New Era University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism

In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements of the Course English 2-05:Writing in the Discipline A mini-survey research Presented to: Prof. Hazel Lucy Plaza

Adviser

Eric M. Dumlao Maria Mae Tolosa Marx JovenTulale FrunellZilei S. Estrella Ma. Vanessa E. Dela Cruz Ma.Karina Eloisa B. Madriaga

Researchers

Dedication

This book is lovingly dedicated to our respective parents who have been our constant source of inspiration. They have given us the drive and discipline to tackle any task with patience and

determination. Without their love and support this project would not have been made possible.

With all our heart And love, Researchers

Acknowledgement
We have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all of them. We are highly indebted to our English 2 professor, Maam Hazel Plaza, for her guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project & also for her support in completing the project. Our sincere appreciation is extended to all of our friends: Anne, Yeoj, Kc and Maricris for their advice during my research. We would also like to extend our deepest gratitude to our Family. For all their love and constant support. Last but not the least, we thank Almighty God for the guidance and unending love .

Psalm 40:6 Researchers

Table of Contents

Title Page Abstract Dedication Acknowledgement Chapter 1: Problem and Its Background 1.1 Research Questions 1.2 Thesis Statement 1.3 Significance of the Study 1.5 Definitions of Terms Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1 Population 3.2 Instrument 3.3 Library Materials and Researches 3.4 Treatment of Data Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of Data Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation Appendices - A Letter to the Dean 29 Clean Questionnaire Bibliography Appendices B Curriculum Vitae 30 31 28 18-24 5 6-15 16-17 4 4 1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study 3 3 1-3 iii

i ii iv

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies

25-27

CHAPTER I Introduction
Background of the Research
According to a dictionary,Plagiarism is defined as the practice of using or copying someone elses idea or work and pretending that you thought of it or created it.

The Josephson Institute Center for Youth Ethics surveyed 43,000 high school students in public and private schools and found that 59% of high school students admitted cheating on a test during the year 2011. 34% self-reported doing it more than two times. One out of three high school students admitted that they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment .For more survey results from the 2010 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth,

see http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/2010/installment02_report-card_honestyintegrity.html

We really cannot deny the fact that we are in the Digital Age Literacy where in all things we do can be manipulated by machines. This modern technologies really brought as many advantages and one of this is that it can make our everyday lives easier and comfortable but still there are disadvantages, especially to students like us. Children now a day are computer literate. Even at the age of 3, he/she can manipulate a certain gadget. Way back in the times when computers or gadgets were not yet really popularized, our parents and the teachers in their time use books,go to some places , and make interviews and surveys as their

references for their projects or assignments, but now for just a simple CLICK informations can easily appear on the screen, see how easy our lives today? But it also make our lives in danger because more of us just simply copy things in the internet without editing it or just simply not recognizing the author of the certain information. According to the Philippine law, Philippine copyright law is enshrined in the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known as Republic Act No. 8293. The law is partly based on United States copyright law and the principles of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Unlike many other copyright laws, Philippine copyright laws also protect patents, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property. There are also other laws that protect copyrights: the Optical Media Act (which protects music, movies, computer programs, and video games) is an example of such. The law is enforced through a body established by the law: the Intellectual Property Office, or IPO, and its various branches. Copyright implementation is done with the coordination of the IPO and the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines. Using someone else's ideas or phrasing and representing those ideas or phrasing as our own, either on purpose or through carelessness, is a serious offense known as plagiarism. Many people are not aware of this offense; they just think that taking up someones idea will not affect anyone or anything. Plagiarism has always been a major problem in the field of internet marketing, article promotion, and most specially, in the field of education. Students very often use the internet to prepare theses, term papers, essays and reports. Any information that they want is available on the internet today, which makes it easy for them to find whatever they need and copy it, too!

People nowadays almost have forgotten how to give importance to the work of others. Mostly in college, we are continually engaged with other peoples ideas: we read them in texts, hear them in lecture, discuss them in class, and incorporate them into our own writing. Therefore, it is very important that we give credit to where it came from originally.

