Vol 12 No 1 - June 2015

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.12 No.1

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 12 NUMBER 1 June 2015
Table of Contents
Coping with Teasing and Name-Calling Scale for Children.............................................................................................1
Ümit Sahranç
Assessment for Learning: How Plagiarism can be used as an Efficient Learning Tool............................................... 17
Lucía Morales and Amparo Soler-Domínguez
The use of Technology to Support the Innovative Teaching of Mathematics to Students with SEBD: A Debate
Related to the use of Technology in the Classroom to Promote Inclusion....................................................................35
Jonathan Camenzuli
An Effective Approach for Teaching Database ................................................................................................................ 53
K. S. Sastry, Musti
Circuit Analysis Tools: Integrating Smartphone and Tablet Applications and Simulation Software into Circuit
Analysis Instruction and Laboratories............................................................................................................................... 64
John Ulrich, Charles Feldhaus, Elaine Cooney and David Nickolich
Efficacy of Cognitive Instruction in Teaching Deictic Motion Verbs in EFL Classrooms .......................................... 84
Hu, Ying-hsueh
Teaching in Interactive Pedagogical Perspective at Primary Schools in Northern Mountainous Provinces of
Vietnam ............................................................................................................................................................................... 105
Associate Prof. Dr. Duc-Hoa Pho
Discussion Forums in MOOCs.......................................................................................................................................... 119
Afsaneh Sharif and Barry Magrill
An Empirical Research on the Use of Mobile Phones to Support Students’ Mathematics Learning ...................... 133
Nguyen Danh Nam and Trinh Thi Phuong Thao

1
© 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-16, June 2015
Coping with Teasing and Name-Calling Scale for
Children
Ümit Sahranç
Sakarya University
Turkey
Abstract The aim of this study was to develop a Coping with Teasing
and Name-Calling Scale for Children (C-TANCS-C). A sample of 317
students (156 girls, 161 boys) completed C-TANCS-C. Principal
components factor analysis and direct oblique rotation were used for
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was used to confirm the obtained factors. The results of EFA
revealed that C-TANCS-C had three factors (aggression, ignoring, and
convincing) with 12 items. 12 Items explained 62.94 % of the total
variance. The results of CFA demonstrated that the 12 items loaded on
three factors and the model had an acceptable fit (x²= 120.15, df= 51,
RMSEA=.069, NNFI=.94, CFI=.97, IFI=.97, and SRMR=.061). The
internal consistency coefficients were .82 for the overall scale, .81 for
aggression, and .78 for convincing factor. The corrected item-total
correlations ranged from .26 to .62. In terms of convergent validity, C-
TANCS-C scores were found to be positively and significantly
correlated with Rosenberg self-esteem scale (r= .19, = 31.63, sd= 5.23, α=
.01), and hope scale scores (r= .30, = 28.78, sd= 5.57, α= .01). The study
also revealed that coping levels of students C-TANCS-C scores changed
according to gender and grade, were girls’ coping levels were higher
than boys, coping levels of students were highest at 4th grade, lowest at
7th grade. Overall findings demonstrated that this scale is a valid and
reliable.
Key words: Coping with teasing; name-calling; bullying; confirmatory
factor analysis.
Introduction
Teasing and name-calling are common occurrences among elementary and
secondary school children in Turkey. It is also a problem in many countries such
as United States, Japan, Australia, Ireland, Canada, Great Britain, Malta, and
Finland (Aho, 1998; Borg, 1999; Bosacki, Harwood and Sumaway, 2012; Dennis,
1999; Slater and Tiggemann, 2011). Elementary and secondary school teachers
complain about teasing and name-calling behaviors of their students to school
counselors.

2
Characteristics and definition of teasing
An ordinary tease contains a negative expression about the target person but is
shaped as play or humor (Alberts and Kellar-Guenther, 1996). Some authors
suggested that there are many types of teasing. As afore mentioned, name-
calling as a tease, is the "act of teasing or referring to a peer with a label that may
create unpleasant or hurtful feelings" (Dennis, 1999); or occurs when one child
refers to another with an unkind label (Embry and Luzzo, 1996). Name-calling
has been categorized as mild, moderate, and severe. Mild name-calling includes
mocking and taunting. Moderate verbal abuse includes teasing about clothing,
possessions, or appearance. At the severe level, verbal threats of violence or
threats to inflict bodily harm (Horner, Asher, Fireman, 2015; Dennis, 1999) can
be easily named as bullying. Because bullying covers threats and the intention of
physical harm (Borg, 1999; Olweus, 1993).
However, not all kinds of teasing is harmful. According to Ross (1996) playful
teasing can be amusing and constructive. Teasing itself and being teased can
support children to gain social skills that they will need in their later life. Playful
teasing serves as a developmental function. For instance, teasing may contribute
to the development of gendered relational identity, identity display, and social
control (Pichler, 2006). Yet some children seem not to have necessary social skills
that are required to be developed for further adolescence and adulthood
interactions, even for a constructive or playful teasing manner and more
importantly, social skills to cope with non-playful teasing.
Though developmental in function Ross (1996) explained that teasing;
sometimes playful teasing can be non-playful. Teasing is a permeative,
potentially troubled communication behavior (Alberts and Kellar-Guenther,
1996). In such cases, teasing is somehow a kind of problematic communicative
interaction between people that has negative consequences including problems
related to abandonment by peers, course attendance, academic achievement,
self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness (Embry and Luzzo, 1996). Recent research
revealed that body dissatisfactions (Konstanski and Gullone, 2007; Slater and
Tiggemann, 2011) and eating problems (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2002) are also
related to teasing. According to Mills and Carwile (2009), teasing varies from
indirect and direct forms of aggression including mocking, hurtful teasing,
assigning hurtful nicknames and other forms of name calling to humor and
some kind of psycho-socially challenging play. In other words, the nature of
teasing may include both negative and positive sides. This paradoxical
characteristic of teasing makes an explanation of the concept of teasing difficult
in terms of operational definition and clarity.
This article treats the terms of teasing and name calling as variations of bullying
consistent with the definitions of Dennis (1999), Embry and Luzzo (1996), and
Olweus (1993). Even though it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the concepts
of bullying, teasing and name-calling, it should be remembered bullying
behavior involves overt hostile intention and overt intimidation; but teasing
does not (Mills and Carwile, 2009). In this respect, a clear operational definition
of teasing and name-calling is required. After adding some elements on previous

3
definition of teasing and name-calling made by the Sahranç (2014) the definition
becomes “Teasing is any kind of teaser's (or teasers’) recurrent verbal
behavior(s) by which the person being teased is referred as an undesired label,
an unkind manner, only because of one or more of attributed real or unreal
characteristic(s) of person being teased, resulted in distress on targeted (teased)
person via a form of explicit or implicit humor even though it is not humor”.
The definition has five components beyond person being teased. They are: (1)
recurrent verbal behavior of perpetrator(s) or teaser(s), (2) negative manner, (3)
attributed characteristics of targeted person (the person being teased), (4)
stressful emotional consequences on the behalf of targeted person, and (5)
humor-persona. Name-calling is a kind of teasing by which the person(s) being
called as an undesired label. Name-calling is covered by this definition, and
physical injury or bullying behaviors are extracted.
Results of teasing and name calling
Understanding the reason for why some children are affected negatively by
teasing even though some are not is difficult to categorize. At first glance, it is
easily observed that some of children do not seem to be negatively affected;
some are heavily disturbed and feel injured even though the very same teasing
behavior or manner they both face with teasing and name-calling.
Students who are the targets of offensive teasing and name-calling usually face
painful social, emotional, and academic consequences (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla,
June Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001). These consequences may include
chronic absenteeism, diminished academic performance, deflated self-esteem,
increased anxiety, loneliness, and abandonment by peers. Victims also
experience embarrassment, rejection, and apprehension. (Embry and Luzzo,
1996; Bucchianeri, Eisenberg, Wall, Piran, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2014; Juvonen,
Graham, & Schuster, 2003).
Current study
In the literature of bullying, teasing and name-calling, there are some scales
related to teasing such as Physical Appearance Related Teasing Scale
(Thompson, Fabian, Moulton, Dunn, Altabe, 1991) and its revision. But this scale
is not aimed to determine coping levels of pupils. In this regard, it can be said
that there is not any scale related to coping with teasing and name-calling.
Appropriate coping behaviors of teased pupil sometimes prevent further teasing
attacks. Thus, it is important to find out coping with teasing and name-calling
levels and ways of students who are being teased. Such an instrument also helps
school counselors to prepare convenient psycho-education programs to gain
students functional and socially acceptable coping behaviors. For this reason, in
this research, a coping with teasing and name calling scale was aimed to develop
depending on the findings of Scambler et al. (1998). The study of Scambler et al.
(1998) revealed that the most effective way was the humorous response,
ignoring is the second effective way, least effective response was the hostility.
Method
Research design

