factors towards plagiarism among postgraduate business student in
TRANSCRIPT
Plagiarism among Postgraduate Business Student in UiTM Shah Alam
Ahmad Shahir SafihiMohd Yuhafidz Mohd Yusof
Nurul Fahmy Latin
Outline
INTRODUCTIONLITERATURE REVIEWRESEARCH METHODOLOGYDATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONRECOMMENDATION
Introduction
Background of CompanyBackground of StudyProblem StatementResearch ObjectivesTheoretical FrameworkHypothesisScope of Study
UiTM GRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL Graduate Business School UiTM is one of the Malaysia’s best university leading in
research and teaching institutions. GBS also train students to be an excellent educated
teachers in leading the graduate school of business or in any other research
organizations. GBS UiTM creates knowledge that has critical significance for business
and society.
Programmed offered:
- MBA (coursework)
- MBA (research)
- EMBA
- PHD
Mode of study
- Full time
- Part time
Population
PROGRAMME NO. OF STUDENTS
MBA(coursework) & MBA (research)
390
EMBA 189
PHD 34
TOTAL 613
Background of Study
Plagiarism among postgraduate business student in UiTM Shah Alam.
The find the factors that contribute to the plagiarism among postgraduate business student in UiTM Shah Alam whether lack of awareness, personal attitude, availability of internet facilities and lack of competence.
Problem Statement
Plagiarism “is becoming rampant in schools, colleges and universities” (New Straits Times-Management Times, 2003).
In 2010, 3 UiTM students were found guilty of plagiarism – 1 student was expelled & 2 were suspended for a semester (IPSIS, UiTM).
Plagiarism will lead to the heap of unethical students and thus produces inequality and noncompetitive graduates.
Although disciplinary actions have been introduced to prevent plagiarism, but still plagiarism happens among students.
Objectives of Study
To determine factors that contribute towards plagiarism.
To investigate the relationship between lack of awareness, personal attitude, availability of internet facilities, and lack of competence with plagiarism.
To determine solutions to overcome plagiarism.
Independent Variables
(IV)
Lack of awareness
Lack of competence
Personal attitude
Plagiarism among postgraduate
Business student in UiTM Shah Alam
Dependent Variable
(DV)
Availability of internet facilities
Theoretical Framework
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1 Ho : There is no significant relationship
between lack of awareness and plagiarism. H1 : There is a significant relationship
between lack of awareness and plagiarism.Hypothesis 2 Ho: There is no significant relationship
between personal attitude and plagiarism. H1 : There is a significant relationship
between personal attitude and plagiarism.
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 3 Ho : There is no significant relationship
between the availability of internet facilities and plagiarism.
H1 : There is a significant relationship between the availability of internet facilities and plagiarism.
Hypothesis 4 Ho: There is no significant relationship between
lack of competence and plagiarism. H1: There is a significant relationship between
lack of competence and plagiarism.
Scope of Study
Respondents – MBA(coursework),
MBA(research) and EMBA students for
Business Management Faculty in UiTM
Shah Alam.
Timeframe – Semester July 2010 to
October 2010.
Literature Review
PlagiarismLack of AwarenessPersonal AttitudesAvailability of Internet FacilitiesLack of Competence
Plagiarism
Janowski (2002) identifies the range of activities that might be thought to constitute plagiarism:
Buying or downloading a paper from a research service or a term paper-mill and offering it as your own.
Turning in another student’s work, with or without that student’s knowledge, as your own.
Copying any portion of another’s work without proper acknowledgment.
Copying material from a source and supplying proper documentation, but leaving out quotation marks or failing to indent properly.
Paraphrasing ideas and language from a source without proper documentation.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the intentional use of the ideas and words of others without the clear acknowledgement of the source of that information (Smith, Ghazali, and Minhad, 2007).
Plagiarism is reproducing the work and/or opinions of others obtained through print or electronic materials without acknowledging or disclosing their source (UiTM Academic Regulation, 2009)
Plagiarism: Postgraduate Students
Recently, university authorities have become gradually more responsive to the matter of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct and unethical academic behaviors (Junaini and Sidi, 2007).