Research Questions
This is a mini-survey on Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism during 1st semester of SY 2013-2014. Specifically, it aims to answer the following: 1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents? 2. How do respondents define plagiarism? 3. What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents? 4. Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing? 5. Have the respondents already committed plagiarism? 6. In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?

Thesis Statement
1. There are numerous number of students/respondents who are involved in plagiarism. 2. Students really know that copy and paste is an example of plagiarism. 3. There are students who do not understand or not aware of the punishment for plagiarizing.

Significance of the Study

This study aims to help people especially students, to become more knowledgeable and aware of the very serious academic offense of plagiarism. This will also help them to avoid or lessen this problem. As regards, it shall benefit the student wherein they will be responsible enough, Knowing that imitating is also a form of cheating. Hence, they will learn how to work on their own ideas and concepts which is more good. This will also help the teachers,parents and the school administrator in the way that they can assure to produce competitive and well learned and educated students.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study is limited to only 40 respondents from the College of Education, New Era University who have knowledge about plagiarism. There is no age required in answering the questionnaire, as long as he/she is a student of College of Education and can respond to the questions that will be given. There will be 10 respondents from 1styear ,10 respondents from 2nd year. 10 respondents from 3rd year and 10 respondents from 4th year.

Definition of Terms
Plagiarism- illegally copying someone elses work and presenting it as your own Digital Age Literacy- the ability to use the computer and its various applications to search, process, organize and present information. Literate-able to read and write. It also mean that they are intelligent and well educated especially about literature and arts. Imitation- copying someone elses action Commit- a crime or a sin they do something illegal or bad Prompt-someone to do something means to make them decide to do it. Fraud turning in a paper that was written or partially written by anyone else. Mosaic plagiarism refers when a person changes the construction of the sentence but does not bother to change the original wording. Copyright gives the author or creator the rights related to selling, publishing, and distributing creative work Paraphrase put research into your own words References sources such as books or articles that a person checks or uses during the research stage Citation a line of text that details one reference material

Chapter II Review of Related Literature and Studies

While English academics are becoming increasingly anxious about student plagiarism, the prevailing climate of concern has proved favorable for the growth of a new area of academic enquiry: plagiarism studies. Richard Terry (University of Sunderland) reflects on the phenomenon. Student plagiarism is now arguably the biggest dilemma facing universities. That cheating of this kind should have become so rife threatens to undermine the very idea of the university as a morally responsible community of learners and to call into disrepute the awards that such institutions confer. A concerted determination to confront the issue has in recent years spawned its own mini-industry. Conferences and symposia mull over the repercussions for pedagogy posed by the plagiarism outbreak; new software products have become available to assist in the detection of it; and assessment and infringement regulations across the sector have been re-drafted and fine-tuned in order to deter and penalize it. The current malaise is unprecedented in two respects. For one thing, students have probably never plagiarized so widely, and the growth of the internet and the rise of companies dedicated to selling specimen assignments have certainly made plagiarism seem a more viable way of gaining modular credits than was ever the case before. The buying of essays from the internet, moreover, conspires uncomfortably with an increasingly functionalist view of what universities themselves are: namely, organizations dedicated to selling certification to customers. In one sense, companies selling