4
Participants
In the process of C-TANCS-C’s development, four groups of students were the
participants. (1) Thirty five (19 girls, 16 boys) 4th and 5th grade
studentscomprise the teasing and name-calling types of pupils. The age range
was 9-10 (X̅= 9,49, sd = 0,51). (2) A different group of 28 pupils (15 girls, 13 boys)
from 4th grade, included to detect vague items. The age range was 9-10 (X̅= 9.39;
SD = 0.5). (3) A sample of 317 students (134 girls, 166 boys, 17 unknown) were
included in the study as participants to administer selected items to 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th, and 8th grade students, the age range was 9-13 (X̅=12.13; SD = 1,73). (4) For
the concurrent validity, a different group of 289 students from 4th, 7th, and 8th
grade were the participants from primary and secondary schools in Kocaeli in
Turkey.
Instruments
Instruments used for concurrent validity in the study were Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (RSES), and Children’s Hope Scale (CHS). Information about these
scales were given below.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
RSES was developed by Rosenberg (1965) and adopted to Turkish by
Çuhadaroğlu (1985). It is a uni-dimensional scale with 10 items. It is utilized a
four-point likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The
RSES composed of five positively scored (1, 2, 4, 6, 7) and five negatively scored
items (3, 5, 8, 9, 10). The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficients of
the RSES was .81 (Özmen, 2006). In the current study, the Cronbach’s Alpha
internal consistency coefficients of the scale was calculated as .79 (n=294). All
correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Children’s Hope Scale (CHS)
CHS was developed by Snyder and his colleagues (1997), and adopted to
Turkish by Atik & Kemer (2009). It has two-factor structure (pathways &
agency) with six items. It consists of a six-point likert-type scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency
coefficient of the CHS was .74 and test-retest reliability score was .57 within one-
month interval (Atik & Kemer, 2009). In current study, the Cronbach’s Alpha
internal consistency coefficients of the scale was calculated as .83 (n=298). All
correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Procedure
Preparatory stage
In this study, in order to develop C-TANCS-C an item pool was needed. For
item pool, a group of 4th and 5th grade students (N=35, 19 girls, 16 boys) were
interviewed by the researcher. They were asked about teasing subjects, styles,
and how they react when they were being teased, and the answers were noted.
The interview revealed that there was an other way for coping with teasing and
name- calling, that was convincing the teaser. Some students told the researcher
that “I directly go to teaser and convince him verbally not to tease”. Scambler et al.
(1998) categorized the coping behaviour with teasing as responding with humor,

5
with hostility, or by ignoring. Thus, convincing factor also planned to add the
instrument.
Item generation stage
First step
With regard Scambler’s et al. (1998) findings and children’s answers, items were
generated. For the number of the items, or a scale construction study, Şeker &
Gençdoğan (2006) suggested that an item pool should have three times more
items than the intended scale. Thus, 37 items were generated for C-TANCS-C.
Thereafter, an expert group was established for assessed the content validity of
the instrument.
Second step
The group consisted of 5 teachers and 3. Three out of five teachers graduated
from Turkish education departments, and 2 teachers graduated from primary
education departments of various universities. All three academicians were from
Psychological Counseling and Guidance program at Sakarya University, and
teachers were from primary and secondary state schools. The expert group
appraised the generated items according to Turkish grammar, and
comprehension level of primary school children. The teachers were invited to
the Sakarya University in order to discuss the rough form of C-TANCS-C. In
accordance to the suggestions and comments of the experts, some contextual
and linguistic corrections were made.
Third step
A 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (It is totally wrong for me) to 5 (it is
totally true for me) with 31 items were read to a different group of pupils (N =
28, 15 girls, 13 boys) in order to find out vague items. 12 items were difficult to
comprehend especially by 4th graders, or meaning of some items were repeated,
so these items were excluded. At the end 19 items were selected for C-TANCS-C.
At the end the trial form consisted of 19 items.
Fourth step
In the fourth step, the trial form of C-TANCS-C was administered to a sample of
317 students (134 girls, 166 boys, 17 unknown genders). The validity of C-
TANCS-C consisted of content validity analysis via expert opinions, and
structure validity analysis via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. For
reliability analyses, Cronbach’s alpha, and for the item discrimination, corrected
item total correlation, and t-test scores were calculated. The reliability and
validity analyses were conducted via SPSS 11.5 and LISREL 8.51.
Concurrent Validity Procedure
Rosenberg self-esteem scale, children hope scale, and the last version of C-
TANCS-C were administered to a different sample of 303 students (136 girls, 167
boys) from primary and secondary schools, and also in this step, coping with
teasing levels were examined depending on gender, and grade level.
Findings
Structure Validity

6
In scale construction process, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
assessed whether the instrument is valid or not. Exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) is combined related variables to explore conceptually meaningful new
variables or tested the models that indicate the relationships among factors and
their indicators as a multivariate statistic procedure (Sipahi, Yurtkoru, & Çinko,
2008). Moreover, before conducting structure validity methods, the data set
should was checked for convenience for factor analysis via correlations among
variables and sampling adequacy values. KMO value should be higher than .60
and Barlett test should be significant to carry out a factor analysis with a given
data set (Büyüköztürk, 2010). Besides, Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) and Çokluk,
Şekercioğlu and Büyüköztürk, (2010) stated that oblique rotations are
convenient in situations when factors may not be orthogonal. Yet, other
contention proposes that an oblique rotation may produce a slightly better
structure than a varimax rotation (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan,
1999). However the patterns of loadings have usually been the same (Barbuto,
Wheeler, 2006). Depending on all these cautions and deliberations about test
construction, KMO sampling adequacy, Barlett Sphericity Test were checked,
and varimax and oblique rotation were applied. In Table 1, the first exploratory
factor analysis and related factor loadings were demonstrated.
Table 1: The First Exploratory Factor Analysis
Items Components
1 2 3 4
1 .50 .29 .11 -.13
2 .12 .79 .04 -.05
3 .09 .84 -.06 .00
4 .74 .16 -.01 -.11
5 .78 .03 .07 -.07
6 -.01 .04 -.09 .85
7 -.19 .16 -.04 .78
8 -.08 .79 .02 .16
9 .11 .77 .07 -.01
10 -.25 -.17 -.22 .53
11 .33 .11 .50 -.13
12 .43 .21 .62 -.14
13 .20 .10 .75 -.06
14 -.07 -.17 .63 -.06
15 .36 .06 .65 -.09
16 .50 -.05 .33 -.18
17 .66 .01 .29 -.10
18 .68 .10 .14 -.03
19 .53 -.18 .30 -.07
The results demonstrated that KMO sampling adequacy test coefficient was .85,
and Barlett Sphericity Test was significant (χ2= 1857.806 p < .001), which imply
that factorable. For C-TANCS-C, variance scores for each item were quite similar
even though oblique rotation produced a slightly better value as stated by
Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999). The first EFA revealed that

7
the preliminary C-TANCS-C has four factors with eigenvalues higher than 1.0,
from 1st to 4th factor, explained 27.22%, 14.55%, 7.17%, and 6.48% all 55.4% of
total variance respectively.
Though no consensus on item omission criteria, items with loadings lower than
.30, (Büyüköztürk, 2010) or .50, .70 (Sipahi et al., 2008) could be the subjects of
item omission. For C-TANCS-C, items with lower than .50 factor loadings were
omitted. From the results of EFA and expert’s discernments, the final version of
C-TANCS-C consisted 12 items with categorization in three factors. The factors
were Aggression (A), Ignoring (I), and Convincing (C) as similar to Scambler et
al. (1998) findings in some way (i.e. aggression and ignoring), in which three
ways of coping were suggested. Convincing factor was emerged as a result of
student interview as mentioned before.
At the end, the results of the analysis revealed that A factor was accounted for
34.96 % of variance, I factor was accounted for 19.29 % of the variance, and C
factor was accounted 8.70 of the variance. As in table 1, factor loads of A varied
between .76 to .85, factor loads of I varied between .67 to .74, and factor loads of
C varied between .69 to .78. These three factors together explained 62.94 % of the
total variance of C-TANCS-C. Factor loads were presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Factor Loadings and Explained Variance Values of C-TANCS-C
Scores
Item no
Factor
Loadings
Explained variance (%)
F1
Aggression
2 .76
34.96
3 .85
8 .78
9 .76
F2
Ignoring
4 .74
19.29
5 .68
17 .74
19 .67
F3
Convincing
11 .69
8.70
12 .77
13 .78
15 .75
In order to find out relationships among the factors, bivariate correlation
coefficients were calculated. The results have shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Correlation coefficients of inter factors of C-TANCS-C
I C A
Ignoring 1
Convincing .58** 1
Aggression .18** .22** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Aggression factor was related to convincing (.22), and to Ignoring (.18),
Convincing factor was related to Ignoring (.56).

