跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.247.184) 您好!臺灣時間:2023/01/30 12:27
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:曾瓊瑩
研究生(外文):Chiung-ying Tseng
論文名稱:台灣大學生與研究生對改述與抄襲的認知與實際表現之比較
論文名稱(外文):COMPARISONS BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATES’ AND POSTGRADUATES’ PERCEPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE ON PARAPHRASE AND PLAGIARISM IN TAIWAN
指導教授:廖明姿廖明姿引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ming-Tzu Liao
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:英文
論文頁數:79
中文關鍵詞:改述抄襲
外文關鍵詞:ParaphrasePlagiarism
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:402
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
本次研究目的在於檢視台灣學生對抄襲與改述二者的認知與實際表現之間的關係。研究對象包含六十三位國立高雄師範大學英語系二年級的學生與四十七位應用英語研究所的研究生。在研究過程中,這些學生必須要完成一份改述測驗、一份抄襲辨認測驗、以及填答一份問卷;以期能發覺:受試者對改述與認知的實際表現;受試者對改述與抄襲的認知;受試者對改述與抄襲的認知是否符合他們的實際表現;以及說明受試者抄襲行為的可能原因。
  改述測驗的結果顯示:
1. 百分之二十二的受試者曲解了原來文本的意思。
2. 大部分的受試者無法寫出正確的改述。
3. 在改述測驗中,大部分的受試者沒有提供正確的資料來源。
  抄襲辨認測驗的結果顯示:
1. 受試者能夠區分逐字逐句的抄襲與正確改述之間的差異。
2. 受試者可能無法辨別不正確的改述、與正確改述但沒有提供資料來源二者之間的異同。
  根據問卷所得的結果,受試者表示:
1. 他們對於改述與提供資料來源的知識不足。
2. 他們知道如何正確引用。
3. 他們了解抄襲的嚴重性,因而會盡量避免犯這樣的錯誤。
4. 在做研究報告時,他們沒有抄襲的經驗。
  導致受試者抄襲行為的可能原因:
1. 受試者的第二或外國語言寫作能力有限
2. 視抄襲為精熟目標語言的方法
3. 無法理解原來文本的意思
4. 對於改述及避免抄襲的知識與經驗不足
5. 教師不夠重視改述與抄襲
6. 受試者本身的人格特質或對於改述與抄襲的態度
  最後,本實驗建議將來的研究可以檢視文本的難易程度對受試者在改述與抄襲方面的表現是否會造成影響;另外,在實驗中也可加入與受試者之間的訪談,以期更能了解受試者對抄襲的實際觀感。
The present study aimed to examine the relationship between Taiwanese students’ perceptions and performance on paraphrase and plagiarism. Sixty-three English-major sophomores and forty-seven graduate students in the TESOL program in National Kaohsiung Normal University were required to finish a paraphrasing task, a plagiarism identification test, and a questionnaire. Therefore, this study intended to address: the participants’ performance on paraphrase and plagiarism; the participants’ attitudes toward paraphrase and plagiarism; whether the participants’ perceptions matches their performance on paraphrase and plagiarism, and the possible reasons accounting for the participants’ plagiarism.
The results of the participants’ paraphrasing tasks show that:
1. 22% of the participants misinterpret the meaning of the source material.
2. Most of the participants fail to offer appropriate paraphrasing tasks.
3. Most of the participants fail to provide proper citation or documentation in their paraphrasing tasks.
The results of the plagiarism identification test suggest that:
1. Both graduate and undergraduate students were able to identify word-for-word plagiarism and correct paraphrase.
2. The participants would struggle between incorrect paraphrase and paraphrasing plagiarism.
Based on the data gathered in the questionnaire, the graduate and undergraduate students reported that:
1. They had insufficient knowledge of legitimate paraphrase and citation.
2. They knew how to quote correctly.
3. They were aware of the seriousness of plagiarism and thus they would try to avoid it.
4. They had not committed plagiarism when writing research papers.
Possible reasons provided by the participants which might account for their plagiarizing behaviors:
1. The participants’ limited second/foreign language writing ability
2. Copying as a way of mastering the target language
3. Misunderstanding of the meaning of the source materials
4. Their insufficient knowledge and experiences in paraphrase and avoiding plagiarism
5. The instructors’ less emphasis on paraphrase and plagiarism
6. Their personal characteristics and attitudes toward paraphrase and plagiarism
Finally, further studies are recommended to examine the influence which readability of the reading passage might bring to the Participants’ performance on paraphrase and plagiarism; to include further interview with the participants to better understand their actual knowledge of plagiarism.
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………i
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………vii
LIST OF FIGURE…………………………………………………………………viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background and Motivation……………………………………………………1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………2
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………4
Research Questions………………………………………………………………4
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………5
Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………5
Definitions of Terms…………………………………………………………6