assignments to students are simply challenging universities longstanding monopoly as vendors of higher educational credits. What also makes our current circumstances so novel is that not just do universities feel confronted by a problem that has spiralled into an epidemic, but they also feel so constrained in their ability to counteract it. In the old days, it was easy to arraign a student with having copied from a source and so having acted with an intention to cheat. Nowadays, however, the whole idea of intention needs to be negotiated like a minefield in a culture in which students might well be inclined to contest through law a universitys ability to divine infallibly the nature of their intentions. Many institutions, including my own, have retreated from such dangerous territory and defined plagiarism as essentially a property of a text, not as an act of mental will behind the creation of that text. At the University of Sunderland, the gravity of a plagiarism offence is determined by a combination of factors: the amount of material copied, expressed as a fraction of an entire assignment; the level of the programme at which the student is studying; and whether he or she happens to be a first-time or repeat offender. The imposed penalty remains indifferent to whether the copying in question is deliberate or accidental. Not surprisingly, what has emerged as the orthodox view is that the best way to deal with plagiarism is perhaps not to confront it but to circumvent it: to design assignments that are plagiarismproof. This avoids the problems of detection and penalization, but it represents its own form of capitulation, not so much to the students but to the intransigent nature of the problem itself. In concert with the growth of plagiarism as a problem for pedagogy has been a different sort of mini-epidemic: the growth of plagiarism studies. Literary historians have always taken some degree of interest in issues of copying or theft among authors as well as in a few celebrated plagiarism controversies, but never previously could such a scholarly byway be thought to constitute its own academic field. The last decade, however, has seen an explosion of such studies, including Laura J.

Rosenthals Playwrights and Plagiarists in Early Modern England (1996), Rebecca Moore Howards

Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators (1999), Shelley AnglilCarters Stolen

Language?

Plagiarism

in

Writing (2000),

Marilyn

Randalls Pragmatic

Plagiarism(2001), as well as a collection of essays edited by Paulina Kewes on Plagiarism in Early Modern England (2003). There seems little prospect of any immediate let-up in the flood of such
works, with two further ones, Tilar J. Mazzeos Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic

Period and Robert Macfarlanes Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature, already having appeared in 2007. My credentials for writing this current essay rest on the
several years I have spent trying to write my own study of literary plagiarism between Dryden and Sterne. What seems to unite most of these books, and to differentiate them from older studies of the same topic, is a concern to investigate not just the incidence of plagiarism but also its very nature as a concept. What precisely is plagiarism that we should nowadays be so horrified by it? Where did it come from and did former ages necessarily have quite the same scruples about the matter as we do now? It is, of course, convenient for modern universities to represent their injunctions against plagiarism as upholding a moral absolute, but to what extent is this really the case? Might our condemnation of plagiarism be considered instead as less a matter of pure ethics than of narrow professional etiquette? Plagiarism studies, then, is a field that explores the provenance of plagiarism as a concept, the fluidities concerning what at various times it has been understood to consist of, and the moral reception of plagiarism at different historical moments. Such books also have the added effect of convincing that textual copying, whether condemned or condoned, is scarcely a new phenomenon. Student plagiarists, however much we might be dismayed by their practices, are in good historical company.

The first recorded use of the word plagiarism is by the Roman poet Martial when complaining, as he often had cause to do, about a rival poet reading out his verses and passing them off as his own. It is actually a figurative coinage, since plagiarism referred in literal terms to the act of stealing slaves or even abducting children. Even from the outset plagiarism as a term means something bad, to be reprehended. While its not true to say that verbal copying has always and everywhere been deplored, the application of the word plagiarism to any act of copying seems never not to have had the effect of stigmatizing it. Martials indignation about being plagiarized, however, while it might seem to suggest his possession of the same moral standards as ourselves, is not entirely as it seems. What riles him is not in fact the spectacle of another writer claiming authorship of his own poems, for he could have endured that without the least pang if only he had been paid for the works in question. It is the loss of remuneration that infuriates him. He is happy enough in principle to conspire in a fraud over the actual ownership of the poems. When the idea of plagiarism migrates to England in the mid-seventeenth century, it preserves the same suppositions behind Martials usage of the term. One of these is that plagiarism has to do not with how a work is composed but how it is put before an audience: it means stealing someone elses work while stating it to be your own. As a corollary of this, it also means stealing a work in its entirety as distinct from lifting discrete passages or ideas, as we now tend to view the offence. When seventeenth-century writers express their sense of grievance at being plagiarized, they routinely stigmatize the plagiarist as a thief, thus reflecting a notion that plagiarists actually assume possession of the works that they target. Martials concept of plagiarism should not be mistaken for the one we possess nowadays: for us plagiarism involves not so much theft, in any meaningful sense, as deception. Moreover, plagiarists do not as a rule try to lay claim to entire books actually composed by other authors but to components of

