Allied Dental Education

Attitudes Towards Students Who Plagiarize: A Dental Hygiene Faculty Perspective Hemali G. Patel-Bhakta, B.S., R.D.H., M.S.; Kathleen B. Muzzin, R.D.H., M.S.; Janice P. DeWald, B.S.D.H., D.D.S., M.S.; Patricia R. Campbell, R.D.H., M.S.; Peter H. Buschang, Ph.D. Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine baccalaureate dental hygiene faculty members’ attitudes and practices regarding student plagiarism. An email containing a link to a thirty-two-item survey was sent to fifty-two baccalaureate dental hygiene program directors in the United States; thirty of those agreed for their faculty members to participate. Of the 257 faculty members who received the survey link, 106 completed the survey, for a response rate of 41.2 percent. The responding faculty members reported thinking plagiarism is a rising concern in their dental hygiene programs (54.5 percent, 54/99). The majority said they check for plagiarism on student class assignment/projects (67.1 percent, 53/79). For those who did not check for plagiarism, 45.8 percent (11/24) stated it took “too much time to check” or it was “too hard to prove” (16.6 percent, 4/24). The most frequent form of student plagiarism observed by the respondents was “copying directly from a source electronically” (78.0 percent, 39/50). Most respondents reported checking for plagiarism through visual inspection (without technological assistance) (73.0 percent, 38/52). Of those who said they use plagiarism detection software/services, 44.4 percent (16/36) always recommended their students use plagiarism detection software/services to detect unintentional plagiarism. For those faculty members who caught students plagiarizing, 52.9 percent (27/51) reported they “always or often” handled the incident within their dental hygiene department, and 76.5 percent (39/51) said they had never reported the student’s violation to an academic review board. Ms. Patel-Bhakta is Assistant Professor, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry; Prof. Muzzin is Professor, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry; Dr. DeWald is Professor, Director, and Chair, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry; Prof. Campbell is Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry; and Dr. Buschang is Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Ms. Hemali G. Patel-Bhakta, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene, Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Ave., Dallas, TX 75246; 704-763-9485; [email protected]. Keywords: dental hygiene, dental hygiene students, dental hygiene program, plagiarism, academic integrity Submitted for publication 12/12/12; accepted 1/25/13

A

cademic integrity policies are a set of rules that define a university and provide students with a code of conduct. Honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility are the main principles associated with academic integrity.1 Establishment of these values enables academic communities to translate them into policies and expectations of ethical behavior and accountability within their institution.1 Schools that abide by these core values are seen as being more credible by society.2 Therefore, most educational institutions establish and publish academic integrity policies and a list of violations that constitute misconduct.2 The advancement of technology has changed the format and the manner in which students access information. Today’s students are often described as the Net generation, or digital natives, because they are more familiar with the digital language of com-

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

puters, electronics, cellular devices, and the Internet than previous generations.3,4 Many college students use the Internet to take online courses, communicate with their professors, and socialize with their friends. Students also use the Internet as their primary mechanism and resource for obtaining information.5-7 There is a rising concern in academia regarding the prevalence of plagiarism that is occurring among college students.5,6,8-11 Numerous studies have found that plagiarism has become widespread, and many attribute this to the Internet and electronics used by students.5,6,10,12 The Internet gives students easier access to information and, in some cases, has enticed them to engage in plagiarism.5,6 Terms like electronic plagiarism or cyber plagiarism are now being used when “someone intentionally or inadvertently takes information, phrases, or thoughts from the Internet and uses it in scholarly articles without citing the

131

origin.”13 Students sometimes do not believe cheating or plagiarizing has occurred if technology is used.6 In a study published in 2008, Selwyn10 asked undergraduate college students if they had ever copied sentences, paragraphs, and pages from either a website or a written textbook. Approximately 62.0 percent of those students reported engaging in some form of online plagiarism, and 22.3 percent reported “cutting & pasting” words on a repeated basis. In addition, a positive correlation was reported between the frequency of Internet use and students who plagiarized. Researchers have suggested a number of reasons as to why students plagiarize; these include the lack of writing and research skills, the inability to critically evaluate information from the Internet, and misperceptions about plagiarism.5,6 Misunderstanding the difference between paraphrasing and plagiarism and the inability to properly cite sources, quote, or acknowledge an author’s idea are additional reasons why students plagiarize.9,14 Students have also reported plagiarizing when they experienced peer and academic pressures and when faced with assignment deadlines.6,12,15 The aim of this study was to examine how dental hygiene program faculty members handle students who plagiarize. Specifically, this study examined 1) the attitudes of faculty members towards plagiarism; 2) if faculty members check student assignments for plagiarism; 3) what form of plagiarism the students used; 4) what mechanisms the program has in place to detect and prevent plagiarism; and 5) how plagiarism was handled in their academic institution.

Review of the Literature A review of the literature by McCabe et al.16 found that the prevalence of academic integrity violations among college students had significantly increased from 1971 to 2001. Violations of academic integrity have also become a rising concern in health professions educational institutions.8,17 Many allied health and medical programs have reported that plagiarism was one of the most common forms of academic misconduct by their students.17,18 Rennie and Crosby18 reported that 56.0 percent of medical students in their study stated that they would copy text from various authors and admitted they did not acknowledge and/or cite sources appropriately. A number of studies have reported on the prevalence and types of plagiarism across both health professions and undergraduate education.