As a postgraduate student, you cannot take, use, and pass off as your own (in whatever form) the ideas and words of another, without proper reference (Handbook UM).
"A report from the Higher Education Academy [UK] . . . estimates that plagiarism among taught postgraduate students was much higher than among undergraduates (The Guardian, 2008).
Lack of Awareness
Where students do not fully understand what constitutes plagiarism, or what the penalties for its detection are, they may not see it as a problem
(White, 1993; Rosnow and Rosnow, 1995) report a lack of knowledge of citation, paraphrasing and referencing as contributory factors in the incidence of plagiarism.
Personal Attitudes
Positive or negative attitudes and willingness to expend effort will be reflected in the incidence of plagiarism, since cheating may be seen as a suitable, if risky, alternative to hard work (Scanlon and Neumann, 2002).
Park (2003) includes both social pressure and deliberate signs of defiance in his plagiarism typology.
Availability of Internet Facilities Improved downloading facilities and wider broadband
access have facilitated access to information, and simplified the process of “cut and paste” plagiarism from such sources.
The growth of the internet is, however, causing a revolution, because of the widespread availability of full-text databases and world wide web pages, so much so that plagiarism “is becoming rampant in schools, colleges and universities” (New Straits Times-Management Times, 2003)
(Zack, 1998; Auer and Krupar, 2001; Scanlon and Neumann, 2002) have speculated that the expansion of web site technology has contributed to plagiarism.
Lack of Competence
Self-reported competence measures will reflect personal attitudes and may provide a different indication to that of raw cumulative grade point average (CGPA) scores.
In some instances they may reflect a lack of confidence in completing assignments, at a technical or inter-personal level, which may contribute to plagiarism.
Research methodology
Research DesignMeasurement of VariablesScaleData Collection MethodSampling Design
Research Design
Purpose of study: Descriptive Study Type of Investigation: Correlational
Study Study setting: Non-contrived (field
studies) Unit of analysis: Individuals Time horizon: Cross sectional studies
Measurement of Variables
Operational definition: Plagiarism Lack of awareness Personal attitudes Availability of internet facilities Lack of competence
Plagiarism
Buying of downloadi
ng research
paper
Paraphrasing without proper
documentation
Turning in
another student’s work
Copy material from a
source & supplying
proper documentati
on
Copy any portion of another
work
From a researc
h service
From a term
papermill
Without proper citationWith out
that student’s
knowledge
With that student’s knowledg
e
Knowledge
Idea Failing to indent
properlyLeaving out
question marks
Without proper acknowledgem
ent
Lack of awareness
Do not fully understand
what constitutes plagiarism
Do not see it as a problem.
Do not know the
consequences of
plagiarism
Do not know the
punishment for
plagiarism
Do not aware of
institutional rules and
regulations
Personal Attitude
Do not interested in
the topic
Do not have the desire to
learn
Used to delaying my
work
Avoid hard work
Poor time management
skills
Availability of internet facilities
Cutting and pasting from the internet and word
processing is much easier and faster
Easy to download
articles from web sites
Too much information available in electronic
format especially from
web sites
Easy access to internet
Variety of search engine
Lack of Competence
Difficulties faced by
students in understandin
g articles
Difficulties in constructingsentences in
English
Do not have the
confidence to prepare a
good assignment
Have poor research
skills
Other people's
assignment is better than
me
Scale
Ranking scale: Forced choice
ScaleNominal
Ordinal
Interval
Rating Scale
Dichotomous
Category
Likert
Questions Types of Scale
Gender Nominal
Age Nominal
Marital status Nominal
Employment status Nominal
Types of student Nominal
Programme Nominal
Mode of study Nominal
Current semester Nominal
Current CGPA Nominal
Previous university during undergraduate Nominal
Section A: Demographic Profile
Section B: Plagiarism
Questions Types of Scale
Have you been involved in plagiarism? Dichotomous
How often you plagiarized in a semester? Nominal
Types of assignment you plagiarized Nominal
Did you plagiarize for? Dichotomous
Definition of plagiarism Ordinal
Sources of information Ordinal
Section C: Factors towards Plagiarism
Questions Types of Scale
Lack of awareness Likert scale
Personal attitudes Likert scale
Availability of internet facilities Likert scale
Lack of competence Likert scale
Section D: RecommendationQuestions Types of
Scale
Types of punishment Ordinal
Data Collection Method
Primary data
•Questionnaires•Interview: unstructured
Secondary data
•Websites•Reports•Journals•Articles
Type & Form of Questions in Questionnaire
Closed questions.