them: to ideas, passages or expressions. This modern understanding of plagiarism seems to me to be a product of the mid-eighteenth century and involves a fresh understanding of the psychology behind plagiarism. Plagiarism had tended previously to be characterized as a bold, audacious act but from this point it becomes viewed instead as something furtive and secretive. From this point, too, dates the idea that textual referencing provides a sort of antidote to potential plagiarism. Writers of an allusive nature, who want to ward off any possible imputation of plagiarism, start to add footnotes to their works identifying the source of any borrowings. The current OED definition of plagiarism as the wrongful appropriation... and publication as ones own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas... of another bears close similarities to one originally penned in 1775. By this point, the modern concept of plagiarism has crystallized. Plagiarism committed by todays students does not fall under the rubric of theft, as it did originally, but of deception. The victim the offence creates tends not to be seen as the author whose words have been cribbed but instead the lecturer who gets duped by the plagiarism, or perhaps the other students in the cohort who play by the rules. For us plagiarism is not so much about borrowing material but about not declaring you have done so. This indeed points to a limitation of some current software products designed to identify student plagiarism by calculating the proportion of an assignment that has been appropriated. The problem is that the issue of plagiarism is not primarily one of appropriation but of disclosure, or the absence of it. This essay is an attempt to bring two things into each others orbit. Nearly all academi cs in English departments will at some point find themselves faced with the issue of student plagiarism, but how many are aware of the existence of a field of literary study expressly dedicated to the understanding of plagiarism as an historical phenomenon? How perhaps can our present malaise be usefully informed by the past? Studying plagiarism in earlier periods certainly convinces that standards

were not inevitably higher in the past, but also reassures that scope for condemning plagiarists has always existed. Even in Martials day, thieving poets risked being publicly exposed. Yet what has not remained constant is exactly what constitutes the offence, the amount of appropriation necessary to count as plagiarism, and the relation between it and related, though innocent, literary practices such as imitation and allusion. My own research has also cautioned me in particular to distrust the allegers of plagiarism. In earlier times, as in our own, the allegation is one not infrequently tainted by an impurity of motive, either of commercial advantage or professional rivalry. The plagiarism issue in a university context, however, remains crucially different from plagiarism as a general phenomenon. Though often confused with the legal offence of breach of copyright, plagiarism has never been subject to juridical regulation. It remains a matter of professional integrity and individual ethics. Student plagiarism, on the other hand, is proscribed by the regulations of (one imagines) all universities, regulations by which students become bound once they enter an institution. Moreover students, even though they may not always appreciate it, are as much beneficiaries as victims of this regime, in so far as universities outlawing of plagiarism helps preserve a level playing field from which the student body in general stands to benefit. Ultimately, whether the example of history recommends lenience or severity in dealing with current-day plagiarism is perhaps not the point. It is an offence, and accordingly subject to penalty, because universities have the rightful prerogative to declare it to be one. Perceptions of Plagiarism For several reasons, learners have a different perception of what plagiarism is. In some cases, the learners have received ambiguous or conflicting education on plagiarism. In other cases it is social identity where learners are comparing themselves to others. If learners perceive everyone to be a cheater or perceive faculty not to care about plagiarism, their perception on plagiarism may be skewed.