132

For example, Segal et al.19 reviewed 4,975 personal medical residency application essays for plagiarism at Harvard Medical School and found plagiarism in 5.2 percent of them. The students who plagiarized their essays stated they felt they did not have adequate research and/or publication experience. Segal et al. also reported that the highest occurrence of plagiarism occurred among older applicants, international students, and those with previous residency training. However, evidence of plagiarism was found among all students and also included those students with academic honors. Roig 20 utilized the Plagiarism Knowledge Survey (PKS) to measure college students’ ability to identify plagiarism. In the study, 316 students were given one original paragraph to read. The original paragraph was then rewritten in ten different ways, with eight of those rewritten paragraphs containing plagiarism. The students were asked to distinguish if those ten rewritten paragraphs were correctly paraphrased or if they were considered plagiarized paragraphs. Fifty percent of the students reported that six of the ten paragraphs did not contain plagiarism. Roig concluded the students may be unable to correctly identify plagiarism.  In nursing education, Wilkinson11 examined nursing student and faculty perceptions regarding academic integrity violations at Charles Sturt University in Australia. In the results of that survey, both students and faculty members stated that they felt confident in their ability to detect plagiarism and understood the penalties. Even though 57.0 percent of the students reported reading the academic misconduct statement, evidence of plagiarism and cheating was still present. The most common form of cheating reported by both faculty members and students was “copying a few paragraphs from an essay, from a book or website, and not citing.” Ninety percent of the faculty members reported having given a warning to the students who had plagiarized. However, only 9.0 percent of the students stated they had received a warning. In another study, Rabi et al.21 examined the prevalence and perception of academic dishonesty in third-year pharmacy students. A questionnaire was administered to 296 students in four U.S. pharmacy programs, and almost 50 percent admitted to plagiarizing or observing their peers plagiarize. The forms of plagiarism students were using included copying word for word from the Internet and not acknowledging the author. The data also showed that 55.0 percent of the students would not report a classmate’s cheat-

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

ing to a faculty member and 25.0 percent did not feel they should be punished for cheating. In a study in medical education, Bilić-Zulle et al.22 examined essays written by 198 medical students. They were required to write an essay from one of four articles; two were published articles and the other two were Internet articles. The essays written by the students were reviewed using plagiarism detection software “WCopyFind.” The results showed that 181 students had committed some type of plagiarism and only seventeen students did not plagiarize at all. Bilić-Zulle et al. also found that students who had high exam grades plagiarized less than students with lower exam grades. Among the academic integrity studies conducted in dental education, Teplitsky23 compared Canadian dental faculty members and dental students’ responses to penalties for academic violations. The author distributed 200 surveys to ten dental schools, and each school was given twenty surveys: ten for faculty members and the other ten for students. The respondents were instructed to select what penalty should be applied to fifteen examples of academic offenses. The students did not feel that severe penalties should be given for cheating, plagiarizing, falsifying a faculty signature, and lying. However, both students and faculty members thought severe penalties should be given to a student who sabotages another student’s work. In another study, Andrews et al.8 examined academic dishonesty in dental education with an online survey of 1,153 dental students and 423 dental faculty members. Several questions were asked regarding perceptions of academic integrity violations. These authors reported that a large majority of students admitted to cheating on tests or examinations in dental school (74.7 percent). Reasons the students gave for cheating included witnessing academic integrity violations among their peers without any penalty. Differences in perception between faculty and students included the following: 1) the students’ view on penalties for academic integrity violations were higher than faculty members’ perception; 2) faculty members reported that students did not understand academic integrity policies, whereas the students disagreed; and 3) faculty members considered cheating was a serious problem in their institution more than the students did. In a study published in 2008, Muhney et al.24 investigated academic integrity violations among 400 senior dental hygiene students in twenty Texas dental hygiene programs. Of the respondents, 86.5

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

percent admitted to cheating in their dental hygiene program. Sixty percent of the students reported that the reason for cheating was excessive schoolwork due to the pressures for academic success, and 59.5 percent responded that they cheated to “save time.” A recent survey by Honny et al.25 examined the prevalence of academic integrity violations among dental hygiene students. Thirty-eight U.S. dental hygiene programs were randomly selected to participate in the survey. The survey was mailed to the dental hygiene program directors, who distributed it to 600 baccalaureate and 1,450 associate degree students. Results showed that the baccalaureate students were more likely to report academic integrity violations (8.5 percent, n=67) than associate degree students (2.8 percent, n=22). Eleven percent (n=89) of the total respondents reported they had cheated in dental hygiene courses, and 30.0 percent said they had observed peers cheating. One reason academic violations continue to occur among college students is the reluctance of faculty members to address this issue.8,24,26,27 In 2005, Kelley and Bonner28 reported that 63.3 percent of the faculty members they surveyed reported having at least one student in their course commit an academic integrity violation and that they handled the violation one-on-one with the student. In a recent study by McCabe,7 44.7 percent of the faculty members reported that they ignored an incident of cheating because they lacked evidence or proof. Some faculty members have reported feeling they are the one on trial when reporting a student violation to an ethics committee.29 Others have reported reluctance to report because checking for academic violations is time-consuming and difficult to prove and feeling they do not have support from their institution.8,29 Faculty members have employed numerous mechanisms to prevent students from plagiarizing; these include academic honor codes, criteria within course syllabi, and learning modules.7,15,28,30,31 McCabe’s survey of 479 faculty members found that 68.9 percent had provided their students with information regarding plagiarism violations through either course outlines or assignment instructions.7 McCabe also reported that these mechanisms had been put in place because 60.0 percent of the faculty members responded that students plagiarize “often or very often” on written assignments and had plagiarized using the Internet or through other electronic devices. Belter and du Pré30 examined the effect of requiring students to take an online academic integrity module before submitting an assignment. The first