Positively & negatively worded questions.
Interview Guidelines
How many population of postgraduate students in Business Management?
What are the action that can be considered as plagiarism? How many student had been caught plagiarism? How many has been suspended from UiTM? Does the campaign on plagiarism able to overcome the
situation?
Sampling Design
Non-probability sampling-elements in population do not have a chance of being selected as sample subjects.
Quota sampling-ensures certain groups are adequately represented in the study through quota.
20 respondents-MBA(coursework) 5 respondents-MBA(research) 5 respondents-EMBA
Data analysis and interpretation
Reliability AnalysisFrequency DistributionDescriptive Statistics Crosstab TabulationCorrelation Coefficient
Analysis
Quantitative
•Reliability •Frequency distributions•Descriptive statistics•Cross tabulations•Correlation coefficients
Qualitative
•Content analysis
Reliability Analysis
Rules of Thumb for Cronbach’s Alpha Coeffiecient Size:
Source: Hair et al. (2003): Essential of Business Research Methods
Alpha Coefficient
Range
Strength of
Association
˂ .6 Poor
.6 to ˂ .7 Moderate
.7 to ˂ .8 Good
.8 to ˂ .9 Very Good
.9 ExcellentSource: Hair et al. (2003). Essential of Business Research Methods
Reliability Analysis
Independent Variables
Cronbach’s
Alpha
N of Item
s
Strengths of
Association
Lack of awareness
0.816 5 Very good
Personal attitudes
0.713 5 Good
Availability of internet facilities
0.717 5 Good
Lack of competence
0.858 5 Very good
Overall 0.770 20 Good
Frequency DistributionDemographic Factors Frequen
cyPercentage (%)
GENDER
Male 15 50
Female 15 50
TOTAL 30 100
AGE
Below 25 years old 7 23.3
25-29 years old 18 60
30-34 years old 4 13.3
35-39 years old 1 3.3
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency Distribution
Demographic Factors FrequencyPercentage (%)
MARITAL STATUS
Single 21 70
Married 9 30
TOTAL 30 100
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Unemployed 16 53.3
Employed full time 11 36.7
Employed part time 3 10
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency Distribution
Demographic Factors Frequency Percentage (%)
TYPES OF STUDENT
Local student 26 86.7
International student 4 13.3
TOTAL 30 100
PROGRAMME
MBA (Coursework) 20 66.7
MBA (Research) 5 16.6
EMBA 5 16.6
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency Distribution
Demographic Factors Frequency Percentage (%)
MODE OF STUDY
Fulltime 19 63.3
Part time 11 36.7
TOTAL 30 100
CURRENT SEMESTER
1 10 33.3
2 13 43.3
3 7 23.3
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency DistributionDemographic Factors Frequency Percentage
(%)
CURRENT CGPA
3.00- 3.49 15 50
3.50-4.00 2 6.7
No CGPA 13 43.3
TOTAL 30 100
PREVIOUS UNIVERSITY
UITM 16 53.3
UUM 3 10
UIA 3 10
UM 2 6.7
Others 6 20
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency Distribution
Plagiarism Frequency Percentage (%)
INVOLVEMENT IN PLAGIARISM
Yes 30 100
TOTAL 30 100
HOW OFTEN YOU PLAGIARIZED
Seldom 6 20
Sometimes 15 50
Frequently 8 26.7
Always 1 3.3
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency Distribution
Plagiarism Frequency Percentage (%)
TYPES OF ASSIGNMENT
Individual 14 46.7
Group 1 3.3
Both 15 50
TOTAL 30 100
DID YOU PLAGIARIZED
For each course 4 13.3
Depend on course 26 86.7
TOTAL 30 100
Frequency Distribution
Plagiarism Ranking
Definition of Plagiarism
Copying material from a source 1
Copying any portion of another work 2
Paraphrasing without proper documentation 3
Buying or downloading research paper 4
Turning in another student work 5
Sources of Information You Use to Plagiarize
Articles from internet 1