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
The Western Conventions: Notions of Ownership and Authorship........................7
The Emergence of Academic Cheating………………………………………9
Types of Plagiarism………………………………………………………10
Determinants of Students’ Plagiarism……………………………12
The Chinese Conventions of Text Imitation……………………15
Students’ Perceptions of Paraphrase and Plagiarism………19

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Subjects…………………………………………………………………24
Instruments……………………………………………………………25
Reading Passage……………………………………………………25
Plagiarism Identification Test……………………………25
Questionnaire………………………………………………………26
Procedure……………………………………………………………26
Data Analysis……………………………………………………29

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Paraphrasing Tasks…………………………………………………………30
Plagiarism Identification Test………………………………………42
Perceptions of Paraphrase and Plagiarism………………………45
Possible Reasons Accounting for Plagiarism……………………49

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
Conclusions…………………………………………………………53
Pedagogical Implications………………………………………54
Bridging the Gap………………………………………………55
Classroom Strategies…………………………………………56
Suggestions for Further Studies………………………………58

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………60

APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A. Paraphrasing Activity………………………68
APPENDIX B. Plagiarism Identification Test…………71
APPENDIX C. A Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions………75
APPENDIX D. Coding Scheme for Textual Borrowing……………………78

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Paraphrasing Tasks of Graduate and Undergraduate Students…31
Table 2. Portions of Plagiarized Text of the Subjects…………………33
Table 3. Participants’ Samples of Types of Plagiarism…………………36
Table 4. Frequency and Percentage of Each Choice for the Four Passages in the Plagiarism Identification Test by Graduate and Undergraduate Students…………………………………………………………………43
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of the Subjects’ Perceptions of Paraphrase and Plagiarism ………………………………………………………45
Table 6. One-way ANOVA of Responses to the Questionnaire Between Postgraduates and Undergraduates…………………………………………………47
Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations of the Perceptions Between Graduate and Undergraduate Students……………………………………………48

LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1. The Procedure of the Study……………………………………………28
Anderson, G. L. (1999). John Wesley’s plagiarism of Samuel Johnson and its contemporary reception. Huntington Library Quarterly, 59(1), 73-80.
Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). If you don’t tell me, how can I know? A case study of four international students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communication, 16(4), 491-525.
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187-203.
Ashworth, P., Freewood, M., & Macdonald, R. (2003). The student lifeworld and the meanings of plagiarism. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 34(2), 257-278.
Auer, N. J., & Krupar, E. M. (2001). Mouse click plagiarism: the role of technology in plagiarism and the librarian’s role in combating it. Library Trends, 49(3), 415-433.
Banwell, J. (2003). Chinese and South East Asian students’ perceptions of plagiarism and collusion. Northumbria University, Retrieved 9, October, 2005 from www.jiscpas.ac.uk
Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image, music, text (pp. 142-148). (Translated by S. Heath). Glasgow, Scotland: Fontana/Collins.
Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27-39.
Biggs, J. (1994). Asian learners through western eyes: An astigmatic paradox. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Educational Research, 2(2), 187-203.
Bloch, J. (2001). Plagiarism and the ESL student: from printed to electronic texts. Linking Literacies, 209-228.
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231-274). Norwood New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bormuth, J. R. (1969). Factors validity of Cloze tests as measures of recording comprehension ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 358-365.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. New York: Oxford.
Buckley, M. R., Wiese, D. S., & Harvey, M. G. (1998). An investigation into the dimensions of unethical behaviour. Journal of Education for Business, 73(5), 284-290.
Calabrese, R. L., &Cochran, J. T. (1990). The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample of American adolescents. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 65-72.
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2003). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/9
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.
Daniel, L. G., Blount, K. D., & Ferrell, C. M. (1991). Academic misconduct among teacher education students: a descriptive-correlational study. Research in Higher Education, 32(6), 703-724.
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L.N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: prevalence, determinants, techniques and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19(1), 16-20.
Davis, S. F., & Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 119-121.
Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 131-148.
English, S. (1999, August 14). E-mail exam cheats may face expulsion. The Times, 7.
Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990). Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle and senior high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 44-52.
Foucault, M. (1997/1984). What is an author? In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.) Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (pp. 113-138). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Reprinted in The Foucault Reader (Paul Rabinow, Ed.), 1994, pp. 101- 120)
Fowler, H. R., & Aaron, J. E. (2004). The Little, Brown Handbook (9th Edition). New York: Pearson Longman.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational research, 75, 275-279.
Garner, R., & McCaleb, J. L. (1985) . Effects of text manipulations on quality of written summaries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 139-149.
Gillie, J. W., Ingle, S., & Mumford, H. (1997). Read to write: An integrated course for nonnative speakers of English. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Glatt, B. S., & Haertel, E. H. (1982). The use of the Cloze testing procedure for detecting plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 127-136.
Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 4, 66-70.
Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics and Behaviour, 15(3), 213-231.
Henk, W. A., & Helfeldt, J. P. (1985). Effects of alternative deletion patterns, blank conditions, and scoring systems on intermediate level Cloze test performance. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 6(1-2), 85-96.
Higbee, J. L., & Thomas, P. V. (2000). Preventing academic dishonesty. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 17(1), 63-66.
Indiana University Bloomington School of Education. (2005). How to recognize plagiarism. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://education.indiana.edu/~istd/
iParadigms, LLC. (1998). Turnitin. Retrieved April, 10, 2006, from http://turnitin.com/static/index.html
Jochnowitz, G. (1986). Teaching at a provincial Chinese university. American Scholar, 55, 521-527.
Johns, A. M. (1985). Summary protocols of “underprepared” and “adept” university students: Replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning, 35, 495-517.
Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kelly, J. A., & Worrell, L. (1978). Personality characteristics, aprent behaviors, and sex of the subject in relation to cheating. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 179-188.
Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2, 434-456.
Kruse, K. K. (1990). Mark Twains a Connecticut Yankee: reconsiderations and revisions. American Literature, 62(3), 464-484.
Laird, E. (2001). We all pay for Internet plagiarism. Education Digest, 67(3), 56-60.
Larkham, P. J. & Manns, S. (2002). Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4), 339-349.
Leki, I. (1995). Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies (2nd Edition). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Lensmire, T. J., & Beals, D. E. (1994). Appropriating others’ words: Traces of literature and peer culture in a third-grader’s writing. Language in Society, 23, 411-426.