8
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Accuracy of factor structure that is determined by exploratory factor analysis
can be tested with confirmatory factor analysis (Şimşek, 2007). First-order and
second-order confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with 12 items.
First Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The three factors of C-TANCS-C (Aggression, Ignoring and Convincing) were
analyzed with the first order confirmatory factor analysis to detect the factor
structure defined by exploratory factor analysis, to determine at which point
theory and reality diverge from each other, and to analyze problematic areas
using LISREL 8.51 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001). The results revealed that the
model provided a good fit to the data (Χ2/DF = 2.09, P<.00), RMSEA = .069, GFI
= .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .97, IFI = .97, NFI = .94, RFI = .92, SRMR = .061). In
addition, AIC (174.15) and CAIC (300.05) values were lower than the
independence model’s AIC and CAIC values (1958.47, 2014.42, respectively).
Results were illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Factor Loadings and Path Diagram for the C-TANCS-C
Second Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis
As presented, exploratory factor analyses revealed three factors for C-TANCS-C.
Second order confirmatory factor analysis was carried out in order to test
whether these three factors were predicted by C-TANCS-C as a latent variable.
In order to test the factor structure, the model examined with second order
confirmatory factor analysis. Results were illustrated in Figure 2.

9
Figure 2. Factor Loadings and Path Diagram for the C-TANCS-C
According to the model, results provided a good fit to the data (Χ2 /DF = 2.09),
RMSEA = .069, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, NFI = .90, RFI = .90,
SRMR = .061). In addition, AIC (174.15) and CAIC (300.05) values were lower
than independence model’s values (1203.00, 1258.95, respectively). Therefore,
regarding admissible fit indices, the assumed C-TANCS-C model had an
acceptable fit to the data.
Concurrent Validity
In order to determine the concurrent validity of the scale, the relationships
among C-TANCS-C, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), and Children Hope
Scale (CHS) were calculated. The results of the concurrent validity analyses
revealed that C-TANCS-C was significantly correlated with RSES (.19), CHS
(.30), In addition, RSES was correlated with CHS (.61) with p< .01. Correlations
C-TANCS-C with RSES and CHS and results of concurrent validity analyses are
presented in Table 4.
Table 4: The Results of Concurrent Validity of C-TANCS-C
Scales C-TANCS-C RSES CHS X̅ sd
C-TANCS-C 1 43.11 10.75
RSES .19** 1 31.63 5.23
CHS .30** .61** 1 28.78 5.57
** p< .01
Reliability
Reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha and test-retest
reliability. The internal consistency reliability score was found .81 for the
aggression subscale, .75 for the ignoring subscale, and .78 for the convincing
subscale. The overall reliability of the scale was .82.

10
Item Analysis
The aim of the item analysis is to choose the most related item with the
construct. This aim is done by evaluating how each item is related to its own
unidimensional construct (Gorsuch, 1997). Positive and high item total
correlations mean these items have capability of sampling similar behaviors If
the item total correlations are higher than .30, the item can be included in the
construct (Özdamar, 2004). One other way for item analysis is comparing means
of lower 27% and higher %27 of the sample with independent sample t-test. The
significant difference is accepted as the demonstration of internal consistency of
the scale and the items can discriminate measured behaviors or attitudes of the
individuals (Büyüköztürk, 2010).
In this regard, item analysis, corrected item-total correlations and t-test scores
were calculated. The corrected item-total correlations scores of C-TANCS-C
ranged from .26 to .62 that was almost all item total correlations were above .30.
T-test results were found significant (p<.0001).
T values of lower-upper 27% groups were between -7.44 and -16.49 for whole
scale. T-values of factors were for aggression between -7.44 and -13.74, for
ignoring -9.75 and 16.49, for convincing -9.99 and -14.75. Corrected item total
correlations, means, standard deviations, and t-test scores for upper and lower
scores of 27% of the sample were presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Corrected item total correlations, means, standard deviations, and t-test scores for
upper and lower scores of 27% of the sample
Factor Item no rjx of
C-TANCS-C
rjx of factors t values of factors
Aggression 2 0,46 .62 -11,561
3 0,41 .71 -13,744
8 0,26 .58 -7,441
9 0,43 .58 -11,040
Ignoring 4 0,54 .56 -16,490
5 0,52 .57 -11,508
17 0,52 .59 -12,456
19 0,35 .46 -9,752
Convincing 11 0,51 .57 -13,497
12 0,62 .64 -14,747
13 0,46 .58 -9,985
15 0,52 .58 -12,154
p< .001
Other results
Differences in terms of Gender and Grade Level
Within this study, coping levels of students were investigated according to
gender and grade level via t-test, and Welch's t-test with Tamhane T2, as
presented in Table 6. The analysis unfolded that coping levels of students C-
TANCS-C scores changed according to gender, and also it changed according to
grade level (4th, 7th, 8th).

11
Table 6. C-TANCS-C differences, means and t values in terms of Gender
and Grade Level
sd t
Gender
Female 44,38 9,92 2,326*
Male 41,52 11,44
*p<0,05, **p<0.001
Significant mean differences were found between the C-TANCS-C scores
according to gender. Female students’ C-TANCS-C scores were higher than
male students’.
In order to test differences among grade levels of C-TANCS-C scores, data was
examined via Levene test for the homogeneity of variance [F(2,300) = 4.104.864,
p= .017]. The Levene test results forced analysis to non-parametric
correspondence of one-way anova, that is Welshc test. The differences between
groups were examined with Tamhane T2. The results were presented in table 7.
Table 7. Results of Welsch Test In Regard With Grade Levels
(I) Grade level (J) Grade Level Mean Differences (I-J)
4
7 8,05*
8 8,69*
7
4 -8,05*
8 0,64
8
4 -8,69*
7 -0,64
*p<0,05
Significant mean differences were found between 4th grade and 7th grade, and
4th grade and 8th grade (p< .05). 4th grades C-TANCS-C scores were higher
than 7th and 8th grade students’ C-TANCS-C scores.
Discussion and Conclusion
In this study, a coping with teasing and name-calling scale for children was
developed. In the literature of bullying, teasing and name-calling, there are some
scales related to teasing such as Physical Appearance Related Teasing Scale
(Thompson, Fabian, Moulton, Dunn, Altabe, 1991) and its revision. But this scale
is not aimed to determine coping levels of pupils. Depending on the coping
behaviors of students being teased, further teasing attacks may change, if the
behavior of coping effective, it stops, if does not, the teasing behavior continues.
If coping styles with teasing does not seem to be effective, it is time to prepare
and implement functional and socially acceptable psycho-educational programs
for improving coping behaviors of students being teased. Therefore, it becomes
very substantial to ascertain and categorize the coping styles of students.
In the findings of Scambler et al. (1998) , when reaction to the teasing is humor, it
is the most effective way to cope with teasing behavior. When it is ignorance, it
is very similar to not giving reinforcement. In this case, coping effectiveness is

12
also successful, but not as successful as humor. In the case of fight or hostility,
the least effective result is obtained by the person being teased. These findings
were accounted for the development of this C-TANCS-C. During the C-TANCS-
C development, primary and secondary school students were interviewed and
coping alternatives of them were categorized. Hence, it was assumed that the
scale had three factors. When the categorization examined, it was very similar to
Scambler et al. (1998) except humor. Instead of humor, convincing factor
conceived by the students. It may be because of social desirability effect or
group dynamic in which the students affected each other during the item-
generation period. It is very obvious that C-TANCS-C covers coping styles of
ignorance and aggression as proposed by Scambler et al. (1998). Moreover,
student interviews demonstrated that there is one other way of coping,
convincing teasers, was confirmed by the analysis.
In this study, the first order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that
assumed model of C-TANCS-C had an acceptable fit (RMSEA = .069), and
second order CFA had also an acceptable fit (RMSEA = .069) to the data due to
all indicators had reasonable scores. According to Hu & Bentler (1999) Root-
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) .08 or below indicates an
acceptable fit. According to Ullman (2001), the criterion for acceptance of the
relative or normed chi-square (chi-square index divided by the degrees of
freedom) should be less than 2, but according to Schumacker & Lomax (2004) it
could be less than 5. Root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) is .05
or below indicates a good fit, while .08 or below indicates an acceptable fit (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). In terms of the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) and
goodness of fit index (GFI), values of .90 and higher are considered as indicative
of acceptable fit, in terms of CFI, values greater than .95 are considered as
indicative of acceptable fit (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, &Müller, 2003).
During the C-TANCS-C test construction process, items with higher values as a
result of exploratory factor analysis were extracted, it may be the reason for
acceptable fit for the C-TANCS-C’s all three factors were confirmed by first and
second order CFA.
In order to ensure the originality of a scale, in other words, to approve the scale
measures a different characteristic or structure than other scales concurrent
validity should be performed (Büyüköztürk, 2010). In this regard, concurrent
validity was carried out in order to approve C-TANCS-C’s originality. Because
hurtful teasing is related to lower self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness (Embry and
Luzzo, 1996; Bucchianeri et al. 2014), Rosenberg self-esteem scale would be
appropriate for concurrent validity. Also hopelessness is related to negative life
events including teasing and humiliation (Gibb & Alloy, 2006), Children’s Hope
Scale (Snyder et al., 1997) would be convenient. Thus children hope scale and
Rosenberg self-esteem scale were used for the concurrent validity. The scores
revealed significant positive correlations between C-TANCS-C and RSES (r =
.19), and between C-TANCS-C and CHS (.30) which means coping with
behaviors of children rise, both hope and self-esteem levels also increase.
Though correlation scores between scales were significant, the scores were
relatively low. Because the correlation coefficients below .30 is accepted lower