133

group of students did not complete the online module (n=66), and 25.8 percent (n=17) of the papers contained plagiarism. The second group of students were required to take the online module (n=200), and the reported cases of plagiarism were only 6.5 percent (n=13). This study found that the academic integrity module reduced the occurrences of plagiarism among students, so the authors suggested this was an effective mechanism to prevent unintentional plagiarism. The online course taught the students how to properly use citations and quotations, which allowed faculty members to spend their time evaluating the content of the paper rather than on checking for academic integrity violations. In response to this growing epidemic, numerous methods have been developed to assist faculty members in identifying plagiarized work.9,32,33 To combat plagiarism and raise awareness, colleges throughout the United States are investing in antiplagiarism software/services.33 These services use their own database of online resources and check the student’s paper for areas of plagiarism.9,33,34 Once the paper has been reviewed, the instructor receives a report from the company detailing which, if any, areas are plagiarized.9,22 Studies have found that these are an effective and time-efficient mechanism for detecting plagiarism.32,33 Jocoy and DiBiase33 reported that faculty members who visually inspected (without technological assistance) 429 written assignments identified plagiarism in only 2.8 percent of the assignments. However, when the same sample of written works was analyzed using a plagiarism detection software/service, plagiarism was detected in 12.8 percent of them. Reluctance by faculty members to either address or report students who plagiarize suggests that many do not have a plan for how to handle issues regarding academic integrity.8,11,24,26 Numerous studies have examined the issue of plagiarism among undergraduate and graduate college students.5-7,9-12,17-22 However, studies of faculty members’ perceptions regarding students’ plagiarism in health professions schools is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine baccalaureate dental hygiene faculty members’ attitudes and practices regarding student plagiarism.

Methods and Materials The survey developed for this study consisted of thirty-two multiple-choice, yes/no, and open-ended

134

questions, all designed to measure dental hygiene faculty members’ perceptions of plagiarism in their institutions. Of the thirty-two questions, four (questions 6, 8, 16, and 28) had been previously validated.14,26 The survey items were grouped into five categories related to the research questions: demographics; the faculty member’s attitudes towards plagiarism; if the faculty member checks student assignments for plagiarism; forms of plagiarism the faculty member perceives that students are using; methods the faculty member uses to detect and prevent plagiarism; and how the faculty as a whole handles plagiarism at the respondent’s academic institution. The questionnaire was designed to be convenient for the respondents to complete and allowed for quick responses to aid in efficient collection of data. To ensure the survey measured the intended information, survey experts from Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry were consulted to verify its face validity, and a pilot test of the instrument was conducted with a group of full-time dental and dental hygiene faculty members (n=12) there. Following the pilot test, minor revisions were made to improve the clarity of the survey. The research proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry. To manage the sample size, we used convenience sampling to target all full-time and part-time baccalaureate program dental hygiene faculty members in the United States. We sent the survey only to baccalaureate dental hygiene programs because students in those programs were more likely to have a greater number of written papers assigned to satisfy graduation or degree requirements. A list of dental hygiene program directors with their contact information was obtained through the American Dental Hygienists’ Association website.35 An email was then sent to the fifty-two baccalaureate dental hygiene program directors explaining the purpose of the study and asking them to forward the email to their faculty members who were currently teaching a didactic course. These faculty members were given instructions on how to complete the survey and were informed that their names would be kept confidential and data would be reported anonymously. Attached to the instructions was a link to Survey Monkey to access the survey. Additional emails were sent to program directors who did not respond. The survey link was accessible for three months. The survey data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS),

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

which is compatible with Survey Monkey software. The survey questions produced both nominal and ordinal data, which were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results Of the fifty-two baccalaureate dental hygiene programs contacted, thirty (57.7 percent) program directors agreed to participate in the study. The program directors who agreed to participate were contacted at the completion of data collection and reported forwarding the email with the survey link to a total of 257 faculty members. Of those, a total of 106 participants completed the survey for an overall response rate of 41.2 percent. Not all of the participants answered every question; therefore, the number of responses per question varies. Demographic information about the respondents is shown in Table 1. The majority were between the ages of fifty-one and sixty (40.0 percent, n=40) and had twenty-one or more years of teaching experience (33.7 percent, n=34). Approximately 70.0 percent (n=71) held a full-time faculty position,

and 29.7 percent (n=30) held a part-time position at their dental hygiene program. The majority of the respondents said they assigned one to five written assignments/projects per year (42.0 percent, n=42) and had graded up to 100 assignments/projects within the past two years (58.0 percent, n=58). The respondents’ attitudes towards plagiarism are summarized in Table 2. The majority agreed that plagiarism was a rising concern at their dental hygiene program (54.5 percent, n=54), while 31.3 percent (n=31) reported that it was not a concern. Among the respondents, 92.0 percent (n=91) said it was the faculty member’s responsibility to check for plagiarism. Of the seventy-nine respondents who graded student class assignments/projects, 67.1 percent (n=53) said they actually checked for plagiarism. For those who did not check for plagiarism, the majority reported it “takes too much time to check” (45.8 percent, n=11). Thirty-eight percent (n=9) of the respondents stated in anecdotal comments that they avoided addressing the issue of plagiarism by developing assignments/ projects that would not entice students to plagiarize. Figure 1 summarizes how often the respondents reported ignoring an incident of plagiarism; the majority reported they “never” ignored an incident of

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents, by number and percentage of respondents to each item

Number Percentage

What is your age? (n=100) Less than 40 years 27 41-50 years 21 51-60 years 40 61+ years 12

27.0% 21.0% 40.0% 12.0%

How many years have you been teaching? (n=101) 1-5 years 23 6-10 years 20 11-15 years 13 16-20 years 11 21+ years 34

22.8% 19.8% 12.9% 10.9% 33.7%

What is your faculty status? (n=101) Full-time 71 Part-time 30

70.3% 29.7%

As a course director, how many written assignments/projects are required per year? (n=100) 0 23 1-5 42 6-10 19 11+ 16

23.0% 42.0% 19.0% 16.0%

As a faculty member in the past two years, how many students’ assignments/projects did you grade? (n=100) 0 14 14.0% 1-100 58 58.0% 100+ 28 28.0%

