those genres. Using a device modified from the ‘plagiarism spectrum’ published by Turnitin®, the researchers implemented a campus-wide survey of faculty and student perceptions, and analyzed the data using two different methodologies to ensure results triangulation. This study demonstrates both students and faculty clearly differentiate between kinds of plagiarism, but not on their severity. This study demonstrates both students and faculty clearly differentiate the severity between kinds of plagiarism, but not on the specific rank or order of their severity. Further, this study’s novel methodology is demonstrated as valuable for use by other academic institutions to investigate and understand their cultures of plagiarism. (shrink)

The current study extends previous literature regarding the effectiveness of learning about academic integrity through peer instruction by assessing the impact of a peer instructional approach for actual and perceived learning gains over time. One trained residence don provided one interactive 30-min presentation covering four major aspects of academic integrity and misconduct to groups of undergraduate students. In total, 192 participants attended the workshop and were surveyed for their knowledge of academic integrity immediately before the presentation, immediately after the presentation, (...) and after a four week delay. Perceptions regarding the presentation also were assessed. Consistent with previous literature, results indicate perceived learning gains and preference for having an interactive presentation delivered by a residence don. In addition, actual gains in knowledge were found immediately after the presentation and gains remained evident over a four-week delay. Outcomes suggest that peer instruction is a viable and effective approach for educating students about academic integrity. (shrink)

A total of 1390 university students from five public Moldovan universities completed a survey reporting their experiences and beliefs with respect to 22 types of academic misconduct. An interpretable five-factor solution to the frequencies of these behaviors accounted for more than half of the total variance. The two most reliable predictors were 1) how often students witnessed other students engage in these behaviors, and 2) perceived acceptability of the behaviors. Demographic predictors of these behaviors (gender, academic specialty, year in school, (...) institution, grade average, and scholarship status) predicted minimal variance. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. (shrink)