13
relationships (Büyüköztürk, 2010). However this result demonstrates that C-
TANCS-C is a different construct than RSES and CHS, and assumed hypothesis
was revealed that when coping with teasing levels increase, hope and self-
esteem levels also increase.
The current study also revealed that coping levels of students changed
according to gender that was girls’ coping levels were higher than boys. These
differences can be explained by the different types of relationship behaviours
between boys and girls. Boys are usually less oriented to study compare to girls,
especially in general schools (Van Houtte, 2004). Boys show more disturbing
plays and behaviors, distracted more (Warrington at al, 2000), and involved in
sports activities more than girls (Martinović, et al., 2011). Boys also choose more
intense and higher levels competitive ball games activities (Blatchford et al.,
2003; Parrish et al. 2009), while girls’ choices were more socializing games. Also,
achievement differences between gender taking into account, boys’ cumulative
grade point average (CGPA) scores or achievement levels are lower than girls
(Warrington et al, 2003). In the case of underachievement, boys can compensate
this gap with undesired manners like teasing achievers. In the case of boys’ ball
games and sports activities, teasing behaviors can be seen more often,
aggression is easily manifested instead of convincing the opponent or ignoring.
In both cases boys also could be less likely to cope with teasing by ignoring and
convincing. They may prefer aggression instead of convincing and ignoring.
Thus, as in this study, male students’ C-TANCS-C scores were lower than
female students.
In the case of grade level, 4th grade students’ coping levels were significantly
higher than 7th and 8th. 7th graders had the lowest coping level and 8th graders
had slightly higher even though the difference was not significant. 7th grade
students are mostly at the age of 12-13, 8th grade students mostly at the age of
13-14, and 4th grades are at the age of 9-10. Adolescence period is accepted
between the ages of 12-19 (Spear, 2000). In this manner, 7th and 8th graders are in
adolescence period, while 4th graders are not. Adolescence is a period that
includes abstract thinking and reasoning, viewing oneself with others’ eyes as
well as biological and physical changes that the adolescent is much more
sensitive than other developmental stages. For this reason, coping with teasing
levels of students may diminish in 7th and 8th grades.
Even though it was not significant, the reason for 8th grades coping behavior
slightly higher than 7th grades may be because of the accustomed to this
transition period compare to 7th grades. In Turkey, there are national high
school entrance examinations called TEOG. All 6th , 7th, and 8th grades students
should enter these examinations in order to enroll in a high school. It causes too
much stress and anxiety especially for 8th graders, because 8th grade TEOG is
very important in this process. Thus, as all 8 grades share it as a common
problem, takes too much energy and time to study. For this reason students may
not be interested in teasing and being teased, and also they may become closer
to each other because of this common problem. Also for 4th grade, students are
in childhood period, not as sensitive as adolescents to undesired behaviors

14
towards themselves, and very familiar to other classmates because of four years
togetherness, meaning very familiar to their classmates teasing manners, and
may develop how to cope.
Besides all possibilities related to differences of coping with teasing behavior,
primary and secondary schools, it is a well-known case that some of children
being teased are negatively affected by teasing. Hence, future research is
required for a psycho-education program related to coping with teasing and
name-calling to test its effectiveness and spread it to needed schools in order to
improve students coping with teasing and name-calling.
References
Aho, S. (1998). The teasers and the teased pupils at school. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 42(3), 309-318. DOI: 10.1080/0031383980420305
Alberts, J. K.; Kellar-Guenther, Y. (1996). That's not funny: Understanding recipients'
responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication. 60(4), 337-356. doi:
10.1080/10570319609374553
Atik, G. & Kemer, G. (2009). Psychometric Properties of Children’s Hope Scale: Validity
and Reliability Study. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 379-390.
Barbuto, J. E. & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale Development and Construct Clarification of
Servant Leadership. Group & Organization Management 31(3), 300–326.
Blatchford, P. Baines, E., Pellegrini, A. (2003). The social context of school playground
games: Sex and Ethnic Differences, and Changes Over Time After Entry to
Junior School. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 481–505. doi:
10.1348/026151003322535183.
Borg, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary
school children. Educational Research, 41(2), 137-153. DOI:
10.1080/0013188990410202
Bosacki, S, Harwood, D., & Sumaway, C. (2012). Being mean: Children’s gendered
perceptions of peer teasing within the classroom. Journal of Moral Education, 41,
473- 489, DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2012.690728.
Bucchianeri, M. M., Eisenberg, M. E., Wall, M. M., Piran, N., Neumark-Sztainer D. (2014).
Multiple Types of Harassment: Associations With Emotional Well-Being and
Unhealthy Behaviors in Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(6), 724–729.
DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.205
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: PegemA
Akademi Yayınevi.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli
istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: PegemA Akademi Yayınevi.
Çuhadaroğlu, F. (1985). Gençlerde Benlik Saygısı İle İlgili Bir Araştırma. XXI. Ulusal
Psikiyatr ve Nörolojik Bilimler Kongresi Bilimsel Çalışmaları, Adana. s.107-108.
Dennis, M. J. B. (1999). Name Calling and the Peer Beliefs of Elementary School
Children. Professional School Counseling. 3(2), 76-80.
Embry, S. L.; Luzzo, D. A.(1996). The relationship between name-calling and peer beliefs
among elementary school children. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling,
31(2), 122-130. DOI: 1997-02586-004.
Fabrigar, Leandre R.; Wegener, Duane T.; MacCallum, Robert C.; Strahan, Erin J.
Psychological Methods, 4(3), Sep 1999, 272-299.
Gibb, B. E. & Alloy, L.B. (2006). Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
(35)2, 264–274, DOI:10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_10.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory Factor Analysis: Its role in Item Analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment,68(3), 532-560.

15
Horner, S. Asher, Y., Fireman, G.D. (2015). The impact and response to electronic
bullying and traditional bullying among adolescents. Computers in Human
Behavior. 49, 288-295. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.007
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (2001). Lisrel 8: User’s Reference Guide, 2. ed. Lincolnwood.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S. & Schuster, M., A. (2003). Bullying Among Young Adolescents:
The Strong, the Weak, and the Troubled. Pediatrics, 112;1231-1237. DOI:
10.1542/peds.112.6.1231
Kostanski, M. & Gullone, E. (2007). The Impact of Teasing on Children’s Body Image.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16,307–319. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-006.
Martinović, D., Ilić, J., & Višnjić, D. (2011). Gender Differences in Sports Involvement
and Motivation for Engagement in Physical Education in Primary School.
Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 31, 94-100. ISSN: 1822-1764.
Mills, C.B., & Carwile, A.M. (2009). The good, the bad and the borderline: separating
teasing from bullying. Communication Education, 58(2), 276–301.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., June Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094–2100.
DOI:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.
Olweus, D. ( 1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In
R.DeV. Peters, R.I. McMahon, & V.L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence
throughout the life span, 100-125. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Özmen, O. (2006). Predictors of risk-taking behaviors among Turkish adolescents.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi (Middle East
Technical University), Ankara.
Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 2 / Çok Değişkenli
Analizler. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
Parrish, A.M., Iverson, D., & Russell, K. (2009). Observing children’s playground activity
levels at 13 Illawarra primary schools using CAST2. Journal of Physical Activity
and Health, 6, 80-96.
Pichler, P. (2006). Multifunctional teasing as a resource for identity construction in the
talk of British Bangladeshi girls. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(2), 225–249.
10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00326.x.
Ross, D. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: what school personnel, other
professionals, and parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Sahranç, Ü. (2014). Development of a Coping with Teasing and Name-Calling Scale for
University Students. 3rd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in
Education. 29.10.2014, Milan.
Scambler, D. J.; Harris, M. I.; Milich, R. (1998). Sticks and Stones: Evaluations of
Responses to Childhood Teasing. Social Development. 7(2), 234-249. DOI:
10.1111/1467-9507.00064.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Çinko,
M. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım
Dağıtım.

16
Slater, A. & Tiggemann, M. (2011). Gender differences in adolescent sport participation,
teasing, self-objectification and body image concerns. Journal of Adolescence. 34,
455–463. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.06.007.
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., Highberger,
L., & Kandy J. Stahl, K. J. & Rubinstein, H. (1997). The Development and
Validation of the Children's Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22(3), 399-
421.
Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 24, 417–463. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-
7634(00)00014-2.
Şimşek Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş‐Temel İlkeler ve LISREL
Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks.
Şeker, H., ve Gençdoğan, B. (2006). Psikolojide ve Eğitimde Ölçme Aracı Geliştirme. Ankara:
Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon
Thompson JK, Fabian LJ, Moulton DO, Dunn, M E, Altabe, M.N. (1991). Development
and validation of the Physical Appearance Related Teasing Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 56: 513-521.
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell
(2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed; p 653- 771). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Van Houtte, M. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: the difference
between boys and girls academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159-173.
DOI: 10/1080.0305569032000159804.
Warrington, M., Younger, M. & Williams, J. (2000) Student attitudes, image and the
gender gap. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 393–407. DOI:
10.1080/01411920050030914.
Warrington M., Younger M & McLellan R (2003): Underachieving Boys in English
Primary Schools? Curriculum Journal, 14, 184-206. DOI:10.1080/09585170302830.