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

135

Table 2. Respondents’ attitudes toward student plagiarism, by number and percentage of respondents to each question

Number Percentage

Do you think plagiarism is a rising concern at your dental hygiene program? (n=99) Yes 54 No 31 Not sure 14

54.5% 31.3% 14.1%

Do you believe it is faculty members’ responsibility to check for plagiarism? (n=99) Yes 91 No 8

91.9% 8.1%

Do you check for plagiarism on class assignments/projects? (n=79) Yes 53 No 26

67.1% 32.9%

If you do not check for plagiarism, why? (Check all that apply.) (n=24) Takes too much time to check 11 Too hard to prove 4 Class size too large 2 No support from institution 2 Other 9

45.8% 16.6% 8.3% 8.3% 37.5%

Figure 1. Frequency that dental hygiene faculty respondents reported having ignored an incident of plagiarism Note: Percentages are of the subgroup who reported checking for plagiarism and answered this question (n=52).

plagiarism (75.0 percent, n=39), 19.2 percent (n=10) responded they “sometimes” have, and 5.8 percent (n=3) “often” ignored an incident. The respondents’ perceptions of whether they believe students engage in plagiarism are shown in Figure 2. When asked whether the respondent believed dental hygiene students plagiarize, the majority answered “sometimes” (67.7 percent, n=67).

136

When asked if the respondent felt that the students who did plagiarize did so intentionally, the majority responded “sometimes” (64.6 percent, n=64) (Figure 3). The means by which the responding faculty members check for plagiarism are shown in Table 3. The two most commonly used methods were visual inspection (without technological assistance) (73.0

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

Figure 2. Frequency that dental hygiene faculty respondents reported thinking students plagiarize (n=99)

Figure 3. Frequency that dental hygiene faculty respondents reported thinking students plagiarize intentionally (n=99)

percent, n=38) and “plagiarism detection computer software/services” (65.4 percent, n=34). In addition, the majority responded “yes” that plagiarism detection computer software/services were available at their institution (66.3 percent, n=65). Respondents were instructed to check all that applied; therefore, the reported percentage was greater than 100 percent.

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

Forty-two percent (n=15) answered “yes” that their educational institution provides faculty in-service training for plagiarism detection computer software/ services. For the thirty-four respondents who use computer software/services to detect plagiarism, 54.6 percent (n=18) said that they “always or often” have

137

Table 3. Methods respondents reported using to check for student plagiarism, by number and percentage of respondents to each question

Number Percentage

What methods do you currently use to detect plagiarism? (Check all that apply)a (n=52) Visual inspection (without technological assistance) 38 Plagiarism detection computer services/software 34 Responsibility of teaching assistant 1

73.0% 65.4% 1.9%

Is plagiarism detection computer software/service available in your institution? (n=98) Yes 65 No 12 Don’t know 21

66.3% 12.2% 21.4%

Does your institution provide in-service faculty training for plagiarism detection computer software/services? (n=36) Yes 15 No 10 Don’t know 11

41.7% 27.8% 30.6%

How often do you use computer software/service to detect plagiarism?b (n=33) Always 9 Often 9 Sometimes 15

27.3% 27.3% 45.4%

Which computer software program/services do you currently use to detect plagiarism? (Check all that apply)a (n=49) Turnitin.com 19 SafeAssign by Blackboard 13 Google Scholar 6 Mydropbox 3 Grammarly.com 3 Plagiarismchecker.com 1 None 16

38.8% 26.5% 12.2% 6.1% 6.1% 2.0% 32.7%

Subgroup of faculty members who reported checking for plagiarism and answered this question. Subgroup of faculty members who reported using computer detection software and answered this question.

a

b

used computer detection software/services to detect plagiarism, while another 45.4 percent (n=15) said “sometimes” (Table 3). The most frequently used computer software/service program used by the respondents were Turnitin.com (38.8 percent, n=19) and SafeAssign by Blackboard (26.5 percent, n=13). Additional computer software/services programs used by respondents are listed in Table 3. Thirty-three percent (n=16) of the respondents answered “they did not use any computer software/services” even though it was available at their educational institution. Table 4 shows the subset of respondents who said they check for plagiarism on their required written assignments/projects. When these faculty members were asked how many students they had caught plagiarizing in the past two years, 47.9 percent (n=23) reported one or two. When they were asked what methods students have used to plagiarize, 78.0 percent (n=39) reported the students “copied directly from a source electronically”; 56.0 percent

138

(n=28) reported that students “copied directly from a source manually”; and 18.0 percent (n=9) reported the students “used a previously submitted paper by a classmate.” Of those respondents choosing “other” (22.0 percent, n=11), collaborative plagiarism was cited by the majority. Questions 19 and 20 asked what mechanisms the faculty member used to prevent plagiarism (Table 5). Respondents were asked if they informed their students that plagiarism detection computer software/ services would be used to check for plagiarism on their assignments. The majority of the respondents selected “always” (72.2 percent, n=26). The respondents were also asked if they recommended that their students use a plagiarism detection software/service to detect unintentional plagiarism. On this question, 44.0 percent (n=16) reported they “always” recommended it, 27.8 percent (n=10) reported they “never” did, and 22.3 percent (n=8) reported either “sometimes or often.” Figure 4 summarizes the percentage

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

Table 4. Respondents’ perceptions of frequency and types of student plagiarism they have encountered, by number and percentage of respondents to each question

Number Percentage

In the past two years, how many students did you catch plagiarizing? (n=48) 0 10 1 or 2 23 3 or 4 8 5+ 7

20.8% 47.9% 16.6% 14.5%

What methods have your students used to plagiarize? (Check all that apply) (n=50) Copied directly from the source electronically 39 Copied directly from the source manually 28 Used a previously submitted paper by a classmate 9 Don’t know 6 Other 11

78.0% 56.0% 18.0% 12.0% 22.0%

Note: Numbers and percentages are of subgroup of faculty members who reported checking for plagiarism and answered each question.