Public Perception of Plagiarism

Weiss and Bader (2003) report that the public perception of academic dishonesty in higher education is that it is a serious problem. Because public perception is so poor, they argue it will be difficult to change the perception where mistrust and disinterest are prevalent. Peirce and Allshouse (1999) suggest that situations such as take-home tests, previous tests kept on file, and online services that practically beg learners to download ready-to-submit papers only exacerbate the public perceptions on cheating. Another finding by Heberling (2002) indicates the public perception on cheating is that it takes place online more than in the classroom on ground wherein the reality is that academic dishonesty takes place in both environments. The results of a three study analysis by Education Testing Services (1999) indicates the general public perception is that cheating is more prevalent and accepted today; the respondents to the surveys see cheating in many facets of life: politics, business, home, and school, and collaborative environments like the Internet are making the definition of cheating even murkier. ETS also reports that 56% of educators and 31% of the public (including parents, and learners) say that they hear about cheating incidents. However, only 35% of educators and 41% of the public (including learners and parents) agree that there is a problem with cheating on tests. The fact that these respondents know plagiarism is taking place but dont consider it to be a problem makes addressing the problem from a preventative nature in higher education more important.

Learner Perception of Plagiarism

Many researchers argue that there is ambiguity on what is perceived as academic dishonesty among learners (Ashworth et al., 1997; Heron, 2001; Lathrop & Foss, 2000; Peirce &Allshouse, 1999;

& Weiss & Bader, 2003). Learners have claimed that they dont know what instructors consider to be dishonest or cheating. An example of an area of ambiguity might include peer collaboration and knowing to what extent the collaboration is considered inappropriate. Lathrop and Foss agree that there is an inherent conflict between an instructors desire to assign collaborative work to learners for preparation for future careers and the need to teach learners to do their own work. The point of crossing the line to cheating may differ by each instructor. Even though there is ambiguity among learners on what constitutes academic dishonesty, there is also a cavalier attitude toward cheating by learners in higher education.

Research consistently reports that learners feel their cheating will not affect others (Weinstein &Dobkin, 2002). Some researchers argue that students understand plagiarism to be a victimless crime; the only person that plagiarism is cheating is oneself. Studies on self-reported plagiarism indicate that plagiarism is accepted among their peers, the likelihood of getting caught is slim, and if the learner does get caught, the punishment will be minimal. Gibbs suggests that learners will not be deterred from misconduct, in this case cheating, unless they perceive they will get caught and that the punishment is perceived to be severe.

Learners will simply weigh the cost and benefits of plagiarizing based on their personal beliefs. The potential cost is the probability of getting caught and the perceived punishment. The perceived benefit is based on learner perception of how much plagiarism will improve his or her grade. Under this theory, faculty must establish policy, inform learners of the policy, and enforce the policy with strict consequences in order to deter plagiarism in the course. Learners accepting plagiarism as the norm are the people responsible for the future civil society and the economy and, unfort unately,

this cavalier attitude of learners is not ending at graduation, but is continuing with resume fraud, crib notes for the CPR exam, and altering of other learner scores.

In 1993, Sims published an article on the relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Sixty people were surveyed and 91% of the respondents admitted they had been dishonest in college and 98% of the respondents admitted to dishonest work behaviors. The author of this study concludes that his data is consistent with the results of a 2001 study by Nonis and Swift who found that many students accept academic dishonesty as acceptable behavior and that learners that are dishonest in college are more likely to carry the dishonesty into the work place. For learners to have this cavalier attitude toward dishonesty is of concern because, in most cases, institutions of higher education have a learner conduct code and in many cases this code is published right on the course syllabus. What learners dont understand is the credibility of their alma mater and that their degree is at risk due to this behavior Given the high-profile plagiarism cases over the last few years, one would believe that scholars would know and understand the definition of plagiarism. One would also assume that all high-ranking academics would be especially careful to maintain their esteemed reputations and role-model statuses. Modern technology has made it easy for researchers to avoid such pitfalls. Even so, two studies shed light on the problem of plagiarism in higher education research. Cheema, Mahmood, Mahmood, and Shah (2011) found that while some plagiarism in higher education research is intentional, some is unintentional and a matter of ignorance of plagiarism facts. The authors found that while most researchers do have a general idea of what constitutes plagiarism, many were not aware of the differing types of plagiarism (Cheema et al, 2011). A substantial number of researchers also did not realize the penalties involved in committing plagiarism. In the studys conclusion, Cheema et al. (2011) suggested that researchers be educated in correct citation usage and

intellectual property laws.

Plagiarism Among High-Ranking Scholars In another study on plagiarism in academic research, Honig and Bedi (2012) concentrated on the demographic and institutional predictors of plagiarism practices by social science academics. The authors chose to study scholars because these are the individuals in charge of teaching students. These researchers have future scholars in their care. Honig and Bedi (2012) focused on the researchers status, country, gender, and education as plagiarism practice predictors. The results of the study showed that many academic plagiarists live in countries that are outside of North America. In regard to institutional predictors, the authors found that an institutions censure practices, customs, and permitted procedures have an effect on plagiarism acceptance. The best practices of, for instance, a university in North America, may not be fully adopted by institutions in other regions for various reasons, including the fact that the new practices may conflict with those that have been in use for a long time. Another finding by Honig and Bedi (2012) was that differences in plagiarism practices exist between researchers educated in English-speaking countries and those educated in other places. The authors contended that scholars who are pressured to publish in English may plagiarize because they do not fully grasp the English language, but are compelled to publish. In regard to gender, the authors noted that men are more apt to plagiarize than women. Honig and Bedi (2012) concluded that plagiarism is higher where there is more incentive for publishing. Many in academia must publish to advance in their careers. The authors also noted that senior scholars from high-ranking institutions have a high plagiarism rate. These esteemed members of the academic community should be setting an example for their students and other scholars (Honig & Bedi, 2012). The authors concluded their findings with a call for monitoring and censure for higher

education researchers of all ranks.

Chapter III Methodology

This chapter presents the research method, technique and sampling population and discussion of statistical treatment of data.

A.

Population The target population of the study are students in New Era University who had

experience with plagiarism. Most of the respondents are from Quezon City. The researcher used qualitative approach in selecting respondents. B. Research Design This study employs the descriptive research. A descriptive research describes and interprets existing phenomenon. It is also gives used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena to describe what exists with respect to variable or conditions in a situation. C. Instrument The researchers constructed a questionnaire that contains best the needed data. Grammar and structure was consulted to the professor in-charge. After several deletions and revisions, the researcher finished constructing the questionnaire and printed it right away. The final output was done in succeeding days. Respondents were given a day to fill the said questionnaire. One of it was collected by the researcher personally and the rest were through the persons who served as a link or messenger to

the interviewee. Aside from a questionnaire, the survey was also supplemented with conversations or dialogs with friends and other students who are also interested in the researchs topic.

D.

Library Materials and Researches The researchers got the support of technology using the Internet to complete her study.

She retrieved files from a particular website, www.yahoo.com. They also did book hopping to look for some related facts. The researchers asked their classmates and acquaintances if they had already encountered this problem. Through these strategies, the researchers successfully gathered the needed informations.

E.

Treatment of Data Upon completing the ten questionnaires that was dispensed to forty respondents, the

researchers tallied the answers. Raw scores for each option were indicated and this was converted to its percentage. Charts and graphs were used to interpret the collected data.

Chapter IV Presentation and Analysis of Data

This is a mini-survey on Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism during the 1st semester of SY 2012-2013. Specially, it aims to answer the following: 1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents? 2. How do respondents define Plagiarism? 3. What activities are considered Plagiarism by respondents? 4. Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing? 5. How many of the respondents think they have plagiarized? 6. In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?

Problem # 1 Who are the respondents of the study? Table 1: RESPONDENTS PROFILE

Assigned No. of respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Years of age 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 22 23 25 26

Gender Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Female

Year/Level 1st year 1st year 2nd year 1st year 1st year 2nd year 1ST year 1ST year 1ST year 1st year 1st year 1st year 2nd year 4th year 1st year 2nd year 2nd year 2nd year 2nd year 3rd year 2nd year 3rd year 3rd year 2nd year 2nd year 2nd year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 3rd year 3rd year 4th year 4th year 3rd year 3rd year 3rd year 4th year 4th year 4th year 3rd year

A.