Liao, M. T., & Chen, C. H. (2006). A comparison of rhetorical strategies for Chinese and English argumentative writing. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (ROC- TEFL) (pp. 764-772). Taipei: Kaun Tang.
Lim, V. K. G. & See, S. K. B. (2001). Attitudes towards, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in Singapore. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 261-275.
Love, P. G., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate students in a college of education. College Student Journal, 32(4), 539-551.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultures and the self: Implications for recognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Kun, T. L. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner. In D.A. Watkins & J.A. Biggs (Eds), The Asian learner: research and practice. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Masson, M. E. J., & Waldron, M. A. (1994). Comprehension of legal contracts by non-experts: Effectiveness of plain language redrafting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 67-85.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789–808.
McMullen, B. S. (1995). Lifting the lid on Poe’s ‘Oblong Box’. Studies in American Fiction, 23(2), 203-215.
O’Connor, S., & Lovelock, R. (2002). Plagiarism detection findings released. Retrieved October, 24, from http://www.caval.edu/new/index.html
Overbey, G. A. U., & Guiling, S. F. (1999). Student perceptions of plagiarism and the evaluation of assignments. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 10(3), 3-22.
Owl at Purdue University and Purdue University. (1995). Owl online writing lab. Retrieved November 24, 2005, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_quotprsum.html
Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students- literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
Pitts, L. Jr. (2001). Spare the Rod, Spoil the Parenting. In Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2003). The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing, Brief Edition, 3rd ed (pp. 403-405). New York: Pearson Longman.
Raffetto, W. G. (1987). The cheat. Community and Junior College Journal, 56(2), 26-27.
Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2004). Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, Concise Edition, 3rd ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.
Roberts, D., & Rabinowitz, W. (1992). An investigation of student perceptions of cheating in academic situations. Review of Higher Education, 15(2), 179-190.
Roig, M. (1997). Can graduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? The Psychological Record, 47, 113-122.
Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973-982.
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 307-323.
Roig, M. (2003). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/
Rose, J. (1992). The invisible sources of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Journal of Popular Culture, 26(1), 93-108.
Roth, A. J. (1999). The Research Paper: Process, Form, and Content (8th edition). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Roth, N. L., & McCabe, D. L. (1995). Communication strategies for addressing academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 531-541.
Sampson, G. P. (1984). Exporting language teaching methods from Canada to China. TESL Canada Journal,1, 19-31.
Sciworth Inc. (2000). MyDropBox.com. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://www.mydropbox.com/index.php
Seppanen, R. (2002, February 11). Fins target master plagiarist, Times Higher Education Supplement, 11.
Shei, C. (2004). Plagiarism, Chinese learners and western convention. Conference presentation. Enhancing Chinese Students' Experience in British Higher Education. 16 September 2004. Southampton Business School, Southampton.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171-200.
Standing, L., & Gorassini, D. (1986). An evaluation of the Cloze test procedure as a test for plagiarism. Teaching of Psychology, 13(3), 130-132.
Stebelman, S. (1998). Cybercheating: Dishonesty goes digital. American Libraries, 29(8), 48-51.
Stefani, L., & Carroll, J. (2001). A briefing on plagiarism. New York: Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre.
Straw, D. (2002). The plagiarism of generation ‘why not?’. Community College Week, 14(24). 4-7.
Sutton, E. M., & Huba, M. E. (1995). Undergraduate student perceptions of academic dishonesty as a function of ethnicity and religious participation. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 19-34.
Taylor, H. (1995). ‘The griot from Tennessee’: the saga of Alex Haley’s Roots. Critical Quarterly, 37(2), 46-63.
Taylor, K. K. (1984). The different summary skills of inexperienced and professional writers. Journal of Reading, 27, 691-699.
Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
Thorley, L., & Gregory, R. (Eds, 1994). Using group-based learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Torres, M., & Roig, M. (2005). The cloze procedure as a test of plagiarism: The influence of text readability. The Journal of Psychology, 139(3), 221-231.
Weaver, C. A., III, & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension.: the role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory and Cognition, 23, 12-22.
Weeks, S. (2001). Plagiarism: think before pointing finger to blame. Times Higher Education Supplement, 15, 24.
White, E. M. (1993). Too many campuses want to sweep student plagiarism under the rug. Chronicle of Higher Education, 39(25), 44.
White, H. O. (1965). Plagiarism and imitation during the English Renaissance: A study in critical distinctions. New York: Octagon Books.
Whitley, B. S., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilhoit, S. (1994). Helping avoid plagiarism. College Teaching, 42(4), 161-165.
Willinsky, J. (1990). Intellectual property rights and responsibilities: The state of the test. The Journal of Educational Thought, 24, 68-82.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404-425.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top