Table 5. Mechanisms respondents reported using to prevent plagiarism, by number and percentage of respondents to each question

Number Percentage

Do you inform your students that you will be using computer software to detect plagiarism?a (n=36) Always 26 Often 1 Sometimes 2 Never 5 Not applicable 2

72.2% 2.8% 5.6% 13.9% 5.6%

Do you recommend to your students that they use computer software to detect unintentional plagiarism?a (n=36) Always 16 44.4% Often 2 5.6% Sometimes 6 16.7% Never 10 27.8% Not applicable 2 5.6% Do you discuss the definition of plagiarism with your students?b (n=51) Yes 41 No 10

80.4% 19.6%

Do you define plagiarism in your syllabus?b (n=52) Yes 27 No 24 Not applicable 1

51.9% 46.2% 1.9%

Subgroup of faculty members who reported using computer detection software (n=34). The two “Not applicable” responses are in addition to those 34. b Subgroup of faculty members who reported checking for plagiarism and answered this question. a

of plagiarism that the respondents would consider “acceptable” on written assignments that were reviewed by computer software/services. Thirty-nine percent (n=13) of the respondents considered “1-10 percent” acceptable; 33.3 percent (n=11) “did not consider any areas of plagiarism acceptable”; 15.2 percent (n=5) considered “11-20 percent” plagiarism acceptable; and 6.1 percent (n=2) considered “21-40

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

percent” and “41 percent or above” as acceptable for each amount. Survey question 25 asked the respondents if they discussed the definition of plagiarism with their students; 80.4 percent (n=41) answered “yes” and 19.6 percent (n=10) answered “no” (Table 5). Fiftytwo percent (n=27) defined the term “plagiarism” in their syllabi; however, 46.2 percent (n=24) did not.

139

Figure 4. Percentage of plagiarism that dental hygiene faculty respondents would consider “acceptable” on written assignments reviewed by computer software/services Note: Percentages are of the subgroup who reported using computer detection software and answered this question (n=33).

When asked where the faculty member obtained his or her definition of plagiarism, the majority of respondents reporting taking the definition from their institution’s “student handbook” (76.4 percent, n=39) or the institution’s “academic integrity handbook” (56.8 percent, n=29). Other respondents stated that they created their own definition, or they used sources such as the Internet, textbooks, or dictionary (39.2 percent, n=20). Questions 27 and 28 asked the faculty members how they would handle an instance of plagiarism in their course (Table 6). The majority of respondents reported they “did not state what or if any penalty would occur” (45.1 percent, n=23); 37.3 percent (n=19) reported “no credit would be given for the assignment”; 13.7 percent (n=7) reported “dismissal from the program”; and 3.9 percent (n=2) reported “F in the course.” The faculty members were also asked what the consequence would be if this was the student’s first offense. Fifty-seven percent (n=29) of the respondents said they allowed students to “resubmit a new paper”; 41.2 percent (n=21) assigned a “zero on the assignment”; 31.4 percent (n=16) gave the student a “first offense warning”; and 25.5 percent (n=13) “lowered a grade.” The majority of

140

the respondents who chose “other” stated that they were required to report the student’s violation to an appropriate university review board. Table 6 also shows data on student responses to plagiarism violations as reported by the respondents. When the faculty member had confronted students about a plagiarism violation they had committed, the majority of the respondents (74.0 percent, n=37) reported that “yes or sometimes” the students admitted to plagiarizing, while 26.0 percent (n=13) responded that the students did not admit committing the violation. Fifty-six percent (n=28) of the respondents stated that the students did accept the consequences for their actions when caught plagiarizing, and 44.0 percent (n=22) responded that “sometimes” their students accepted the consequences. The respondents were then asked how their individual department and their educational institution handled plagiarism. When a student had committed a plagiarism violation, 52.9 percent (n=27) of the respondents said the incident was “always or often” handled within the dental hygiene department. The final question asked respondents specifically if they reported the student violation to an appropriate review board, and 76.5 percent (n=39) said they never had.

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

Table 6. Consequences of and student responses to plagiarism violation reported by respondents to each question

Number Percentage

According to your syllabus, if a student is caught plagiarizing, what would the consequences be for his/her action? (n=51) Do not state penalty in syllabus 23 45.1% No credit given for the assignment 19 37.3% Dismissal from program 7 13.7% F in the course 2 3.9% As an instructor, if this was a student’s first incident of plagiarism, what consequences would he/she receive for this violation? (Check all that apply) (n=51) Resubmission of new paper 29 56.9% Zero on the assignment 21 41.2% First offense warning 16 31.4% Lowered grade for that assignment 13 25.5% A violation letter placed in personnel file 10 19.6% F for the course 1 2.0% Other 9 17.6% Do students who have plagiarized readily admit to it when confronted? (n=50) Yes 10 Sometimes 27 No 13

20.0% 54.0% 26.0%

Do students who are caught plagiarizing accept consequences of their actions? (n=50) Yes 28 Sometimes 22

56.0% 44.0%

When a student has been accused of plagiarism, how often is it handled in your dental hygiene department? (n=51) Always 17 33.3% Often 10 19.6% Sometimes 11 21.6% Referred to appropriate review board 5 9.8% Don’t know 8 15.7% How many times have you reported a student’s violation to the appropriate review board? (n=51) 0 39 1 or 2 per year 9 3-5 per year 1 Not aware how to do this 1 No review board exists 1

76.5% 17.6% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Note: Numbers and percentages are of subgroup of faculty members who reported checking for plagiarism and answered each question.

