NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Internet Plagiarism Internet plagiarism among college students: Journal of College Student Development, May/Jun 2002 by Scanlon, Patrick M, Neumann, David R. Patrick Scanlon and David Neumann have produced a study of internet plagiarism based on surveying a limited number of undergraduates from a limited number of universities in the United States. According to Scanlon and Neumann, six hundred ninety-eight undergraduates from nine colleges and universities were asked to complete a survey on Internet plagiarism. However, as we read the article on Internet Plagiarism, it becomes apparent that the students were NOT asked to complete a survey on Internet plagiarism. They were not even asked to complete a survey on plagiarism. The survey itself had a dual purpose, to investigate plagiarism and communications.
In Scanlon's own words, in this survey students were asked about specific acts. In fact, the word plagiarism appeared in none of the items on the survey. (Scanlon and Neumann 2002). Scanlon relates that four years before his article was published (which would be in 1998), there were approximately 70 paper mills on the Web offering term papers (Basinger & McCollum, 1997). Coastal Carolina University, however, estimated that there were only 50 sites online in 1999 (Fain 1999). Groark, Oblinger, and Choa believe that there were 28 sites online in 1997 but 70 were available by early 1998 (Groark, Oblinger, Choa 2001). In 2001, Chillcoat reported that the yahoo search engine listed over 1300 online term paper sites (Chillcoat 2001).
One wonders what conclusion can be reached from this wide variety of estimation. The obvious conclusion is that the facts are in dispute. Disputable facts, therefore, are not true facts. During the article, Scanlon states that One further indication of growing concern over Internet plagiarism is the development of plagiarism-detection software, such as that employed by Turnitin.
com. In reality, there is no proof whatsoever that an indication of concern is the development of plagiarism detection software. It is quite possible that the proliferation of plagiarism detection software is a result of an aggressive marketing promotion by an industry that developed as a natural outgrowth of term paper mills. It is also possible that plagiarism detection software evolved as a result of students who wished to be sure their own papers were free of plagiarism before submitting them.
A multitude of plagiarism detection software programs and sites now exist, and are available to universities, high schools, and students alike. Since they are available for student use -- and many students DO use this software -- it is likely that some of the popularity of the programs and sites is due to student use. Does the Internet truly exacerbate the long-standing problem of student plagiarism on college campuses? June (2006) quotes Laura Choy as stating that "I think students end up plagiarizing unintentionally because they are not properly taught what constitutes plagiarism. " Is it possible that plagiarism does not exist, or exists in lower percentages, when staff members take the time to teach? June believes that plagiarism is a function of lack of proper training by professors, and states, Much of the plagiarism on college campuses is due to frequent careless use of the Internet. Students will use several sentences from different internet sources without acknowledging their origin.
Even Scanlon admits that the subject has not been adequately studied: Although student academic honesty has attracted considerable scholarly notice for some time, the probable impact of Internet access on student plagiarism is mostly a matter of conjecture and has not yet been studied sufficiently or systematically. Therefore, a measure of the incidence of student online plagiarism will provide a needed map of the territory and an indication of whether or not matters are as bad as many apparently fear they are. (Scanlon and Neumann 2002). It seems unrealistic, then, to announce that the Internet has contributed extensively to the high rise in plagiarism while admitting that the appropriate studies have not been done to prove the point! Given the circumstances one can reasonably question whether plagiarism is deliberate intent to cheat, whether it is lack of education as to what plagiarism is, or whether it is mere carelessness.
If the reader recalls, Scanlon pointed out that in his study, the term plagiarism was never used. Only the acts that Scanlon designated as plagiarism were reviewed. It is possible, therefore, that students did not make the connection between the academic direction do not plagiarize and the actual acts they committed. In such a case, they may not have realized they were plagiarizing.
Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor 1992) point out that 90 % of the students queried will say it is wrong to cheat. It stands to reason, therefore, that students do not realize they are cheating when they commit the acts that Scanlon and Neumann described in their study (but failed to label as plagiarism). Continuing on in that line of thought, Scanlon points out that Aaron (1992) and Nuss (1984) both describe an overall failure of academic institutions to describe what constitutes academic integrity, what defines cheating, and what independent scholarship means (Aaron 1992, Nuss 1984). Overall then we see a failure of the universities and academic organizations to teach, rather than intent of students to cheat. It is an important distinction. In the section of the study on incidence, Scanlon admits that qualitative review of plagiarism has been conducted primarily within English studies departments.
It seems unlikely that studying one subject out of hundreds can give an accurate estimation of plagiarism within an entire arena of academic study. Further, Scanlon even admits that the results are extrapolated from studies, which hardly lends itself to an aura of scientific review (Scanlon and Neumann 2002)... Throughout the study, Scanlon and Neumann make much of the contextual relationship of peer reviews of student plagiarism. They point out that 30 % of the students interviewed in a 1963 study by McCabe and Trevino (1996) admitted they were plagiarizing, but that in 1993, only 26 % of the students surveyed in the same schools admitted plagiarizing.
It is significant that absolutely no supporting information on these studies is given; while McCabe is quoted as stating these variables include perception of peers' behavior, student perceptions of the understanding and acceptance of academic integrity policies, the perceived certainty of being reported for cheating, and the perceived severity of campus penalties for cheating. " Scanlon states that Perception of peer behavior is an important factor in academic integrity, but no definition of plagiarizing is given as a baseline, either for the 1963 study or for the 1996 study. With no definition of plagiarizing, the reader has nothing to base an educated opinion on. Rather, the reader is left to conjecture to figure out what plagiarization is. It is important at this point to take a moment to reflect that the concept and definition of plagiarizing has changed significantly between 1963, and 1996. In point of fact the Internet did not exist in 1963; the entire concept of cut and paste was unknown and, indeed, the technology did not exist to make it possible. Therefore, the de facto definition of plagiarization must have changed significantly over this time period, making it impossible to achieve a direct comparison.
Yet, if we are to believe Scanlon and Neumann, McCabe and Trevino, a certain percentage of students admitted doing it even though the definition changed significantly and the operational definition also changed. Indeed, if we use Mccabe's definition of plagiarization as being perceptions of peer behavior (Trevino 1997), we are left with an even more vague definition of plagiarization; this definition has sunk literally to the point that wearing blue eye shadow to a formal might be considered plagiarization. While this author is willing to concede the point that there are numerous questions about honesty and plagiarism, it seems that Scanlon has done little to point to bonafide research. The research Scanlon has referred to uses a great many generalizations and nebulous terms of non-definition in a circuitous discussion of apples and oranges.
In the method section of the paper, Scanlon and Neumann discuss the method they used in their study, which had the intent to understand how students plagiarize using the Internet. They state that they will address cutting and pasting, soliciting papers from others, purchasing papers from online term paper mills (Scanlon and Neumann 2002). They report that they studied six hundred ninety-eight students in nine campuses, majoring in communication and English. Lets examine the basis for this study. In 2000, the American Council on Education (ACE) reported that there were 5010 schools in the United States granting degrees. In practical terms this means that only. 17 % of the schools were surveyed.
The proportion of students surveyed would be correspondingly low. While Scanlon points out that they survey represents a convenience sample, it seems unlikely that sampling only communications and English majors would have applicability to the general student population. Scanlon and Neumann state that they interviewed students from ages 17 - 23. One wonders how many 17 year old students they encountered in the college environment. Further questions relate to the efficacy of surveying only east coast major colleges.
