格格党

手机浏览器扫描二维码访问

Appendix 3（第1页）

Appendix3

banner"

>

PlagiarisminTheirOhatdAmeritsSayaboutAcademiesty[1]

ZHAofEnglish，PurdueUy（USA）

Abstract

ThisstudyiionsofandattitudestiarismbyeseESLstudentsaudentswithquestioerviewasthemaia.Itwasfoundthatesestudeedlessknowledgeofplagiarismthaudeoalackofpreviousinstru.esestudentsshoweddiffereionsaboutsomecasesofplagiarismsugmemorizedwordswithoutg，whichmayhavebeeheemphasisoionineselearningculture.However，esestudentsheldsimilarattitudestiarism;thatis，theythoughtitwasmandshouldeduwasuiohefindings，thispapercallsforesesoretimeaddressingtheproblembymakingitpartofthecurriculum.

Keywiarism;studehieseaudentparisoionsandattitudes

1.Introdu

Withthedevelopmentofglobalizatiodecadehaswithana10-foldiheernatiosiries，ingtheUS，UK，Australiaandu&Brooks，2008;Haan，2009）.Thedramatitheernatiosirieshasplater-culturalunithespotlightofresearsedfuageteag，amongwhiportalydiscussedissueisiiosandplagiarism.Thereseemsaprevaleiiosaremoreprooplagiarizethaiveterparts（Deckert，1993;Marshall&Garry，2006;Martin，2012;Sowden，2005）.Withaneasyandquiitioheaorpracticeoftakingsomeoneelse’swork，idea，etdpassingitoffasone’sown”

（lishDiary），plagiarismisinnoleissue.Instead，asscholarshaveargued，theceptofplagiarismis“fullyembeddedwithinasocial，politidculturalmatrixthateaniedfromitsiion”

（S，1995，p.23），andtherefore“obeuoodintermsofplexrelatioext，memory，andlearning”

（Pennycook，1996，p.201）.Thisbetweenculture，mem，andplagiarismhasdirectedscholars，attentiosfromures，especulturesthatemphasizememorizatioherefore，differeerhenotionsofplagiarismaownershipweredevelopedandwhichemphasizestheinalityofworksayofauthors（Pennycook，1996）.

TheabovedisayhaveservedasapotentialcausetoputAsiasandNESB（non-Englishspeakingbad）students，whoareusuallystereotypedasmorelikelytoplagiarizethaiveterparts，ierofresearplagiarism（Deckert，1993;Martin，2012;Sowden，2005）.AmongAsias，esestudentsareeveypedandstigmatized（Bamford&Sergiou，2005;Bloch&Chi，1995;Deckert，1993;Hayes&Introna，2005;Shei，2005）inthatmanyscholarsbelievetheesecultureplacesgreatemphasisoionandthusmemandrhavebeeesestudeyle（Bamford&Sergiou，2005;，1999;Deckert，1993;Hayes&Introna，2005;Introna，Hayes，Blair，&Wood，2003;Pennycook，1996）whichplaysaroleinshapis，preferredwaysoftextincorporation（Bloch&Chi，1995）.Seeingtheinfluenosasapotentialcausef，somescholarsclaim:“Theesehaveionintherealsehetismadeasasimultaofthemeheseareallsacrificedtotheory”

（FrederickStewart，1865，p.138，asPennycook，1996，p.219）.Atthesametime，however，otherscholarshaveshowhyaandingforesestudentsihink“lagiarismisofteherouteseselearoapeteing”

（Shei，2005，p.97）.Thisdisscholars’attitudestowardesestudentsvis-à-vistheissueandplagiarismhasgeedmuchresearch.