17
© 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 17-34, June 2015
Assessment for Learning: How Plagiarism can be
used as an Efficient Learning Tool
Lucía Morales
Dublin Institute of Technology
Dublin, Ireland
Amparo Soler-Domínguez
Universitat Jaume I
Castellón de la Plana, Spain
Abstract. There is no doubt that plagiarism is a major source of concern
among Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Academic honesty and
integrity practices need to be carefully cultivated to ensure that students
understand the seriousness and implications of failing to properly
acknowledge the information and resources that they use in their college
assignments. This paper explores the importance of complying with
ethical standards through a review of the literature in the field, from
which a case study was developed using observation techniques to
gather the data. A research sample of seventy students registered in
their final year of study was considered acceptable to support the
analysis. Face-to-face feedback sessions were arranged with students
after their work had been reviewed and assessed. The feedback sessions
were scheduled individually where there was evidence of poor
referencing and writing standards that led to cases of plagiarism, which
were then discussed with student concerned. The main research
findings indicate that students did not have an understanding of what
plagiarism involved and in some instances they failed to acknowledge
the existence of a problem in the work presented for assessment.
Furthermore, the role of the educator became central to ensure that
formative feedback was properly developed to motivate and help
students to understand the importance of complying with their
institution’s ethical guidelines. The study highlights the need to consider
cases of plagiarism as another learning tool that contributes to the
students’ formation. By developing assessments for learning, the
punitive aspect of the assessment process should be kept to a minimum
and educators should focus their attention on how plagiarism cases can
be used as an efficient learning tool.
Keywords: assessment for learning; responsible feedback; plagiarism;
student motivation.

18
1. Introduction
Instructors should consider the role of responsible feedback as one of the main
priorities of their teaching and learning strategies. It is well known that feedback
is the bridge between students and instructors, as students’ work is reviewed
and put into an appropriate learning context. In this context, we argue that
detecting and dealing with cases of plagiarism in students’ work should be
regarded as an additional vehicle to allow students to meet established academic
standards and to ensure their work complies with their academic institution’s
guidelines and regulations. Educators should use plagiarism detection tools
constructively to encourage students to follow best practices. They should help,
inspire and guide their students as well as motivating them to work harder and
reflect on the quality of their work. As part of this process, quality feedback
plays a crucial role in identifying areas of weaknesses in writing standards,
which educators should consider carefully when guiding their students to
comply with academic rules and principles. We must not forget that students are
learners who need tutoring and mentoring, along with objective and clear
guidelines that keep them focussed and motivated. In this regard, formative
feedback and assessment for learning practices should be considered to help
students understand the importance of ensuring that the standard of their work
meets their institution’s guidelines on academic integrity and honesty.
Accordingly, we argue that feedback should address academic integrity
practices efficiently and constructively, and educators should avoid
demotivating and discouraging their students when bad practices are identified.
In this regard, students need to be aware that plagiarism has very negative
connotations in academia and it must be monitored, but they also need to be
able to learn from their mistakes and their educator should be able to coach and
support them in a constructive manner. This context of ethical standards leads
us to consider some initial issues. The first point relates to educators, who
should be capable of developing quality feedback that motivates their students
while at the same time offering objective views on the seriousness of plagiarism
and the need to ensure that students properly acknowledge the research sources
they use to support their work. The second issue to bear in mind is the value that
quality feedback creates if educators are able to consider plagiarism as just
another learning tool, and they transmit to their students - in constructive
sessions designed to inform them about academic integrity and honesty
practices – the importance of referencing and acknowledging others’ work when
used to support their own. The third issue that needs to be considered is the
kind of assessment that educators should use and how they should grade and
evaluate their students’ work while ensuring that they understand the
implications of plagiarising others’ work without demotivating and punishing
their students. We believe that the answers to the issues raised lie in educators’
ability to develop quality and responsible feedback that is personalised and that
seeks to address their students’ individual needs. Therefore, throughout this
study, we explore the use of plagiarism as a constructive tool that can make a
positive difference to the students’ learning experience. Our main objective is to
offer an initial view of practices and recommendations that could be followed by
educators who want to change the way they deal with cases of plagiarism from a

19
punitive approach to one with a more constructive and positive outcome. The
goal is that educators will learn to support their students and encourage them to
reflect on their work. Reflecting on their own ways of doing things will raise
students’ awareness of the academic practices that will help them produce
quality work in line with their institution’s basic guidelines and requirements.
2. Literature Review
Plagiarism is a growing area of concern in third level education (education at
college or university level) due to its strong negative connotations and serious
implications for students’ academic progress and achievements. According to
the Oxford online dictionary, plagiarism is defined as, “The practice of taking
someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own”. Presenting the work
of another author as one’s own is seen as a form of cheating or fraud at an
academic level. However, students do not seem to recognise the seriousness of
plagiarism, nor do they appear to understand the implications of such practices
for their academic careers. In this regard, students’ understanding of what
plagiarism is and its potential implications for their learning process appears to
be quite distorted. The use of general ideas, complete sentences or paragraphs
from diverse and multiple research sources that are not properly referenced is
considered a dishonest practice at an academic level, and appropriate
mechanisms are required to minimise this kind of behaviour among students.
Moreover, there is also a need to make students aware of the consequences of
plagiarism, the ramifications that this type of practice might have during their
academic career, and how it might return to haunt them at some stage later in
their professional careers. Some researchers in this field study argue that the
increase in information availability due to the rapid development of new
technologies has contributed to a substantial proliferation of plagiarism among
higher education students (Childs, 2001; McCabe, 2001; Marsden, Carroll and
Neill, 2005; Furedi, 2003). More worryingly, some authors are also pointing to
the existence of strong correlations between the level of academic dishonesty
among some students and the level of unethical behaviour they exhibit later on
when they join the workforce (Nonis and Swift, 2001). Staggering evidence on
this issue has shaken European universities in recent years. Unethical behaviour
among individuals in leadership positions has been picked up by the media and
the cases highlighted have dearly affected the political class in major countries,
and as a direct consequence these malpractices have also impacted on the
universities where these individuals completed their education (BBC News,
2012; The Guardian, 2013; International Business Times, 2012). One public
example concerns cases affecting the German government, which began with
their defence minister’s resignation following accusations of plagiarism in his
doctoral thesis, a condemnation that seems to be spreading among other
members of the German government. Other cases that have been identified and
made public in the media include high profile politicians in Romania, Hungary
and other European countries.
The BBC made the following comment on improper practices in respected
European universities: “A spectre is haunting Europe, and this time it is the spectre of
plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Some high-profile politicians have had to resign -

20
but the revelations are also shaking respected European universities” (BBC News,
2012). This finding raises important concerns about the quality of education
offered at European universities and the procedures followed to support
students and ensure they understand the importance of their work complying
with the standards of academic integrity. If students cannot abide by the basic
guidelines, regulations and ethical criteria in their written work, serious
concerns will be raised about their ability in the future to perform properly in
leading positions that are closely associated with higher levels of responsibility
and ethical behaviour. Some cases that raise the alarm are given below as they
were reported in the media, and offer a clear picture of the seriousness of the
matter and the need to start taking appropriate action to deal with it.
Example 1: “Hungary's President Pal Schmitt says he is resigning, after being stripped
of his doctorate over plagiarism” (BBC News, 2012)
Example 2: “German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg resigned from
Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet on Tuesday. The move comes after weeks of
mounting pressure surrounding accusations that he plagiarized significant portions of
his doctoral dissertation” (Spiegel, 2011)
Example 3: “The prime minister of Romania has denied claims by a British science
magazine that he plagiarized large parts of his doctoral thesis, which was published in
2003” (International Business Time, 2012)
Example 4: “Annette Schavan's resignation over plagiarism ahead of election is second
case to hit Merkel's government in two years” (The Guardian, 2013)
Example 5: “Since Mr. Guttenberg resigned from all of his offices in March 2011,
dozens of German politicians have had to give up the right to call themselves doctor. The
spate of similar cases has prompted a re-examination of academia, as well as the weight a
doctorate pulls in the German job market and society” (The New York Times, 2013)
Example 6: “German universities are scared; they know they should be doing
something, but they don’t know what” (The New York Times, 2013)
The cases presented above are a small sample of situations where plagiarism
practices among high profile individuals have been identified. Without doubt,
this is a very serious issue that raises many questions and concerns about the
standards and academic integrity assurance procedures in European
universities. Furthermore, concerns have been sparked about educators’ ability
to connect with their students and help them align their work practices with
basic academic requirements, which are also on the table and need to be
addressed.
2.1 Plagiarism: a Real Source of Concern
Academic integrity compliance is a major source of concern for Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs), as highlighted in the examples provided above.
Appropriate mechanisms to prevent, minimise and correct this kind of practice
therefore need to be put in place to ensure that educators and students are aware