Again, though the colleges represent a convenience sample, it seems unlikely that surveying only major colleges in a small geographic region of the country will have applicability to the general college population. Finally, Scanlon and Neumann surveyed 682 students from a student group in nine colleges of over 80, 000 populations. The sample surveyed amounted to 1. 06 % of the student population of 9 colleges, a number so low as to boggle the mind. It is difficult to make any conclusion that the results would be valid for the general student population of America in 2002! It is also of note that students were asked how often the believe other students committed the acts detailed in the survey, rather than how often they observed students committing the acts. This wording, in this authors opinion, left a great deal of room for conjecture on the part of the surveyed students, rather than limiting conjecture to known practices, which might have ended up in a more accurate reflection of practice.
I found it interesting that Scanlon stated, we wanted to know if any marked disparity exists between self reports of plagiarism and students' perception of what is taking place around them (Scanlon and Neumann 2002). In this regard, they make it clear they were not interested in actual reflections of practice; indeed, they were fishing for conjecture. An additional point is that Scanlon and Neumann surveyed students that they characterized as frequent Internet users, at 3 - 4 times PER WEEK. Upon reading this statistic alone, one must inherently find the results suspect; even in 2002 it was a rare young adult indeed who would use the Internet 3 - 4 times a week and be considered a frequent user; indeed, that rate of access is so low as to make this author suspect that Scanlon and Neumann inadvertently interviewed lower functioning members of the student body (who might then have a vested interest in plagiarizing).
Though Scanlon and Neumann point out in their summary and analysis, they surveyed a small number of students. While they contend that the groups surveyed constitute a convenience sample, it is my contention that it does not, due in part to the demographics of the groups surveyed (see my comments above). As Scanlon points out, some students are unable to acknowledge cheating, and others will answer in ways they perceive the surveyor wishes the questions to be answered, or in a socially acceptable manner. The issue, in my mind, is that the sample size was so low to begin with that students with dishonest answers will further skew the results. In the final analyses, Neumann and Scanlon conclude that It is no longer much of an insight to say that computers and the Internet have changed and are changing the manner in which all of us write. What is not yet as clear is how these technologies are shaping a new generation of students' conception of what does and does not constitute fair use of the countless texts so readily available at their desktops. (Scanlon and Neumann 2002).
It in a somewhat simplistic conclusion of this entire analysis, this author concludes that the best response to Scanlon and Neumann's analysis is best given by Homer Simpson: Doh (Fab Net 2004). It seems a tremendous waste of time, energy, and money to perform a study of this nature only to reach a conclusion that seems self-evident to every sentient being: the times are changing. Bibliography: Aaron, R. M. (1992). Student academic dishonesty: Are collegiate institutions addressing the issue?
NASPA Journal, 29, 107 - 113. ACE (2000). Frequently Asked Questions About Distance Education. September 11, 2000.
Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web Basinger, J. , & McCollum, K. (1997, October 31). Boston U. Sues Companies for Selling Terms Papers over the Internet. Chronicle of Higher Education, October 31, 1997, pp. A 34 -A 35. But, J. (2004).
Internet Plagiarism: A Growing Problem. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web Chillcoat, M. (2001) On-Line Paper Mills. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web Davis, S. F. , Grover, C. A. , Becker, A. H. , & McGregor, L.
N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16 - 20. Fab Net (2004). Doh is Now Official. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web Fain, M. (1999).
Cheating 101 - Paper mills. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web Groark, M. , Oblinger, D. , and Choa, M. (2001). Term Paper Mills, Anti-Plaigairism Tools, and Academic Integrity. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web June, N. (2006). Plagiarism rampant on many campuses. Sonoma State Star, 4 / 12 / 06.
Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web McCabe, D. L. , & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change, 28 (1), 28 - 33. (EJ 520 088) McCabe, D.
L. , & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38 (3), 379 - 396. Nuss, E. M. (1984).
Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching, 32 (3), 140 - 144 Scanlon, P. and Neumann, D. (2002). Internet Plagiarism Among College Students. Journal of College Student Development, May/Jun 2002. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from web
Free research essays on topics related to: college campuses, six hundred, term paper, student population, college student
Research essay sample on Six Hundred Term Paper