Age The oldest age is 26 while the youngest age is 14. Almost half of the respondents are

female. B. Year/level Figure 1

Frequency Distribution of the respondents year/level

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year

10 25%

10 25%

10 25%

10 25%

This figure shows that the questionnaires are equally distributed to the respondents. In every year level there are 10 questionnaires distributed.

Figure 2

Percentage Distribution of the respondents gender

Female

Male

40% 60%

This figure shows that 24 or 60% out of 40 respondents are female while 16 or 40% are male.

Problem # 2 How do respondents define Plagiarism? Figure 3

Percentage Distribution of plagiarism defined by respondents

The Figure shows that 55% of the respondents define plagiarism as stealing of concepts,while 30 % of them define it as copying. There is 4 % for paraphrasing,2% for borrowing and 7 % for imitating. However there is 2 % for the other answer.

Problem #3 What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents? Figure 4

Percentage Distribution of what activities are considered Plagiarism by the respondents

30 25 20

26

17
15 10

9
5 0 copying one's work

0
re-wording the onformation from a book representing ideas as your own

3
copying during examinations copying a work without recognizing he author

The Figure shows that copying ones work is the number 1 activity that is considered as plagiarism by the respondents,followed by copying a work without recognizing the author,followed by representing ideas as your own and last copying during examination.And there is no respondents who answered re-wording information from a book.

Problem # 4 Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing? Figure 5

Percentage Distribution of the students awareness of the penalties sued for plagiarism

UNFAMILIAR

20%

4
NO

10%

28
YES

70%

10

15

20

25

30

The figure shows that 28 or 70% out of 40 respondents are aware of the punishment of getting caught of plagiarizing. We also have 4 or 10% who were not aware of the punishment. Yet, we got unfamiliar answer from 8 or 20% of the respondents.

Problem # 5 Have the respondents already committed plagiarism? Figure 6

Frequency Distribution of how many of the respondents think they have plagiarized

YES 27%

MAYBE 48%

NO 25%

The figure shows that 27 % out of 40 respondents have already done plagiarism followed by 48% who were not sure if they already done plagiarism. Meanwhile, there are 25 % who answered No or havent done before.

Problem # 6 In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism? Figure 7

Percentage Distribution of instances do respondents do plagiarism

answering examinations 2% others please specify 0%

making research papers 21%

making report 18%

making assignment 59%

The figure shows that 59 % out of 40 respondents did plagiarize in their making of assignment, while 18% in report, 21 % in making research. However, we got from 2 % of the respondents in answering examinations.

CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

This is a mini-survey on Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism during 1st semester of SY 2013-2014. Specifically, it aims to answer the following: 1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents? 2. How do respondents define plagiarism? 3. What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents? 4. Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing? 5. Have the respondents already committed plagiarism? 6. In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?

Summary of the Research

Problem # 1 What is the demographic profile of the respondents? Problem # 2 How do respondents define plagiarism? Fifty-five percent (55% ) of the respondents define plagiarism as stealing of concepts,while 30 % of them define it as copying.There is 4 % for paraphrasing,2% for borrowing and 7 % for imitating.However there is 2 % for the other answer. Problem # 3 What are the activities which are considered as plagiarizing by the respondents? The survey shows that copying ones work is the number 1 activity that is considered as plagiarism by the respondents,followed by copying a work without recognizing the author,then by representing ideas as your own and last copying during examination.And there is no respondents who answered re-wording information from a book.

Problem # 4 Are the respondents aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing? Twenty-eight (28) or 70% out of 40 respondents are aware of the punishment of getting caught of plagiarizing. We also have 4 or 10% who were not aware of the punishment. Yet, we got unfamiliar answer from 8 or 20% of the respondents.

Problem # 5 Have the respondents already committed plagiarism? Twenty-seven percent (27 %) out of 40 respondents have already done plagiarism followed by 48% who were not sure if they already done plagiarism. Meanwhile, there are 25 % who answered No or havent done before.

