دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها939
تعداد مقالات7,734
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,750,359
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله9,073,708
عقابی, مریم, پوردانا, ناتاشا. (1401). پرسشنامه اجتماعی-فرهنگی سرقت علمی-ادبی: از آگاهی تا التزام عملی دانشگاهیان ایرانی در نگارش متون انگلیسی. جلوه هنر, 14(42), 39-68. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.35177.2000
مریم عقابی; ناتاشا پوردانا. "پرسشنامه اجتماعی-فرهنگی سرقت علمی-ادبی: از آگاهی تا التزام عملی دانشگاهیان ایرانی در نگارش متون انگلیسی". جلوه هنر, 14, 42, 1401, 39-68. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.35177.2000
عقابی, مریم, پوردانا, ناتاشا. (1401). 'پرسشنامه اجتماعی-فرهنگی سرقت علمی-ادبی: از آگاهی تا التزام عملی دانشگاهیان ایرانی در نگارش متون انگلیسی', جلوه هنر, 14(42), pp. 39-68. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.35177.2000
عقابی, مریم, پوردانا, ناتاشا. پرسشنامه اجتماعی-فرهنگی سرقت علمی-ادبی: از آگاهی تا التزام عملی دانشگاهیان ایرانی در نگارش متون انگلیسی. جلوه هنر, 1401; 14(42): 39-68. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.35177.2000

پرسشنامه اجتماعی-فرهنگی سرقت علمی-ادبی: از آگاهی تا التزام عملی دانشگاهیان ایرانی در نگارش متون انگلیسی

زبان پژوهی
مقاله 2، دوره 14، شماره 42، فروردین 1401، صفحه 39-68    اصل مقاله (549.19 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2021.35177.2000
نویسندگان
مریم عقابی1؛ ناتاشا پوردانا* 2
1دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مترجمی وآموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران
2استادیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی و مترجمی زبان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران
چکیده
از آن ‌جاکه در سال‌های اخیر، سرقت علمی-ادبی در نگارش متون علمی به زبان خارجی مورد بازخوردِ گستردة جهانی قرارگرفته‌است، طراحی ابزاری بومی‌شده و معتبر برای ارزش‌یابی نظری و التزام عملی جامعه دانشگاهی ایران اجتناب‌ناپذیر به نظر می‌رسید. در پژوهش حاضر، با تکیه بر یافته‌های به‌دست‌آمده از بررسی جامع پیشینه پژوهش و مصاحبة بدون ساختار با 24 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد رشته‌های زبان انگلیسی، چهارچوب اولیه در تهیه پرسشنامه بومی‌شده سرقت علمی-ادبی تدوین شد. پس از اجرای پیش‌آزمون، ویرایش چندباره پرسش‌ها، تحلیل عاملی، و مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری، پرسشنامه اجتماعی-فرهنگی سرقت علمی-ادبی با 36 پرسش در حوزه‌های آگاهی، دیدگاه، ادراک و باورهای اجتماعی-فرهنگی به عنوان مؤلفه‌های بنیادی در ارتقا حساسیت جامعه دانشگاهی ایران نسبت به سرقت علمی-ادبی طراحی گردید. نسخه نهایی پرسشنامه بین 288 دانشجو و دانش‌آموخته، در تمام گرایش‌های کارشناسی ارشد انگلیسی، از 6 دانشگاه دولتی (78 نفر) و آزاد اسلامی (210 نفر) توزیع و مورد تحلیل قرارگرفت. پاسخ‌‌ها نشان‌دهندة آگاهی بالا، ادراک دقیق از قوانین سرقت علمی-ادبی، دیدگاه خنثی و تا اندازه‌ای غیرمسئولانه، و باورهای اجتماعی-فرهنگی غیر علمی شرکت‌کنندگان بود که منجر به گرایش ناخواسته آن‌ها به انجام سرقت علمی-ادبی می‌گردید. افزون بر این، تحلیل فراوانی در رخدادهای سرقت علمی-ادبی، با بهره‌گیری از نرم‌افزار «iThenticate»، در 18 پایان‌نامه‌ منتخب کارشناسی ارشد به زبان انگلیسی از دانشگاه‌های مورد نظر انجام گرفت که یافته‌های آن نمایانگر رشد فزاینده سرقت علمی-ادبی در نوشتار علمی جامعه دانشگاهی ایران در دورة زمانی 1396-1392 بود. این پژوهشگران با برشمردن حقایق موجود در این حوزه، بر سیاست‌گزاری موثر در بستر دانشگاه‌ها تأکید نمودند.  
 