Discussion After a thorough review of the literature, we believe this is the first national study that examined the issue of plagiarism from the perspective of dental hygiene faculty members. This study explored the attitudes of U.S. dental hygiene faculty members towards plagiarism, if they check student assignments for plagiarism, what form of plagiarism students use, what mechanisms faculty members have put in place to detect and prevent plagiarism, and how plagiarism is handled in their academic institutions. Even though only faculty members from baccalaureate dental hy-

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

giene programs were sampled, the results from this study provide insight on how some faculty members currently address the issue of plagiarism. Previous studies have reported that faculty members observed students plagiarizing more often than what the students believed.7,31 In our study, the majority of the respondents reported catching one or two students plagiarizing in the past two years (n=23, 47.9 percent). These results conflict with Liddell and Fong,26 who found one or two students were caught plagiarizing every semester. However, McCabe7 reported that the faculty members in his study witnessed students engaging in plagiarism

141

activities one or more than one time during the past three years. The respondents in our study were asked what form of plagiarism they had observed among their students; the majority reported that students plagiarized using sources directly from the Internet (Table 4). These results agree with McCabe,7 who found that 81.2 percent of faculty members believed students used the Internet or other electronic means to plagiarize. Among nursing and health science students, McCabe31 found that 87.0 percent admitted plagiarizing material obtained from the Internet. It is encouraging to know that the majority of faculty members in our study felt it was their responsibility to check for plagiarism (91.9 percent, n=91), and 75.0 percent (n=39) said they never ignored an incident (Figure 1). Many educators believe that the increased accessibility of the Internet has enticed students to engage in plagiarism behavior.5,6,10,12 Since most students utilize the Internet as their primary resource, it has become difficult for faculty members to scrutinize the infinite number of websites available to students. This may explain why only 67.1 percent (n=53) of the faculty members in our study checked for plagiarism. Other studies have reported reasons why educators do not check for plagiarism; these include time constraints and lack of evidence to support their claim. The majority of the respondents in our study who avoided checking for plagiarism did so because “it took too much time” (45.8 percent, n=11) and found it was “too hard to prove” (16.6 percent, n=4). Fontana27 reported that some faculty members do not want to confront a student who is caught plagiarizing because it could create tension in the student-teacher relationship. Liddell and Fong reported that some faculty members have developed assignments that would not give students the opportunity to plagiarize.26 In our study, respondents who chose “other” reasons for not checking plagiarism reported that written assignments/projects such as case studies, reflection summaries, article analysis, and community projects would not lend themselves to plagiarism activity (37.5 percent, n=9). In response to the increased incidence of plagiarism among students, computer software/ services have been created to help teachers identify plagiarized work; these are designed to be efficient and time-saving tools.32-34 The availability of plagiarism detection software/services has recently become widespread in educational institutions.32 Approximately 66.0 percent (n=65) of the respondents in our study stated that computer software/

142

services were available at their institution. The most commonly used detection services reported were Turnitin.com (n=19, 38.8 percent) and SafeAssign by Blackboard (n=13, 26.5 percent); these findings agree with Kaner and Fiedler’s results.32 In addition, the faculty members in our study who checked for plagiarism and who had access to plagiarism detection software stated that they utilized these services to check students’ work. These results support Kelly and Bonner,28 who reported that faculty members who considered academic dishonesty to be prevalent in their institution were more likely to have used plagiarism detection devices. The rise of plagiarism has required faculty members to introduce numerous mechanisms to deter students from plagiarizing.2,7,15,28,34,36 Prior to the final submission of an assignment/project, faculty members can recommend students check their work using plagiarism detection software/services.9,33,34,36 These may reduce the uncertainty students may experience during the drafting phase.4,34,36 Davis and Carroll34 reported that penalties were not implemented for plagiarism during the initial writing phases of a paper. These authors used plagiarism detection software to help students identify areas that may have been copied and pasted, which then helped them understand what was considered plagiarized work. Ford and Hughes36 also used plagiarism detection methods as an educational learning tool and not as a form of punishment. Davis and Carroll34 further stated that the use of plagiarism detection software in this format provided a positive learning environment and encouraged an open and nonthreatening dialogue between teacher and student. Among those faculty members in our study who checked for plagiarism, 72.2 percent (n=26) informed their students that computer software/services would be used to detect plagiarism, and 50.0 percent (n=18) recommended that students use computer software/services to detect unintentional plagiarism. In our study, even though the respondents reported plagiarism detection software/services were available at their institutions, the majority reported detecting plagiarism using visual inspection (without technological assistance) (73.0 percent, n=38). These findings support those of Scanlan37 who reported the best detection option for health science faculty members is visual inspection (without technological assistance). One problem that detection software/ services have is the databases are limited, do not include all health care publications, and miss scientific research that students have accessed through

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

the Internet.32 This allows students to circumvent the system and use sources that the detection software/ services cannot identify.32 For these reasons, faculty members may want to reexamine the value of having students submit their papers through a plagiarism detection service.32 The dental hygiene faculty members in our study were asked where they obtained their definition of plagiarism. The majority reporting taking the definition from either their institution’s “student handbook” (76.4 percent, n=39) or their institution’s “academic integrity handbook” (56.8 percent, n=29). This question was asked to further explore what sources were used to create plagiarism prevention mechanisms. For those respondents who said they check for plagiarism, 80.4 percent (n=41) verbally discussed the definition of plagiarism with their students, and 51.9 percent (n=27) included the definition of plagiarism in their syllabi. These results conflict with McCabe,7 who found that 66.0 percent of faculty members discussed plagiarism at the beginning of the course, while 70.5 percent defined plagiarism in course syllabi. A number of studies have found that honor codes help reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty.2,15,38 Establishment of honor codes and informing students of the consequences of plagiarizing behavior demonstrate that they will be held accountable for their actions. In our study, 45.1 percent (n=23) of the faculty members who check for plagiarism answered they “did not state a penalty” for plagiarism violations on their syllabi. Andrews et al.8 reported that students felt faculty members should enforce academic integrity policies and take disciplinary action against those students who cheat. Students may also be less likely to plagiarize if they know their teacher follows through with the consequences associated with academic integrity violations.2 Faculty members who enforce penalties established by either themselves or their institution demonstrate their commitment to maintaining academic integrity. For those faculty members in our study who reported catching students plagiarizing, 37.3 percent (n=19) stated the penalty was that “no credit was given for the assignment.” If it was the student’s first instance of plagiarism, 41.2 percent (n=21) of the respondents reported giving the student “a zero on the assignment.” However, the majority allowed the students’ “resubmission of a new paper” (56.9 percent, n=29). These results agree with the findings of Liddell and Fong,26 who reported that, in most cases of plagiarism, the student’s grade was lowered and