Previous students’ thesis 2
Articles from journals and magazines 3
Books 4
Discussion with peer group 5
Discussion with lecturers 6
Frequency Distribution
Plagiarism Ranking
Frequency Distribution
Recommendation Ranki
ng
Types of Punishment
Fail subject 1
Bar from sitting exam 2
Suspend for one semester 3
Impose a cash penalty 4
Dismiss from university 5
Descriptive StatisticsIndependen
t Variables
N Min Max Mean Std
Deviatio
n
Varianc
e
Availability
of internet
facilities
30 3.2 5 4.386 0.6458 0.4234
Lack of
competence
30 2.2 4.8 3.606 0.854 0.7946
Lack of
awareness
30 2 4.8 3.44 0.94 0.8918
Personal
attitudes
30 2 4.8 3.218 0.7956 0.642
Cross Tabulation
Programme
Seldom Sometimes
Frequently
Always Total
MBA Coursework
3 11 5 1 20
MBA Research
3 1 1 0 5
EMBA 0 3 2 0 5
Total 6 15 8 1 30
Cross tabulation between programme and how often did respondent plagiarized in a semester.
•MBA coursework plagiarize sometimes in a semester - 11 students (55%). •MBA research seldom plagiarize in a semester - 3 students or (60%). •EMBA plagiarize sometimes in a semester - 3 students (60%).
Cross Tabulation
Current Semester
Individual Group Both Total
1 5 0 5 10
2 4 1 8 13
3 5 0 2 7
Total 14 1 15 30
Cross tabulation between current semester and types of assignment that the respondent plagiarized.
•1st semester student plagiarize for individual and both individual and group assignments - 10 students (50%). •2nd semester student plagiarize for both individual and group assignments - 8 students (61.54%).•3rd semester student plagiarize for individual assignment - 5 students (71.43%).
Cross Tabulation
Current CGPA
Each Course
Depend on Course
Total
Below 3.00 0 1 1
3.00-3.49 2 12 14
3.50-4.00 1 1 2
No CGPA 1 12 13
Total 4 26 30
Cross tabulation between current CGPA and the way the respondent plagiarize either for each course or depend on course.
•3.00-3.49 depending on course - 13 students (86.67%). •3.50 to 4.00 had equal way of plagiarism either for each course or depend on course (50:50). •no CGPA also plagiarized depending on course - 12 students or (92.31%).
Correlation Coefficient
“r” value Strength Associations
Less than .20 Slight, almost negligible relationship
.20 - .40 Low correlation, definite but small relationship
.40 - .70 Moderate correlation, substantial relationship
.70 - .90 High correlation, marked relationship
.90 - 1.00 Very high correlation, very dependable relationship
Interpretation for value “r” - Guilford (1956)
Correlation Coefficient
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).Hypothesis test: 0.00<0.01 H1 is accepted
Paraphrasing without proper documentation
Copying any portion of another work
Turning in another student work
Personal attitudes
Correlation coefficient
.610** -.535** -.484**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .002 .007
N 30 30 30
Recommendation
Recommendation Conclusion
Types of Punishment
Recommendation Ranki
ng
Types of Punishment
Fail subject 1
Bar from sitting exam 2
Suspend for one semester 3
Impose a cash penalty 4
Dismiss from university 5
An observational research method that is used to systematically evaluate the symbolic contents of all forms of recorded communication.
Recommendation
N Ranking
Campaign 12 1
Software 10 2
Punishment 5 3
Change attitude 3 4
Content Analysis
Conclusion
All the factors contribute towards plagiarism.
Personal attitudes has significant relationship with plagiarism.
Accept H1 and reject H0 for Hypothesis 2 where significant 0.00 < 0.01.
The best way to overcome the problem is by ongoing campaign for anti-plagiarism and application of TURNITIN plagiarism software.
Thank you