کلیدواژه‌ها
آگاهی؛ دیدگاه؛ ادراک؛ باورهای اجتماعی-فرهنگی؛ پرسشنامه بومی‌شده؛ سرقت علمی-ادبی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Developing sociocultural plagiarism questionnaire: From awareness to actual commitment of Iranian academia in English writing
نویسندگان [English]
Maryam Oghabi1؛ Natasha Pourdana2
1PhD Candidate, Department of English Language Teaching and Translation, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran
2Asisstant Professor, Department of English Language Teaching and Translation, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]
INTRODUCTION

Since plagiarism as an act of intellectual fraud has recently received a global inquiry in different fields of science, especially in second/foreign language (L2) academic writing, developing a valid and domesticized instrument to meticulously assess the awareness and professional integrity of the Iranian academic community to avoid plagiarism seemed indisputable. As plagiarism has been defined differently in various sociocultural and academic contexts, its legal and ethical issues in such scientific fields as L2 academic writing are worth noting (Oghabi, Pourdana & Ghaemi, 2020). Accordingly, two major causes, mostly condemned as contributing factors to committing plagiarism, are the torment the L2 learners usually experience in writing academic texts, and the divisive cultural differences.
Not surprisingly, the majority of studies on the causes and consequences of plagiarism were conducted in English-speaking countries (such as Australia) to represent the Western cultural values or social concerns and ethical code of conduct. In Asian or Middle Eastern countries, such as Iran wherein the copyright infringement or unlawful reproduction of original works are rarely subject to serious legal consequences, the absence of vigorous studies on this grave matter is underscored. This is while, majority of scarce studies on this topic generally investigated the contributing factors to plagiarism in the Iranian academic context (cf. Riasati & Rahimi, 2013) and overlooked the potentials of determining factors such as attitude or socio-cultural beliefs of L2 writers. At the same time, in the absence of a domesticized plagiarism questionnaire in the academic context of Iran, Iranian researchers generally make use of accessible questionnaires which often represented the Western culture and ethical values (e.g. Curtis & Popal, 2011; Harris, 2001; Idiegbeyan-Ose et al., 2016; Maxwell et al., 2006).
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive review of research literature and conducting semi-structured interviews with graduate students of English language studies (n = 24), the researchers adapted a general conceptual framework for developing a prototype plagiarism questionnaire. The non-randomly selected participants partaking in the semi-structured interviews, the pilot and final research participants were all MA graduates and graduate students of English language teaching, English literature, English translation, and linguistics in three State and Islamic Azad University branches in Iran (n = 288). Initially, 39 out of 47 items in the questionnaire were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (a) strongly disagree, (b) disagree, (c) I don’t [1]know, (d) agree (e) strongly agree, which represented the components of participants’ awareness and attitude towards plagiarism. Eight more triple-choice items were constructed in terms of short authentic paragraphs and their corresponding paraphrased texts, each followed by three choices of (a) plagiarism found, (b) no plagiarism, and (c) I don’t know, to represent the component of perception. After carrying out the pilot administration of the questionnaire (with 224 participants), item revision and deletion (11 items excluded), exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM) with SPSS 21 and AMOS statistical software, the researchers developed the final draft of the sociocultural plagiarism questionnaire with 36 items.
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To explore the first objective in this study, the statistical results in this study supported four components of awareness, attitude, sociocultural beliefs, and perception as responsible factors for determining sensitivity to plagiarism in Iranian academia. Data analysis also indicated the participants’ adequate awareness of the plagiarism policies and their accurate perception, but relatively neutral and irresponsible attitude towards plagiarism downsides, and non-scientific sociocultural beliefs which ultimately provoked them to commit plagiarism. It was concluded that concepts, such as ‘intellectual property’ and ‘ownership of words’ which are deeply rooted in Western culture have not been adequately incorporated into the Iranian academic culture yet. Moreover, Iranian scholars prioritized personal relations or vocational gains over following rules of copyright are proved as widespread in the Iranian academic context.
The second objective of this study was examined through frequency analysis of the instances of plagiarism in the Literature Review sections (Chapter II) of the 18 selected MA theses written in English. Relied upon the reports of plagiarism incidence conducted by iThenticate plagiarism detection service at www.Lingaline.com, a widespread and growing number of committed plagiarism by Iranian MA graduates of English language studies during 2013 - 2017 were echoed. In the reports, the rate of plagiarism was higher in men (67.16%) than in women (63.91%); higher in Islamic Azad University branches (78%) than in state universities (56%); and committed more by the MA graduates of English literature (71.66%) than English translation (62.66%) and English language teaching (61.66%). The researchers’ justifications on the obtained results were the absence of clear-cut instructions to rules of plagiarism, strict anti-plagiarism policies as well as adequate institutional attention to this unethical and unprofessional behavior in the Iranian academic community which eventually degraded the gravity of plagiarism to such a large extent.
 