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

he or she was given the opportunity to resubmit the paper. Kelley and Bonner28 reported that 61.1 percent of the faculty members in their study lowered the student’s grade or gave the student a failing grade in the course. In our study, only 2.0 percent (n=1) of the faculty members gave the student a failing grade. Faculty members have reported that students often say they misunderstand the differences between paraphrasing and plagiarism, suggesting they may have inadequate writing skills.30,39 Davis and Carroll34 reported that students do not fully understand how to avoid plagiarism until it refers to their own written work. By allowing a student to resubmit a paper, the teacher can use it as a teaching moment to clarify what constitutes plagiarism.38 This method could also enhance a student’s writing skills and provide guidance in how to paraphrase correctly. In some instances, faculty members have taken a more proactive approach and required students to complete a course on plagiarism before beginning a written project.30,39 Belter and du Pré30 suggest that such a course would help students who lack proper writing skills avoid plagiarism and would instill within them the importance of maintaining academic integrity. For those faculty members in our study who checked for plagiarism, 33.3 percent (n=17) said they chose to handle the incident within their own dental hygiene department. Muhney and Campbell38 and Kelley and Bonner28 suggest that if plagiarism policies are clearly stated in the course and the consequences are upheld, the faculty member may not see the need to refer the student to an academic review board. Kelley and Bonner28 further stated that most faculty members preferred to handle plagiarism violations with students one-on-one. Other faculty members have said that reporting students who plagiarize may result in poor student evaluations.2,27 Fontana suggests this could have negative repercussions for the faculty member and may “endanger [his or her] reappointment, promotion, or tenure.”27 Almost 77.0 percent (n=39) of the respondents in our study who said they check for plagiarism had never reported a student’s violation to an appropriate review board. Other faculty members have reported thinking they are the ones who are on trial when reporting a student to an academic integrity council.29 Muhney and Campbell38 found that only 35.6 percent of the faculty members in their study reported cases of cheating to their administration. Andrews et al.8 found that both students and faculty members felt that review boards do not enforce academic integrity policies; therefore, they felt that the faculty member often

143

looked the other way. Kelley and Bonner28 examined both faculty members and administrators and found that faculty members perceived academic dishonesty as being “more pervasive than their administrative counterparts.” In addition, some faculty members have avoided reporting academic dishonesty because they were concerned about how it would affect the reputation of their institution.27

Limitations Even though some of the questions on our survey had been used in previous research, the instrument was limited because the majority of the questions were used for the first time. Also, the survey questions included may have been uncomfortable for dental hygiene faculty members to accurately answer, and this may have reduced the response rate. The survey was delivered via email to each program director during the second week of May. The response rate for this study was low, which may have been due to the time of year the survey was delivered. Some dental hygiene faculty members may have been on a nine-month contract and were unavailable to take the survey. In order to obtain an adequate response rate, the survey was left open until the end of July. Dental hygiene faculty employment contracts range between nine and twelve months, and some dental hygiene programs do not hold classes during June and July. Further studies should implement the survey at the beginning of the fall or spring semester. Due to budget constraints and number of dental hygiene programs (387) in the United States,35 only baccalaureate dental hygiene programs were included in our study. Upon inspection of the data, we discovered that the effect size was small, so the power was too low for SPSS to detect correlations. Therefore, no significance was found when analyzing the data using cross-tabulations and chi-square analysis. Since academic integrity violations such as plagiarism have become widespread, future studies should include faculty members from both associate and baccalaureate dental hygiene programs. Doing so would provide a more accurate representation of the attitudes dental hygiene faculty members have towards plagiarism and would provide more data that could be analyzed. Future investigations should also include questions that ask respondents if the mechanisms they put in place to prevent plagiarism were effective.

144

Conclusion The faculty members responding to our study reported thinking that plagiarism is a growing concern within their baccalaureate dental hygiene programs. Even though 91.9 percent of the respondents said it was the faculty member’s responsibility to check for plagiarism, only 67.1 percent said they actually checked for plagiarism. The majority said they detected plagiarism through visual inspection (without technological assistance) and reported that the students were plagiarizing information from the Internet. Other respondents said they use interventions such as plagiarism detection software/services to prevent students from plagiarizing; however, further research is required to investigate if these mechanisms are effective. When a student had committed a plagiarism violation, 52.9 percent of the respondents said they handled the incident within their dental hygiene program, and 76.5 percent said they would not report the violation to an appropriate review board. Students need to understand the importance of acknowledging another person’s intellectual property. Even though some faculty members in our study listed severe penalties for plagiarism on their course syllabi, the usual consequence of plagiarism they reported was minimal. It appears that the faculty members were cautious about checking for plagiarism in their students’ assignments/projects. This may be due to time constraints, difficulty proving the violation, and/or fear that their institution would not support them. It is essential for faculty members and administrators to have a clear understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and to develop preventive strategies that can and will be enforced. Educators should provide students with information on what constitutes plagiarism and how they can avoid it. Doing so can create an open dialogue for learning, which in turn can help to prevent plagiarism behavior and avoid formal academic sanctions against the student.