21
of the implications that such unethical practices can have for their academic and
professional careers. As HEIs are responsible for producing future leaders and
individuals to fill prominent roles in society, issues related to academic integrity,
ethical behaviour and best practices should be nurtured, monitored and
integrated as central aspects of the educational process. Students should be able
to produce scholarly work while using a broad range of information sources. But
they must also comply with quality standards and avoid using other people’s
research and identified information sources in a deceitful way, whether or not
this deceit is intentional. Existing research on this question suggests that careless
source referencing and acknowledgement is a common problem among
undergraduate students and it also highlights the lack of understanding about
how to reference properly (Stappenbelt and Rowles, 2009). Moreover, students
do not appear to understand the implications of incorrect referencing and the
seriousness of failing to acknowledge the sources used to support their work.
Specialised software (text-matching software) can help educators to identify
potential cases of plagiarism in course work and is commonly used to detect
omissions of citations and/or acknowledgement of information sources.
However, the design of the available software seems limited in that it only
identifies matching words, phrases and sentences, which does not necessarily
constitute plagiarism, as such. Furthermore, the identification of high matching
scores traditionally results in penalisations imposed on students’ performances
and encourages negative assessments of their work. We consider that this is an
unconstructive approach, as it does not help the student to move forward and
address his or her understanding of academic integrity and required written
standards. Within this context, we argue that plagiarism should be used as just
another learning tool that helps educators to support their students when
explaining the importance of the referencing process and the need to properly
acknowledge sources of information used in their assignments, thus enabling
them to comply with ethical procedures and guidelines.
Delvin and Gray (2007) argue that some of the key reasons for why plagiarism
occurs are related to inadequate admission criteria, an uninformed
understanding of plagiarism, and poor academic skills stemming from teaching
and learning issues. These findings are significant to our study, as they indicate
that educators at third level education institutions should be aware of the need
to introduce clear guidelines dealing with plagiarism. Educators should
therefore introduce appropriate activities in the early stages of their courses,
covering issues such as writing standards and proper referencing skills, and
students should be made fully aware of the importance of complying with
ethical standards in their work, in an attempt to avoid cases of plagiarism from
arising in the first place.
Plagiarism detection is commonly linked to disciplinary actions against students
who might not be fully aware of their responsibility to follow certain academic
rules. In this regard, we argue that students should be given appropriate
training on what plagiarism is and the implications of such practices in the early
stages of the learning process. This training could be a complementary tool that
would help educators to support their students when the incorrect use of

22
research material is identified, and thus keep punitive measures to a minimum.
Formative feedback should be at the centre of educators’ practices, and they
should be able to explain and clarify the concept of plagiarism to their students.
Furthermore, educators should be able to explain to their students how to ensure
that their work is presented as required and abides by the basic academic
standards. In this regard, formative feedback plays a crucial role in helping
educators to offer appropriate support and coaching to their students. Through
the feedback process students should come to understand why they must avoid
plagiarism in their work and how they can comply with basic referencing
requirements when they use existing research and information to support and
enhance their own assignments and course work.
2.2 Research Motivations and Questions
The increase in dishonest practices and inappropriate teaching and feedback
practices at third level institutions coincides with the dramatic increase of
information available to students, who nevertheless do not seem to make full
use of existing knowledge that could support their learning (White, Owens and
Nguyen, 2008). Research examining the main causes for and extent of academic
dishonesty suggests that the quality of the institution and the type of student
play a significant role in this phenomenon, rather than the society within which
they live (Delvin and Gray, 2007). In this study, we reflect upon and review the
way we teach and explore how plagiarism can be used to correct dishonest
practices in our classrooms (Badge, Cann and Scott, 2007). We agree with White,
Owens and Nguyen (2008) that plagiarism should be tackled in the first year of
academic courses in order to reduce this problem, although we would go a step
further to argue that this issue should be addressed at even earlier stages of the
learning process. The integration of good practices should be considered from
the moment that students become part of the educational system, and primary
and secondary institutions should make appropriate efforts to start training their
students on how to credit the sources of information they use in their
homework. At the heart of the issue, we find that there is a lack of proper
education and coaching that can help students understand what plagiarism is
and why it is regarded as a serious matter. We therefore posed three main
questions to lead this study and that aim to clarify how plagiarism can be used
as an additional learning tool.
The first question looks at the use of plagiarism to motivate students to comply
with their institution’s guidelines on academic standards: How can educators
use plagiarism as a tool to motivate and guide their students? The second
question explores the use of plagiarism in a constructive way: In what way can
plagiarism be used for constructive learning rather than a source of punishment?
The third question reflects on the kind of actions educators can consider when
looking at ethical behaviours and how to develop them among their students:
What kind of actions should educators take to encourage ethical academic
conduct?
To develop our research context and offer a comprehensive response to the
questions outlined above, our analysis proceeds with some general reflections

23
and critical insights on selected research studies that have addressed the issue of
plagiarism and that helped us to highlight the importance of this matter and the
need to identify specific actions that deter students from plagiarising others’
work.
2.3 Reflections on Initial Research Findings
The key issue to emerge from our initial discussion and review of the literature
on plagiarism and its implications is that the detection of plagiarism is essential
to ensure that HEIs are able to instil and reinforce sound academic practices,
work ethics and quality standards among their students. Nevertheless, the main
problem to be addressed relates to the abilities and capacity of educators to
detect and deal with plagiarism cases in an efficient and constructive manner.
Vinod et al., (2011) offer a number of recommendations to aid instructors in
dealing precisely with this task. These authors outline some basic points to be
taken into account by educators who want to start recognising and detecting
plagiarism practices that they can use to foster and encourage proper academic
practices among their students.
1. While search engines are helpful, they are unfortunately not foolproof
methods for detecting plagiarism. Nevertheless, a significant amount of time is
spent attempting to identify cases where students have copied material from
online sources. This firstly exposes the question of material that has not yet been
digitised. Search engines are therefore fairly limited, as not all sources of
information are available online.
2. Another problem concerns the sudden change in grammar and spelling
rules from British to American English or vice versa, especially when shifts in
style take place between paragraphs. The inability to maintain a consistent
writing style might raise questions about material that could have been copied
from other original sources. A careful approach must be taken here, especially
when correcting work from students whose first language is not English.
3. A change in font style/size etc. may be due to a ‘ghost writer’ and might
provide evidence of copy and pasting practices indicating the potential existence
of plagiarised work.
4. Educators could also randomly check references and page numbering to
verify the accuracy of the reference and determine whether it does indeed come
from existing research.
5. Electronic detection tools can be used to help identify the percentage of
material that matches available information, with the aim of verifying the
originality of the work.
There are different strategies HEI educators can follow to detect plagiarism.
However, we believe it is better to develop methods of preventing this activity at
undergraduate level and earlier stages of the formative process in a way that
also teaches students good practices. Students should understand that
identifying plagiarism is not only about the educator assessing the originality of
their work; they should also be made fully aware of what plagiarism is and its
implications, so they understand the importance of adhering to their university’s
guidelines and standards. Thus, there is a need to give students a clear definition
of plagiarism, discuss the concept with them and offer them the opportunity to

24
clarify any doubts or initial confusions that they might have. Educators should
be able to explore ways in which this activity can be integrated into the
classroom to help prevent plagiarism from occurring. We argue that the role of
third level institutions should be to educate their students about the difference
between good and unethical practices. Being able to simply identify plagiarism
is not enough; educators should be able to help their students to avoid unethical
behaviour and tendencies by making them understand how they actually
breached the guidelines and what they need to do to correct their behaviour.
3. Why Higher Education Institutions Should Be Concerned About
Plagiarism
Plagiarism research indicates that at least 90 percent of students have plagiarised
at least once in their academic career, while a significant number of students
have done so on multiple occasions (Vinod et al., 2011). It is argued that while
students are aware that plagiarism is wrong, they continue to do it because they
either do not believe that they will be caught or because in our current ethical
climate, plagiarism seems trivial when compared to well-publicised instances of
political and corporate scandals and dishonest practices (Vinod et al., 2011). If
students consider plagiarism to be a minor issue with only trivial consequences,
HEIs are failing to inform them about the importance of academic integrity.
Royce (2003) claims that plagiarism practices have little significance at the
institutional level and, thus, students and staff sometimes overlook this practice.
These findings suggest that plagiarism practices are not considered to be serious
either by students or HEIs themselves, and as a result the appropriate
information is not being integrated into course syllabuses and it is not properly
transmitted to students in the classroom. Plagiarism is a dishonest practice that
can lead to more serious unethical behaviours among those who are not made
aware of the importance of properly acknowledging the work of other authors.
This could set the foundations for other kinds of fraudulent behaviour at later
stages in their lives. Plagiarism means that the individual is not producing
original work and that s/he takes the views, opinions and work developed by
others as his or her own. The practice of copying and/or stealing the ideas and
work of others and presenting it as one’s own is regarded as a serious academic
offence and educators should be able to make these points very clear to their
students. The issue of plagiarism should therefore be a major source of concern
for the education system as a whole. Although advances in technology have
facilitated methods of detecting plagiarism, the available software can only
match text and identify text similarities. Thus, qualified educators who can
interpret the reports the software generates play a fundamental role in the entire
process. The role of the educator is therefore crucial, as they should be able to
prepare learning assessments that offer proper guidance and help students
understand the importance of complying with ethical standards in their work.
3.1 Main limitations of text-matching software
The use of text-matching software to detect plagiarism is subject to major
limitations and diligence is required when interpreting the report output. So-

