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 paraphr.

1. 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 &

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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
(6

5. th
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

6. 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 5
‐
year systematic strategy to reduce plagiarism among
first
‐
year 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.

7. 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.