Previousresearchhascoveredawiderangeioplace—Ameri，2012;Martin，Rao，&Sloan，2011），Britain（Bamford&Sergiou，2005;Gu&Brooks，2008;Hayes&Introna，2005;Ial.，2003），Australia（Lahur，2004;Maxwell，Curtis，&Vardanega，2008;Song-Turner，2008），anda（Hu&Lei，2012;Zhang，Li，&Duan，2008），ahodologiesinthesed—questionnaires（Bamford&Sergiou，2005;Deckert，1993;Hayes&Introna，2005;Ial.，2003;Martin，2012;Maxwelletal.，2008），intervie;Introna，2005;Hu&Lei，2012;Ial.，2003;Matalene，1985;Pennycook，1996），writtes（Lahur，2004;Shi，2004;arker，2012），audies（Li&ave，2012）.Despitetheplethoraofresearplagiarism，scholarshavefailedtofindescholarsfiweesasregardingplagiarism.Deckert（1993）reportedesestudeleaboutplagiarism;Pennycook（1996）andBamfordandSergiou（2005）foushaddiffereioionandcasesofplagiarism;Rawwas，Al-Khatib，andVitell（2004）reportedthatesestudentsperceivedacademiestyasmoreacceptablethaudents;Shi（2004）observeddifferengsentendrefereweesas.

However，Myers（1998）remarkedthat，“despitethestereotypeslagiarizinggoesonamongU.S.studentsaswell”

（p.12）.Otherscholars，bygempiricalresearch，alsofouwogroupsofstudeudentsandnativeEudents）verysimilar.Ial.（2003）reportedsimilarpersofplagiarismbetweeishstudents.Asfsofperceivedseriousnessofplagiarism，”

Maxwelletal.（2008，p.25）foundweenAustralianandAsias（esestudentsiial.（2011）andMartin（2012）bothreportednosignifitdifferenplagiarismbetweenAsiasindAmeritsandcriticizedthestereotypicalviewofesestudents.

Thedifferehodologiesused，thevariousbadsofs，andthedifferentgroupsofesepartits（i.e.，ueandgraduatestudents）mayallhavecausedthedisthefindingsofpreviousresearch.Moreover，despitethewideceofresearesestudentsandplagiarism，alargeportioudieseithersurveyedstudents’knowledgesimplequestionnairesorexamiincorporatioingprhtextanalysis.Onlyasmallhestudieslookedatthedeeperlayersoftheissueintervie;Introna，2005;Hu&Lei，2012;Ial.，2003），amongwhiestudies（Hayes&Introna，2005;Ial.，2003）examinedacademiestyinagehplagiarismbeingaminorpartratherthanthefocusofthestudies.Others（Hu&Lei，2012）studiedstudeionsof“twoformsofiy，i.e.，unaowledgeddparaphrasing”

（p.813）.However，oimportas，i.e.，thepersofdiffereareregardedasplagiarismiernauheattitudestiarismofesestudents，wasnhlyied.

Thelackofresearchthatfoesestudeionsofandattitudestowardvariouskindsihetradidingsofpreviousresearchbothrequiremoreresearchtobeducted.Therefore，tofulfilltherequirement，thisstudyaimstoexploreeseESLstudeionsofandattitudestiarismaoahefollowingresearchquestions:

（1）Doesestudentshaveaderstandiionofplagiarism?Ifnot，whatistheheirmisuanding?

（2）Areesestudents，audeionsofcasesofplagiarismthesame?Ifnot，howaretheydifferent?

（3）Areesestudents’audents’attitudestiarismthesame?Ifnot，howaretheydifferent?

&hodology

Manystudiesonplagiarismhavebeeaskstudentsiftheyhaveeverplagiarizedorthataskforstudents’knowledgeofplagiarism.However，theseformsofresearselvesprovidereliableandgfindings，astheselfreportedresultsmaye，aionnairesalorevealstudesaandings.Therefore，iudy，aquestioh“yesorionswasfirstusedtoelits’self-reportedknowledgeofplagiarism.Later，“hy”

questionsaswellascasesrequiris’judgmentswerefollowedtoexplorewhatstudentsreallyknolagiarism.Finally，interviewswereemployedtoelicitthedeeperthoughtsofstudentstosupplemesofthequestioquestionsingwhetheresestudehesameuandingofplagiarismastheirnativespeakimisuandiudentsmayhavelagiarism，andwhatattitudesesestudentsaudentshiarism，couldbefullyied.

2.1Partits