25
called plagiarism detection systems cannot identify specific cases of plagiarism.
Rather, the software has been designed to detect matching words, numbers and
phrases, but by itself it cannot identify when plagiarism has taken place (Royce,
2003). Another important limitation of the software concerns its inability to
review or check all of the available material. For example, material that is not
digitised and available online cannot be crosschecked. Some other limitations are
listed below:
1. It cannot access all of the resources available on the Internet and their
sources.
2. Information that is available in different languages might not be
detected.
3. Minor alterations made to written documents, such as simple changes in
wording or basic rephrasing practices enable students to beat the system.
4. High matching percentages might be reported as plagiarism in
documents even though they are properly referenced.
5. The software cannot check the scholarship of the work, such as the
appropriate use of references, because it is mainly designed to perform
comparisons between similar phrases.
6. Matching information could be linked to incorrect sources.
7. It is not a replacement for other tools that have been traditionally used to
identify plagiarism.
Without appropriate support from qualified educators, text-matching software
tools are of little help to students. Therefore, the use of software to detect
plagiarism should be considered carefully, as it is just another tool educators can
use to complement and support their assessments and to develop formative
feedback to help their students. Educators must therefore be aware that the tool
by itself does not identify cases of plagiarism, and it does not in any way
eliminate dishonest academic practices. Furthermore, if educators cannot
properly interpret the report and offer specific quality feedback to their students,
there is no value added to the learning process and the problem among students
might worsen.
4. Research Framework
The study was conducted in the College of Business at Dublin Institute of
Technology in Ireland. Our main objective was to gain a better understanding of
student practices at undergraduate level and to be able to develop and introduce
appropriate coaching, tutoring and assignments that help minimise practices
that do not comply with the institution’s academic integrity guidelines and that
lead to dishonest behaviour when students are completing their course
assignments. It was considered appropriate to select a sample of final-year
students, as they had attended sessions on the importance of proper referencing,
quoting and paraphrasing, as well as plagiarism and its implications. To help
students prepare quality assignments, explanations based on reports generated
by specialised text-matching software were used. These reports presented
appropriate examples of incorrect practices to discuss with students, with the
aim of preventing them from plagiarising work from reviewed research sources
and ensuring that their work complied with their course requirements. The main

26
research method used to support the analysis was observation of student
compliance with the institution’s academic integrity guidelines. In order to
gather the data to support our research, students’ assignments were closely
monitored and instances where evidence of plagiarism had been identified were
recorded on a spreadsheet. After the students completed the allocated
assignments, face–to-face interviews took place with their educator to ensure
they were able to clarify any questions they may have had. The sessions were
based on a careful review of the students’ work and they were encouraged to
voice their thoughts and concerns. Students’ identities were not recorded in the
spreadsheet and their comments and views were anonymised to protect their
identities and personal data. Students’ written consent to participate in the study
was obtained and time was allocated to explain and clarify the nature of the
study.
4.1 Sample
Seventy final-year students were selected to participate in this study. At the
beginning of the first semester, they were reminded of the institution’s policies
and guidelines on plagiarism. The institution’s definition of plagiarism was used
as the starting point to explain to students what plagiarism is: “Plagiarism occurs
when a researcher or scholar claims or implies original authorship of material which s/he
has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone
else's work into his/her own work without attributing it. Plagiarism is a breach of
academic values, academic conventions and codes of practice”. The students were
given explanations of the concept of academic integrity and the importance of
proper referencing and acknowledgement of research sources, together with
specific examples and guidelines on how to write and present their assignments,
which were followed up by appropriate tutorials.
The case study spanned a whole academic year (2012/13) and was divided into
two main phases. During the first semester (winter term), the students were
reminded of the importance of proper referencing and instructed in all the basic
details of the APA style (the referencing style followed by the College of
Business). All resources were made available to the students through the
Blackboard interface, and specific sessions were scheduled to show them
examples of good academic writing practices. Sessions focusing on how to write
assignments and how to follow proper referencing guidelines were also
scheduled to clarify and address students’ concerns. Students were also
introduced to the text-matching software selected to support their work and
were given full explanations on how the educators would use the reports it
generated to assess their work. They were instructed to submit their completed
assignments to the text-matching tool, and were made aware that they had
access to the report it generated. Finally, students were given information about
the implications of plagiarism and time was allocated to deal with their specific
questions and concerns.
The study continued with the analysis of students’ behaviour and practices
when completing assigned course work during their second semester. The

27
students were then given five assignments specific to their area of study (i.e.,
after they had received all the appropriate resources and support on academic
integrity compliance). The assignments were uploaded on the Blackboard
interface together with detailed instructions on their completion and the
assessment process clarifying the ‘zero tolerance’ of plagiarised work, and
implications in terms of marking.
Taking into account the comment in the New York Times that European
universities are facing major challenges in identifying ways of dealing with
students’ unethical behaviour, we considered the need to reassess our own
practices and start taking the first steps to prevent such behaviour and to create
awareness among the student population of the importance of aligning their
work with the requirements of academic integrity and honesty. Therefore,
through our study we were able to gather initial data on student practices to
help us take appropriate measures to minimise the potential for unethical
behaviour among students. To support our study we proceeded to review each
student’s work and the text-matching report generated helped us identify cases
where students did not reference or acknowledge the research sources used in
their assignments. We focussed our attention on analysing the assignments and
the implications regarding plagiarism and we did not attempt to draw
correlations and connections with students’ final scores in the module. The final
written exam represented sixty percent of their assessment, and as it was mainly
based on numerical questions there was little potential for plagiarism due to the
close monitoring process during the exam and the fact that students could not
conduct any research to support their work. The study therefore focussed on
work that the students completed in their continuous assessment.
4.2 Case Study Results
The results of our study highlighted that most of our students did not
understand what plagiarism means and that the faculty’s previous efforts to
instruct and guide them had been unsuccessful. We base our findings on five
assignments that were put through text-matching software to check students
referencing, acknowledgement of sources used to support their work and
compliance with academic guidelines. Before the assignments were given to the
students in the second semester, sessions were scheduled to remind them of the
importance of following the guidelines that had been outlined during the first
semester. Students were re-directed to relevant material and examples of
plagiarism and they were reminded of the implications of submitting work that
did not meet the institution’s guidelines on academic integrity. Table 1 below
presents the major outcomes of the study. The research approach consisted of
the electronic collection of the students’ assignment and the analysis of the text-
matching report generated to support their submission. Students were required
to upload their assignment to the text-matching tool and they were made aware
of the availability of their submission and the generated report in the Blackboard
interface. We then gathered all the completed assignments and reviewed all the
reports to identify instances of minor plagiarism, major plagiarism and collusive
practices. Attendance had previously been taken during sessions addressing

28
plagiarism issues to monitor the potential implications for students who had not
attended the information sessions.
Table 1: Academic Integrity Cases.
Minor plagiarism <30% of material copied, major plagiarism >50% material copied
from research sources, collusion >50% copied from peers (research sample size =70
students). Results based on averages of data collected from the research sample.
Academic Integrity Outcomes
Assignment Minor Plagiarism Major Plagiarism Collusion
1 4.29% 28.57% 4.29%
2 2.86% 22.86% 2.86%
3 1.43% 35.71% 0%
4 1.43% 25.71% 1.43%
Average 2.50% 28.21% 2.14%
5 0% 0% 0%
The results show very high rates of bad practices among our students. For the
first four assignments an average of 28.21 percent of submissions were affected
by major plagiarism. The text-matching scores were above 50 percent for the
recorded cases. Minor plagiarism and collusion was found in approximately 2
percent of the submissions. The fifth assignment was given as an extra exercise
after detailed feedback and comments on students’ overall performance had
been discussed in class. Despite all the efforts made during the first semester to
inform and guide students on the type of work that they were required to
produce, our study shows a high level of failure to comply with basic plagiarism
guidelines. However, the results for the fifth assignment were very encouraging,
as no breaches of academic integrity guidelines were detected. Nevertheless, due
to the findings in the first four assignments, we decided to support our study
with one-to-one interviews to discuss the outcomes of the assessments and to
allow students to voice their own views and put forward their areas of concern.
The interviews aimed to discuss students’ work and to explain the main areas of
concern about their practices. Students were not asked structured questions;
they were simply encouraged to voice their thoughts and concerns after the
feedback process on their work and having received their grades. Students’
responses during the one-to-one interviews were quite surprising and
enlightening. A sample of their comments is offered below:
Student 1: “The guidelines on what plagiarism was about were not clear”. This was a
surprising answer, as specific sessions focusing on plagiarism had been
arranged and students had had the opportunity to ask questions and to clarify
doubts. Further research revealed that students who had failed to attend these
classes had submitted assignments affected by major plagiarism.
Student 2: “We worked together; we did not know that sharing our work was not
allowed”. Students were encouraged to work together, but the difference between
collaboration and collusion had been clearly explained to them. This was
another surprising outcome, as students had been given clear guidelines to
prevent this practice.