CONCLUSION

The results of this study invoked the fact that not only the Iranian academic community requires upheaving awareness and acute perception by every member towards plagiarism unfortunate consequences, but also the non-scientific and desensitizing nature of Iranian sociocultural beliefs towards plagiarism need reconsideration and national policy making. Moreover, in line with Ayoubi (2017), the findings in this study encourage the educators and university professors to implement further tutorial courses to accentuate the severity of plagiarism misconduct and to rip off every chance of committing plagiarism by the university students in their academic writing. Despite promoting this newly-designed sociocultural plagiarism questionnaire as a more reliable assessment instrument for evaluating the Iranian academic community, the current researchers are reasonably skeptical of yielding similar results with Iranian university students at lower educational levels where the curricular demands of writing courses are more into the accuracy of the content over form and mechanics of writing; neither with Iranian university students of non-English majors due to their intended audience who are mostly Persian-speaking readers with similar insensitivity towards plagiarism infringement acts. Last but not least, the current researchers deployed a non-random convenience sampling procedure to have access to a large number of participants which inevitably lowers the generalizability of the findings to different demographic contexts.    
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Attitude, Awareness, Perception, Plagiarism, Sociocultural beliefs
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. مهران، پریسا، ستوده نما، الهه و مرندی، سیده سوسن (1394). «دیدگاه‌های زبان‌آموزان در مورد مفهوم فرهنگ و بازتاب آن درآموزش زبان انگلیسی به دانشجویان ایرانی». زبان‌پژوهی. سال 7 .شمارة 17 . صص143-176.
  2. Abbasi, P., Yousefi-Lebini, J., Jalali, A., Ziapour, A., Nouri, P. (2020). Causes of the plagiarism: A grounded theory study. Nursing Ethics, 28(2), 282-296.
  3. Amiri, F. & Razmjoo, S. (2016). On Iranian EFL undergraduate students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(2), 115-131.
  4. Angélil-Carter, S. (2014). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. UK: Routledge.
  5. Anney, V., & Mosha, M. (2015). Student’s plagiarisms in higher learning institutions in the era of improved Internet access: A case study of developing countries. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 203-216.
  6. Arizavi, S., Jannejad, M., & Choubsaz, Y. (2018). Plagiarism and inter-textuality: RA authors’ sociocultural perceptions and mainstream practices. Applied Research on English Language, 7(1), 19-42.
  7. Astaneh, B., & Masoumi, S. (2011). Professional medical writing and ethical issues: A developing country’s perspective. European Science Editing, 37(3), 85.
  8. Awdry, R., & Sarre, R. (2013). An investigation into plagiarism motivations and prevention techniques: Can they be appropriately aligned? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(2), 35-49.
  9. Ayoubi, L. (2017). The copyright law of Iran: An overview of recent developments. WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers, 11, 1-9.
  10. Babalola, Y. (2012). Awareness and incidence of plagiarism among undergraduates in a Nigerian private university. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 22(1), 53-60.
  11. Bhavani, P., Pratap, K., Madhavi, T. & Kalyan, V. (2015). Attitudes towards plagiarism among post-graduate students and faculty members of a teaching health care institution in Telangana- A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(8), 1257-1263.
  12. Bartlett, M. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various Chi-Square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(2), 296-298.
  13. Bennett, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-162.
  14. Burnett, S. (2002). Dishonor and distrust. Community College Week, 14(24), 6-8.
  15. Carroll, J. (2007). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
  16. Curtis, J., & Popal, R. (2011). An examination of factors related to plagiarism and a five-year follow-up of plagiarism at an Australian university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(1), 30–42.
  17. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. UK: Oxford University Press.
  18. Evans, F., & Youmans, M. (2000). ESL writers discuss plagiarism: The social construction of ideologies. Journal of Education, 182(3), 54-71.
  19. Fatima, A., Abbas, A., Ming, W., Hosseini, S., & Zhu, D. (2019). Internal and external factors of plagiarism: Evidence from Chinese public sector universities. Policies and Quality Assurance, 26(1), 1-16.
  20. Fish, R, & Hura, G. (2013). Students' perceptions of plagiarism. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(5), 33-45.
  21. Gururajan, R., & Roberts, D. (2005). Attitude towards plagiarism in information systems in Australian universities. In Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2005) (pp. 1568-1580). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