Problem # 6 In what instances did the respondents commit plagiarism?

Fifty-nine percent (59 %) out of 40 respondents did plagiarize in their making of assignment, while 18% in report, 21 % in making research. However, we got from 2 % of the respondents in answering examinations.

Conclusion
We therefore conclude that most of the respondents were not sure if they already done plagiarism ,they do not really know that simply doing copy and paste is an example of plagiarism but most of the respondents are aware of the punishment of getting of plagiarizing. The survey shows that copying ones work is the number one activity that is considered as plagiarism by the respondents and respondents define plagiarism as stealing of concepts.

Recommendation/s
The researchers recommended the following: 1. Academic integrity, including plagiarism avoidance, should be taught to young students as soon as they begin to write papers. 2. A respect for intellectual property and ones reputation should be instilled in learners as early as possible. 3. Take Careful Notes; make sure to take accurate notes. Taking good notes will help you track all of the information from your sources. Using your own words, write down the main points of each source. 4. Make use of citation data. 5. Wrting the information in your own words . 6. Always acknowledge the source or the author of the information.

APPENDICES

New Era University

College of Education
#9 Central Avenue,NewEra,Quezon City Center for Teaching Learning
August 27,2013 Dr. Lydia Libunao, Ph. D. DEAN College Of Education New Era University Dear Mam We are second year students of College of Education taking up of the Course, English 2-05:Writing in the Discipline during this semester.One of the requirements in this subject is to conduct a mini survey.Our research is entitled Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism. In this regard we are requesting your permission to allow us to conduct a survey toseclectedCollegeof Education students, faculty members and staff of the department to answer the questionnaires that we have prepared. Thank you very much.This would surely be an additional learning to our students. Very truly yours, Eric M. Dumlao Maria Mae Tolosa Marx JovenTulale FrunellZilei S. Estrella Ma. Vanessa E. Dela Cruz Ma.Karina Eloisa B. Madriaga

RESEARCHERS
Noted:

________________________ Professor Hazel Lucy Plaza

ADVISER

New Era University

College of Education
Dear Respondents, Greetings! The researchers are conducting a mini-survey entitled Factors that Prompt Students to Commit Plagiarism This survey is a vital part of our feasibility research project. Rest argued that all information which we would gather would be treated with outmost confidentiality. Thank you so much for participating! The Researchers, Profile Name:___________________________________ Gender:____ Age _____ Year/Level:_________

Put a check on the space provided and if there is a other answer please specify and write it on the space provided. 1. What is plagiarism for you? ____Copying ____ Paraphrasing ____ Imitating ____ Borrowing ____Stealing Ideas/Concepts ____ Others pls specify _______________

2. What are the acitivities you consider as plagiarizing? ____Copying ones work ____ re-wording the information from a book ____ representing ideas as your own ____ copying during examinations ____ copying a work without recognizing the author 3. Are you aware of the punishment for getting caught of plagiarizing? ____ YES ____ NO ____UNFAMILIAR 4. Have you ever plagiarized? ____YES ____NO

____MAYBE

5. In what instancesdid you commit plagiarism? ____ making assignment ____ making research papers _________Others please specify ____ making report ____ answering examinations

Bibliography

Braumoeller, B. & Gaines, B. (2001). Actions do speak louder than words: Deterring plagiarism with

the use of plagiarism-detection software. The American Political Science Association Online.
Retrieved September 14, 2004 from

Cheema, Z., Mahmood, S., Mahmood, A., & Shah, M. (2011, January). Conceptual awareness of research scholars about plagiarism at higher education level: Intellectual property right and patent. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(1), 666-671. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 101-123. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.

http://www.apsanet.org/PS/dec01/braumoeller.cfm

http://opinion.inquirer.net/41218/sotto-what-really-happened-in-plagiarism-issue

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/plagiarism/

http://ojs.ml.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view
http://www.plagiarism.org/resources/facts-and-stats/