Acknowledgment

Funding for this study was provided by the Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry Office of Research and Graduate Studies.

Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 78, Number 1

REFERENCES

1. McCabe DL. The fundamental values for academic integrity. Center for Academic Integrity, Duke University, 2007. At: www.academicintegrity.org/icai/assets/FVproject.pdf. Accessed: July 20, 2011. 2. Turner SP, Beemsterboer PL. Enhancing academic integrity: formulating effective honor codes. J Dent Educ 2003;67(10):1122-9. 3. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On Horiz 2001;9(5):1-6. 4. Arhin AO. A pilot study of nursing students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty: a generation perspetive. ABNF J 2009;20(1):17-21. 5. Ellery K. An investigation into electronic-source plagiarism in the first-year essay assignment. Assess Eval High Educ 2008;33(6):607-17. 6. Cole AF. Plagiarism in graduate medical education. Fam Med 2007;39(6):436-8. 7. McCabe DL. McCabe academic integrity survey report. 2010. Texas Tech University. At: www.depts.ttu.edu/ provost/qep/docs/McCabe_Academic_Integrity_Report_Cover.pdf. Accessed: November 24, 2011. 8. Andrews KG, Smith LA, Henzi D, Demps E. Faculty and student perceptions of academic integrity at U.S. and Canadian dental schools. J Dent Educ 2007;71(8):1027-39. 9. Scanlon PM, Neumann DR. Internet plagiarism among college students. J Coll Stud Dev 2002;43(3):374-85. 10. Selwyn N. Not necessarily a bad thing: a study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students. Assess Eval Higher Educ 2008;33(5):465-79. 11. Wilkinson J. Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism and cheating. Int J Teach Learn Higher Educ 2009;20(2):98-105. 12. Stephens JM, Young MF, Calabrese T. Does moral judgment go offline when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics Behav 2007;17(3):233-54. 13. Eysenbach G. Report of a case of cyberplagiarism and reflections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct using the Internet. J Med Internet Res 2000;2(1):1-9. 14. Bennett KK, Behrendt LS, Boothby JL. Instructor perceptions of plagiarism: are we finding common ground? Teach Psychol 2011;38(1):29-35. 15. McCabe DL, Treviño LK, Butterfield KD. Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: a qualitative investigation. J Higher Educ 1999;70(2): 211-34. 16. McCabe DL, Treviño LK, Butterfield KD. Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics Behav 2001;11(3):219-32. 17. Falleur D. An investigation of academic dishonesty in allied health: incidence and definitions. J Allied Health 1990;19(4):313-24. 18. Rennie SC, Crosby JR. Are tomorrow’s doctors honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. BMJ 2001;322:274-5. 19. Segal S, Gelfand BJ, Hurwitz S, et al. Plagiarism in residency application essays. Ann Intern Med 2010;153(2): 112-20.

January 2014  ■  Journal of Dental Education

20. Roig M. Can undergradute students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychol Rec 1997;47(1): 113-22. 21. Rabi SM, Patton LR, Fjortoft N, Zgarrick DP. Characteristics, prevalence, attitudes, and perceptions of academic dishonesty among pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70(4):1-8. 22. Bilić-Zulle L, Frkovic V, Turk T, et al. Prevalence of plagiarism among medical students. Croat Med J 2005;46(1):126-31. 23. Teplitsky PE. Perceptions of Canadian dental faculty and students about appropriate penalties for academic dishonesty. J Dent Educ 2002;66(4):485-506. 24. Muhney KA, Gutmann ME, Schneiderman E, et al. The prevalence of academic dishonesty in Texas dental hygiene programs. J Dent Educ 2008;72(11):1247-60. 25. Honny JM, Gadbury-Amyot CC, Overman PR, et al. Academic intergrity violations: a national study of dental hygiene students. J Dent Educ 2010;74(3):251-60. 26. Liddell J, Fong V. Faculty perceptions of plagiarism. J Coll Character 2005;2(6):1-8. 27. Fontana JS. Nursing faculty experiences of students’ academic dishonesty. J Nurs Educ 2009;48(4):181-5. 28. Kelley KB, Bonner K. Digital text, distance education, and academic dishonesty: faculty and administrator perceptions and responses. JALN 2005;9(1):43-52. 29. Schneider A. Why professors don’t do more to stop students who cheat. Chron Higher Educ 1999;45(20): A8-A10. 30. Belter RW, du Pré A. A strategy to reduce plagiarism in an undergraduate course. Teach Psychol 2009;36(4):257-61. 31. McCabe D. Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: an empirical investigation. J Nurs Educ 2008;48(11):614-23. 32. Kaner C, Fiedler RL. A cautionary note on checking software engineering papers for plagiarism. IEEE Transactions Educ 2008;51(2):184-8. 33. Jocoy CL, DiBiase D. Plagiarism by adult learners online: a case study in detection and remediation. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn 2006;7(1):1-15. 34. Davis M, Carroll J. Formative feedback within plagiarism education: is there a role for text-matching software? Int J Educ Integrity 2009;5(2):58-70. 35. American Dental Hygienists’ Association. At: www.adha. org/downloads/edu/dh_ed_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed: February 14, 2012. 36. Ford PJ, Hughes C. Academic integrity and plagiarism: perceptions and experience of staff and students in a school of dentistry—a situational analysis of staff and student perspectives. Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16(1):e180-6. 37. Scanlan CL. Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity and minimize student cheating and plagiarism. J Allied Health 2006;35(3):179-85. 38. Muhney KA, Campbell PR. Allied dental and dental educators’ perceptions of and reporting practices on academic dishonesty. J Dent Educ 2010;74(11):1214-9. 39. Pence PL. Plagiarism using a collaborative approach in an online allied health professions course. Nurse Educ 2012;37(1):12-6.

145