29
Student 3: “The guidelines the instructor provided were misleading”. In this case
students did not acknowledge that there was a problem with the work
submitted and attempted to transfer the blame on to the educator. This was an
interesting outcome, as it allowed us to reconsider our teaching approach during
the first semester and the need to rethink the kind of resources and support
provided to students.
Student 4: “Referencing is not relevant, what is important is the content”. This
response reflects students’ lack of understanding of the connection between
acknowledging the sources used and the quality of their work. This was another
interesting response that helped us to reconsider the explanations and support
offered to students, and to ensure that future sessions would include
clarifications on the importance of proper referencing.
Student 5: “I don’t agree with your assessment; I did not plagiarise; I will appeal against
your assessment”. On a number of occasions we came across students who
refused to acknowledge the problem and did not accept the explanations or
feedback given to them. This was another interesting learning outcome that led
us to reflect carefully on our learning and teaching approach and the need to
reconsider how plagiarism explanations and examples can be integrated into the
teaching programmes.
As noted above, in cases where major plagiarism was identified, we found that
students’ class attendance rates were poor. These students had therefore missed
all the information sessions and showed a clear lack of understanding of the
institution’s guidelines on academic integrity practices. The same students were
identified as those who would not accept any suggestion of wrong-doing (i.e.,
they argued that they were not aware that they were required to support their
work with references to the sources of information used). These students also
attempted to find excuses for their unethical behaviour and wanted to appeal
against their assessments. When all the feedback sessions were completed, the
official results of the students’ work were released through the Blackboard
platform. There was no record of students appealing their final results. These
results provide some evidence supporting Landau, Druen and Arcuri (2002) and
Vinod et al.’s (2011) findings that students are aware of wrong practices but they
do not expect to be caught. Our results also support the findings of studies that
show that teaching students about referencing and what constitutes plagiarism
(through examples), paraphrasing exercises and formative feedback are effective
practices in reducing student plagiarism practices (Delvin and Gray, 2007; Yeo,
2007; Underwood and Szabo, 2003 and White, Owens and Nguyen, 2008). We
found that students with higher attendance rates during the academic year had
not breached the guidelines on collusion or plagiarism. In addition, students
whose work evidenced minor plagiarism sought further support and
clarification to help them align their work with the institution’s basic academic
standards.
5. Discussions and Critical Reflections

30
Class absenteeism, lack of knowledge or understanding of what plagiarism is
and its implications for academic work were found to be the main problems
affecting our students’ work. In this study we concluded that preventative
practices need to be integrated as part of routine teaching practices. Students at
HEIs should be informed of ethical behaviour early on in their degree. We
believe that in order to prevent plagiarism, instructors should be fully aware of
the kind of problems that students are facing, and whether they are struggling to
understand what plagiarism is and its connotations and implications for their
academic career and learning development. This will enable them to offer
appropriate support to their students through the formative feedback. Students
should be given formative feedback with the aim of offering them a clear view
on the issues that require attention. Information should be communicated in an
unambiguous and transparent manner to allow for a change of behaviour and
reduce unethical practices. In figure 1 below we illustrate how plagiarism
detection and prevention is impacted by three main pillars: 1. Formative
feedback needs to be made available to students to ensure that they have a clear
understanding of what plagiarism is and its implications. 2. Instructors and
students should be fully aware of their institution’s guidelines on academic
standards and good practices. 3. Awareness of ethical behaviour should be
developed in the early stages of students’ academic lives to ensure that they can
comply with guidelines, be aware of their importance and know how to
integrate them in their practice.
Figure 1: Preventing Plagiarism (Source: the authors)
In line with Underwood and Szabo (2003) we consider it relevant to offer some
recommendations that might help educate students about plagiarism:
1. Plagiarism and its implications should be clearly explained to students in
the early stages of their learning experience to ensure that they develop
awareness of ethical behaviour. This should not only be a concern at third level
education; academic integrity should be explained to students in previous
educational stages so that they are able to develop ethical behaviours as they
progress through their studies.
2. Students should be reminded of the importance of plagiarism and
compliance with academic integrity and ethical behaviour. Guidelines should be
integrated into their learning curriculum.
Plagiarism Detection
& Prevention
Formative Feedback
Ethical Behaviour
Awareness
Instructor/Student
Awareness

31
3. Students should be given examples and scenarios that are related to their
area of study to help them understand plagiarism and its implications for their
future career.
4. Students should be fully informed of the institution’s formal ways of
dealing with plagiarism. Educators should align their practices with those
procedures.
5. Students’ work should be supported by formative feedback that helps
them to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable forms of
collaboration in the context of their work.
6. Students should be given opportunities that help them practice and
repeat activities designed to improve their writing and referencing skills. Online
resources and specific tutoring sessions could be provided as part of the learning
experience.
7. The negative connotations of failing to comply with academic integrity
guidelines should be made clear to students in the early stages through
formative feedback and assessment.
8. Penalties should be clearly introduced as part of the assessment method,
but should be avoided in the early stages of the learning process to ensure that
students remain motivated and engaged in their course work.
9. Students should engage in small group activities where they are required
to deal with a range of specific scenarios that oblige them to test their
understanding of plagiarism and benefit from peer interaction.
Our study offers some evidence to suggest that students who attend classes and
receive constructive feedback and guidance on plagiarism have a better
understanding of the importance of following correct academic practices.
Students need to have a clear understanding of why they must pay attention to
their writing skills, and should be more conscientious about complying with
guidelines. We believe that the prevention of plagiarism in the early stages of the
learning process would help HEIs to minimise the potential for dishonest
academic behaviour (Hansen, 2003).
5.1 Study Limitations
This study did not aim to provide results that are generalisable to the student
population, and its main limitations should therefore be kept in mind. Firstly,
our research sample was quite small and a larger sample would help us gain a
better insight into plagiarism and students’ views and concerns about it.
Furthermore, high levels of absenteeism affected our sample during the
academic year and this issue clearly had an impact on the research outcomes.
However, our analysis manages to offer some information on the main issues
that are affecting students’ work and it helped us to identify common trends in
students’ behaviour with regard to academic integrity practices. Finally,
correlations between cases of plagiarism and final scores for the module were
not presented due to the lack of any similarities between the type of skills that
were tested in their continuous assessment and in their final exam.
6. Conclusion

32
This study provides evidence on the use of text-matching detection software to
identify improper writing practices and unethical behaviour among students
(Yeo, 2007). Our findings suggest that educators could help their students to
understand the value of aligning their practices with academic writing standards
through the use of specialised text-matching software and with the support of
formative feedback. We believe that the use of more stringent preventative
measures would act as an efficient deterrent to dishonest practices among
students at HEIs (White, Owens and Nguyen, 2008). Educators should follow
some basic steps to help their students understand what plagiarism is and its
implications.
1. Plagiarism should be clearly explained to students and they should be
reminded of its importance and implications.
2. Specific examples offering evidence of cases where plagiarism practices
have been identified should be properly presented and explained to students.
3. The institution’s policy and guidelines on academic honesty and integrity
procedures need to be discussed and explained to students.
4. Students should be supported by formative feedback that identifies
instances where the institution’s policies have been breached and where
constructive comments are offered to help the student correct his/her practice.
5. Students should be given the chance to learn from their mistakes and to
ask questions that aim to improve their performance.
6. The negative connotations of plagiarism should be made very clear and
the assessment procedures and implications in terms of marking course work
should be clearly presented to students.
7. Group work should be integrated into the learning process to help
students deal with cases of plagiarism and to look to the educator for support
and explanations to clarify areas of concern.
Plagiarism has been found to be a critical matter that needs to be considered in
the early stages of the learning process, if institutions are serious about
addressing the problem and helping their students to comply with academic
integrity and honesty practices. The role of educators was found to be crucial in
this process, as they are the ones who can take a more constructive approach
when plagiarism is discovered and they need to be able to offer effective
feedback and support to their students. Educators should be able to use
plagiarism as an additional tool to support their students’ learning and they
should eliminate the punitive aspect during the early stages of the learning
process but without dismissing the value of offering objective assessment and
grading their students’ work fairly. Our study shows that plagiarism can be
integrated into the learning experience when combined with formative feedback,
as in this way students will get a better understanding of the issues that they
need to address. Face-to-face sessions were found to be particularly helpful in
the process, as they gave students the chance to clarify their concerns and review
their work with the help of their educator. Students’ lack of awareness of the
implications of plagiarising work, and their belief that copying from research
sources and peers without proper acknowledgement will not impact their course
results is an issue that needs to be addressed. Further research is required to
help develop efficient practices designed to give students a better understanding
of the importance of ethical behaviour at an academic level and the

Vol 12 No 1 - June 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Vol 12 No 1 - June 2015

Similar to Vol 12 No 1 - June 2015 (18)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vol 12 No 1 - June 2015