  22. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. USA: Anchor Press.
  23. Harris, R. (2001). The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism. California: Pyrczak Publishing.
  24. Idiegbeyan-ose, J., Nkiko, C., & Osinulu, I. (2016). Awareness and perception of plagiarism of postgraduate students in selected universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (E-Journal), 1322, 1-25
  25. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
  26. Liu, D. (2005). Plagiarism in ESOL students: Is cultural conditioning truly the major culprit? ELT Journal, 59(3), 234-241.
  27. Madray, A. (2007). Developing students’ awareness of plagiarism: Crisis and opportunities. Library Philosophy and Practice (E-Journal), 134, 1-16.
  28. Marshall, S., & Garry, M.  (2006). NESB and ESB students' attitudes and perceptions of plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2(1), 26-37.
  29. Martin, B. (2004). Plagiarism: Policy against cheating or policy for learning? Nexus (Newsletter of the Australian Sociological Association), 16(2), 15-16.
  30. Mavrinac, M., Brumini, G., Bilić-Zulle, L., & Petrovečki, M. (2010). Construction and validation of attitudes toward plagiarism questionnaire. Croatian Medical Journal, 51, 195-201.
  31. Maxwell, A., Curtis, G., & Vardanega, L. (2008). Does culture influence understanding and perceived seriousness of plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(2), 25-40.
  32. Mehran, P., Sotoudehnama, E., & Marandi, S. (2016). Iranian EFL learners' beliefs about culture and its reflection on teaching English language. Journal of Langugae Research, 10(17), 143-176 [In Persian].
  33. Oghabi, M., Pourdana, N., & Ghaemi, F. (2020). Developing and validating a sociocultural plagiarism questionnaire for assessing English academic writing of iranian scholars, Applied Research on English Language, 9(2), 277-302, DOI: 10.22108/are.2019.118587.1485
  34. Onuoha, U., & Ikonne, C. (2013). Dealing with the plague of plagiarism in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(11), 102-106.
  35. Park, C. (2003).  In other (people's) words: plagiarism by university students- literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.
  36. Pecorari, D., & Bojana, P. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 269-302.
  37. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
  38. Powell, L. (2012). Understanding plagiarism: Developing a model of Plagiarism behavior. Presented at 5th International Plagiarism Conference. July 2012. Sage Gateshead, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
  39. Rennie, S., & Crosby R. (2001). Are “tomorrow’s doctors” honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behavior on academic misconduct. BMJ, 322 (7281), 274-275.
  40. Rettinger, D., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 293-313.
  41. Rezanejad, A., & Rezaei, S. (2013). Academic dishonesty at universities: The case of plagiarism among Iranian language students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(4), 275-295.
  42. Riasati, M., & Rahimi, F. (2013). Why do Iranian postgraduate students plagiarize? A qualitative investigation. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(3), 309-317.
  43. Robelen, E. (2007). Online anti-plagiarism service sets off-court fights. Education Week, 26(36), 1-3.
  44. Schrimsher, R., Northrup, L., & Alverson, S. (2011). A survey of Samford University students regarding plagiarism and academic misconduct. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(1), 3-17.
  45. Smith, M., Ghazali, N., & Fatimah, S. (2007). Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 122-146.
  46. Song-Turner, H. (2008). Plagiarism: Academic dishonesty or ‘blind spot’ of multicultural education? Australian Universities’ Review, 50(2), 39-50.
  47. Tabachnick, B., Fidell, L., & Ullman, J. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (Vol. 5). USA: Pearson.
  48. Test, Q. P. (2001). Oxford Quick Placement Test (Version 1). UK: Oxford University Press.
  49. Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism? Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31, 247-258.
  50. Yang, M., & Lin, S. (2009). The perception of referencing and plagiarism amongst students coming from Confucian heritage cultures. Presented at The 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), 28-30 September. University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
  51. Yasami, Z. & Yarmohammadi, L. (2014). Iranian postgraduate students’ perception of plagiarism. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 2(6), 49-63.
  52. Zafarghandi, A., Khoshroo, F., & Barkat, B. (2012). An investigation of Iranian EFL Masters students’ perceptions of plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 69-85.
  53. وب‌گاه‌ها
  54. www.lingaline.com
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 580
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 309


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب