Technology Across Writing Contexts and Tasks

Edited by GREG KEssLER

Ohio University ANA 0SKOZ

University of Maryland, Baltimore County IDOlA ELOLA

Texas Tech University

a 0

CALICO Monograph Series, Volume 10

Chapter 13 Exploring Nonnative English-Speaking Students' Use of Technology to Improve Their Paraphrasing Skills and Avoid Plagiarism

DAWN BIKOWSKI

Ohio University Abstract This study explores if and how nonnative English-speaking (NNES) students use technology to check their own writing for plagiarism. It responds to a call for more practice-oriented research on how educators can assist students in the effective integration of sources in their writing (Wette, 2010). Survey data from 141 NNES graduate and undergraduate students in a variety of programs from a large Midwestern university was supplemented with interview data of nine students in order to gain insights into student use of various technologies. Results indicate that students use restricted-access plagiarism detectors most frequently to check their academic writing, that they are overall satisfied with the performance of these tools, that they want professors to teach L2 writers about the tools, and that they find the tools useful to help them understand, identify, and correct possible plagiarism as well as feel a greater sense of ownership of their texts. It is recommended that educators take advantage of the opportunity technology offers NNES students by developing pedagogies that encourage ownership of texts by L2 writers.

1. Introduction

Many students from non-Western cultures struggle with Western definitions of plagiarism (Pecorari, 2003; Spack, 1997). Research has identified student responses to this issue, including fear of unintentional plagiarism (Bikowski, 2009), and has provided suggestions on teaching nonnative English speakers (NNESs) about this issue (Dong, 1998). Many NNESs find the area of paraphrasing particularly difficult and often to "language re-use" (Flowerdew & Li, 2007) or "patchwriting," which involves "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes" (Howard, 1993, p. 233). Given that many professors view language re-use as plagiarism and that many technologies are now available to

256

TECHNOLOGY AND PLAGIARISM

find it (e.g., turnitin.com), educating NNESs on paraphrasing is becoming increasingly important. Research exists on students' struggles with paraphrasing (Flowerdew & Li, 2007), yet no research has been found to date that has explored how students may be trying to avoid plagiarism by using tools available with technology. Furthermore, there have been calls for more research that is practice oriented in order to assist students in their goal of integrating sources into their academic texts (Wette, 2010). Also, as Inside Higher Ed reported, many faculty are becoming increasingly concerned about how students use these technologies as they search for copying in their own writing (Murphy, 2011 ). These concerns and calls for research demonstrate the importance of investigating students' use of a variety of ways to check their own writing, particularly as they use technology to meet these goals. Exploration of the means students use to check their own work also links in with students' strategies to maintain power and autonomy in their own writing process. This study aims to explore students' use of technology to check their own academic writing for plagiarism, especially the ways they can use technology as they develop their paraphrasing skills. The research questions include how often and in what contexts students use technology to check their own writing; how satisfied they are when they use technology to check their own writing; and what they think these tools have to offer, or not offer, L2 writers in terms of their writing experience. 2. Literature Review 2.1 The High Stakes of Plagiarism Charges of plagiarism are becoming more widely publicized in increasingly highstakes situations. All parties involved in accusations of plagiarism can see serious consequences, ranging from universities (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002) to students (Wasley, 2007) and even government officials (BBC News Europe, 2011). Universities, academic journals, professors, and students all express concern that a rising number of plagiarism cases is resulting in lower academic standards (Powers, 2008; Secter & Cohen, 2007; Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Perhaps for these reasons, many content-course instructors seem to be more concerned about disciplining students for plagiarism than they are about educating students on the use of sources (Valentine, 2006) and wonder if having students write with sources is a policing activity or a teachable moment (Lyon, 2009). This increasingly tense situation has led to the extensive use of plagiarism detection software, by both universities and journals (Rampell, 2008). While this increased tension is widely felt, one population that has received particular notice in discussions of plagiarism has been the group of NNESs studying in American universities. 2.2 The Use of Sources in Academic Writing Among English Language Learners Much attention has been focused on the struggles regarding plagiarism experienced by English language learners. The topic of plagiarism itself is an elusive concept (Angelil-Carter, 2000) and many NNES students do not understand what it is (Pecorari, 2003; Spack, 1997; Sutherland-Smith, 2005). Complicating the

DAWN BIKOWSKI

257

technicalities of plagiarism is the ethical dimension because students frequently feel unsure of how to express their ideas (Valentine, 2006). Central to many difficulties is paraphrasing and when ideas or text can be copied. These misunderstandings can be due to the fact that many NNES students, in addition to being L2 learners, have no L1 experience with synthesizing source material into an academic text (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Hayes & Introna, 2005). Students may be unsure if common knowledge can be directly copied from a source (Flowerdew & Li, 2007) or if uniquely arranging copied text constitutes paraphrasing (Pecorari, 2003; Valentine, 2006). Difficulties with paraphrasing lead to what Howard (1993) has referred to as "patchwriting," which is "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes" (Howard, 1993, p. 233). Patchwriting is often considered to be a language-learning phase that students move through (Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Howard, 1995) and has been found to be "widespread" among English language learners (Pecorari, 2003, p. 342). As students move through the patchwriting process, they may experience feelings of alienation and powerlessness due to expectations they feel they are not ready to meet, such as not being prepared in the target language or not being aware of academic rules or conventions (Hayes & lntrona, 2005). Or, they may face charges of plagiarism as they attempt to demonstrate ownership of their texts (Bloch, 2007) and acquire the new discourse of academic communities, which involves its own set of guidelines, vocabulary, and rhetoric (Currie, 1998; Valentine, 2006). These complexities and tensions have led many to consider the power dynamics within plagiarism and the use of sources. While of course power is always an element in education, accusations of plagiarism make the power dynamic increasingly salient. Within plagiarism, power is very noticeable because a teacher can fail a student if the student commits a single incorrect communication act (Lyon, 2009). Lyon explores accusations of plagiarism as a performative speech act and the power that this speech act gives to instructors, backed by the law, the institution, and even technology: An instructor's "You fail" clearly wields great power over a student. Howard (2000) states that "the notion of plagiarism operates as an instrument of exclusion" (p. 85) because it allows universities to exclude students from academic programs based on their incorrect use of a source, and Buranen (1999) takes note of the dynamics of plagiarism when she comments that "whether an act is considered plagiarism is related to the amount of power we possess" (p. 65). Teachers have resources, including technology, to help them catch potential perpetrators (e.g., Harris, 2001; Moeck, 2002). It is this technology that frightens many students, even students who consider themselves honest because they feel that they have no control over plagiarism allegations or their writing (Lyon, 2009). When accused of plagiarizing, they may feel shocked as in the case of Lin in Valentine's (2006, p. 98) study and particularly concerned about unintentionally plagiarizing (Bikowski, 2009), feelings that are contrary to the ownership that would benefit these L2 writers. As Hyland (2009) notes, however, teaching students to successfully paraphrase can help them increase their ownership of texts. A variety of suggestions have been made to help instructors teach these skills.

258

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGUUUSM

2.3 Helping Language Learners Effectively Use Sources and Avoid Plagiarism Recommendations to help language learners not to plagiarize focus on writing as an act of communication and guiding them to acquire the linguistic and procedural skills necessary for effective communication. Frameworks that help students view the accurate use of sources as one component of overall effective writing have been advocated (Bikowski & Broeckelman, 2007), as well as activities that help students analyze their own citation practices (Thompson & Tribble, 2001). Tasks and policies can be created that minimize the potential for plagiarism (Harris, 2001), and, when acts of plagiarism do occur, they can be considered as an opportunity for learning (Abasi et al., 2006) in which students understand writing as an act of communication, not only as an activity for assessment (Hayes & Introna, 2005). Other scholars have noted the importance of helping students practice paraphrasing so they can move through the stage of patchwriting without feelings of guilt (Dong, 1998; Hayes & Introna, 2005; Pecorari, 2003; Wette, 2010). Practice is essential because students' declarative knowledge about source use is often superior to their actual paraphrasing skills (Wette, 2010). Yet while all of these recommendations are useful, more information is needed in regards to how students might actually check their own writing before it is submitted. One way that some students have found to check their writing is through technology, such as online plagiarism detectors. These tools offer students the opportunity to demonstrate autonomy and power in their own writing process. Shetzer and Warschauer (2000) view autonomous language learning as being an important component of electronic literacy, which, among other things, includes the ability to comfortably use hardware and software and to find and use information available online (Warschauer, 1999, 2002)- though learners must be ready before they can benefit from tasks that require autonomous learning (Lu, 2010). Being able to choose materials, having confidence in their own abilities, and believing that they should be responsible for their own learning are all crucial. Technology also offers instructors opportunities to help students progress in their writing with sources, as noted by Warschauer (2007, p. 914), The new challenges of plagiarism in the online era can provide instructors a valuable opportunity to address this issue head on in the classroom, and thus help students advance their understanding of the nature of academic research and writing. Warschauer goes on to note that the teaching of writing will continue to evolve as technology itself evolves. However, to what degree both students and educators will be able to benefit from this evolving technology is unclear. While these tools offer the potential for students to exercise their learning autonomy, some educators dislike student use of these services because they view them as helping students cheat and engage in "cyberplagiarism" (Barnes, 2003). As one professor notes, "The only reason you would use this service [online plagiarism checker for students to check their own work] is if you are skirting the spirit of the law by taking something from somewhere else and flipping things

DAWN BIKOWSKI

259

around a bit to pass the letter of the law" (Murphy, 2011, para. 7). Services such as Turnitin, which offer a faculty version and a student version (WriteCheck), particularly trouble some members of academia. The makers of Turnitin, however, see their student tool as helpful: "WriteCheck is a writing coach, not a weapon students can use to trick instructors," says a company executive (Murphy, 2011, para. 18), noting that WriteCheck flags a paper as potentially containing incorrectly sourced material, while Turnitin itself directly pinpoints copied passages. The company notes that their product is intended to help "students check for grammar and proper citation as they engage in the writing process" (Murphy, 2011, para. 20). Clearly, tension exists on the access students should have to these tools. Suggestions regarding how teachers can address the social or cultural dimensions of using sources in academic writing have also been raised. Educators' awareness of students' L1 literacy conventions (Valentine, 2006) can help them make students aware of how their L1 writing experiences might affect their academic writing in English (Hayes & Introna, 2005). This builds on Lyon's (2009) recommendation to develop pedagogies that encourage student ownership of texts; increased autonomy in writing has been linked with increased student motivation and engagement (Lo & Hyland, 2007), and increased self-confidence leads to decreased copying (Campbell, 1990). While these pedagogical recommendations are important, given the amount of plagiarism that still occurs, continued investigation into specific ways of helping students to paraphrase is necessary. A search of the literature reveals that using technology to police plagiarism has received considerable attention. Yet one area that has not received much, if any, attention is student use of technology to check their own writing. As demonstrated in the literature review, many NNES students can benefit from a variety of means of checking their own writing. As they use sources, they are often confused by American university conventions for citing the sources. In addition, they know that instructors increasingly use technology to search for plagiarism, and they often experience feelings of anxiety, fear, and a lack of power over their own learning and educational experience. Ideally, students should not feel anxious about their use of sources or powerless against accusations of plagiarism but instead feel empowered that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to autonomously check their own writing for correct source use. Thus, this research seeks to address these issues and explore if and how NNES students choose to use technology to check their own academic writing for plagiarism. Analysis will further explore if they find these tools useful and think that the tools contribute to their overall development as L2 writers. The research questions in this study were the following: 1. How often and in what contexts did NNES students use technology to check their own writing? 2.How satisfied were these 'students when they used technology to check their own writing? 3. What did they think these tools had to offer, or not offer, L2 writers in terms of their writing experience and paraphrasing?

260

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGUUUSM

3. Methodology

3.1 Material and Methods This study used an anonymous online survey and semistructured interviews with NNES students at a large Midwestern university. The students were solicited for the online survey through their instructors or former instructors. The following groups of NNES students were sent emails inviting them to participate: undergraduates who were taking or had taken the university freshman composition course, current graduate students in the sciences and education, and all graduate students who were in the process of finalizing their thesis or dissertation and were approaching graduation. The survey included 13 9-point Likert scale questions regarding what technology the students used, if any, to check their writing, their satisfaction with the tools if they used them, why they did or did not use them, and how they learned about the technology. Student responses to these questions were tallied and percentages were calculated. For the 9-point Likert scale questions regarding use, responses were grouped into three categories: never/rarely used (1-3), moderately used (4-6), and frequently used (7-9). For the questions regarding satisfaction, the categories were not satisfied (1-3), moderately satisfied (4-6), and very satisfied (7-9). Two open-ended questions were included in the survey as well to explore whether these technologies affected the quality of their writing and whether professors should have taught and encouraged the use of these tools. These responses were coded and tallied. Other questions focused on their comfort with technology, their native language, standing (graduate/undergraduate), their major/field of study, and how they would rate their writing in general. The following terms were used and defined in the survey: 1. Open-access plagiarism detectors were defined as those services found online that any user can access. These services may or may not charge a fee, and some are used online while others need to be downloaded to the user's computer.

2.Restricted-access plagiarism detectors were defined as those that are accessible to students only if they are given access by the professor (e.g., SafeAssign in Blackboard). 3. Offline searches were defined as when users save their sources to their hard drive and then search them in order to identify phrases that might be too closely copied from the original. Individual sources can also be searched for a specific phrase using the find feature in a word-processing program. Interviews were conducted approximately 1 month after the students completed the survey. (Students completed the survey at different times.) Interview participants were solicited through emails to instructors and departments, who passed them on to their students. The interviews lasted approximately 1 hour and were recorded and transcribed. All students who volunteered to be interviewed were interviewed. The following semistructured questions formed the basis of the interviews: how the students define plagiarism; who they think determines if something has been

DAWN BIKOWSKI

261

plagiarized; the role of paraphrasing; how they feel about plagiarism and if they think about it while writing; if they use technology to check their writing for plagiarism, why or why not, and under what circumstances; if they are satisfied with the tools they use; if they engage in other behaviors to check their writing for plagiarism; if they think using technology helps them improve their writing and, if so, how and why; if they feel that using technology changes how they feel about the process of writing with sources; and if plagiarism detectors and offline searches should be taught to NNESs, why, why not, and when in the students' instruction. The interview questions were derived from analysis of the survey responses in order to obtain a more in-depth understanding of students' ideas. Interview questions were organized and coded by theme focused on specific research questions and survey questions. The coding was done by the researcher and a colleague who had several years of teaching experience. The two raters coded the transcripts by the themes and then cross-checked their codes. Since the interviews followed the semistructured questions, the coding was straightforward, and there were no areas of disagreement between the raters.

3.2 Participants A total of 141 NNES students completed the survey. Of those students, 121 were undergraduate students, and 20 were graduate students; 75 were females, and 66 were males. Ninety-nine students were native Chinese speakers, seven were native Arabic speakers, five were native Japanese speakers, two were native Indonesian speakers, two were native Turkish speakers, and the remaining 10 students each spoke a different language (Burmese, Dutch, Hindi, Korean, Malayalam, Marathi, Russian, Spanish, Swahili, and Ukrainian). The students' majors included Business (57), Engineering (13), Math (7), Art (4), Communications and Journalism (5), Chemistry (2), and one each oflnternational Studies, Geographic Information Systems, Criminology, Education, and Biology. Thirty-eight students did not state their major. The students' L1s and majors were representative of the L2 student population on the campus. Participants indicated their level of comfort with technology on a 10-point Likert scale with one being not at all comfortable and 10 being very comfortable. Results indicate that 25 participants felt very comfortable with technology (rating of 10), while 18 rated themselves as a 9, 26 as an 8, 26 as a 7,10 as a 6, 17 as a 5, 5 as a 4, 5 as a 3, 4 as a 2; no students rated themselves as not at all comfortable. Thus, overall, participants were at least moderately comfortable with technology, with 122 of the 136 participants who answered this question rating themselves at least a 5 out of 10 with comfort. Students also rated themselves as writers, with 1 being poor and 10 being really good. The majority of students (83%) rated themselves at 5-8. Few rated themselves at 1-4 or 9-10. Nine students participated in the interviews. The interviewees included eight Mandarin Chinese L 1 students and one Arabic L 1 student; eight students were undergraduates while one was a graduate student. All students reported that they did

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGVUUSM

262

not learn how to write with sources in their Lls at home but had studied the topic at the university level. Table 1 summarizes the information about each interview participant. Table I Demographics of the Students Interviewed Participant

Native language

Gender

Standing

Major/field

SI

Chinese

Male

Undergraduate

Business

S2

Arabic

Male

Undergraduate

Business

S3

Chinese

Female

Graduate

Engineering

S4

Chinese

Male

Undergraduate

Business

ss

Chinese

Male

Undergraduate

Math

S6

Chinese

Female

Undergraduate

Business

S7

Chinese

Male

Undergraduate

Business Math Economics

S8

Chinese

Male

Undergraduate

S9

Chinese

Male

Undergraduate

Table I shows that Business was the most common major for the interviewees. This representation reflects the general international student population on campus and the participants who completed the survey.

4. Results 4.1 The Frequency ofTechnology Use to Check Writing for Plagiarism The first research question asked how often and in what contexts students used technology to check their own writing for plagiarism. The survey results indicated that students used technology in four distinct areas (see Table 2). Table 2 Areas of Students' Reported Use of Technology to Check Their Writing for Piagiarism Type of checking

No or rare use (1-3)

Moderate use (4-6)

Frequent use (7-9)

Overall use of technology

28%

44%

28%

Search engines

32%

41%

27%

Open-access plagiarism detectors

29%

45%

26%

Restricted-access plagiarism detectors

28%

39%

33% ..

Offline searches

48%

30%

22%

263

DAWN BIKOWSKI

Table 2 shows that roughly three fourths of the students surveyed use technology moderately to frequently to check their writing. Restricted-access plagiarism detectors received more ratings of frequent use than search engines or open-access plagiarism detectors. The technology receiving the least reported usage was offline searches. In the interviews, only one student (S5) reported that he did not use these tools at all because he was sure that he did not plagiarize. He explained that he avoids plagiarizing by quoting frequently and using his strong paraphrasing skills. Interestingly, further conversations in the interview revealed that the student was referring to direct copying when he used the term "quoting," leading the researcher to believe that he was unknowingly plagiarizing. Other ways students check their writing are by asking a professor (Sl, S3) and re-reading parts of their papers (Sl, S2, S3, S6). Regarding why students use technology to check their own writing, nine responses were included in the survey. The participants were asked to choose all that apply and were also given space to provide more reasons (see Table 3). Table 3 Reasons why Students Used Technology to Check Their Writing for Plagiarism Responses

Number of times chosen

I feel afraid or concerned about being caught for plagiarizing

67

My professor encourages us to use these technologies

67

I'm curious about my writing

44

I use these technologies to learn more and improve my language skills

39

My professor requires us to use an online plagiarism checker

29

I like to play with technology

26

Using these makes me feel more confident about my writing

20

I got in the habit of checking for plagiarism

18

As can be seen, students largely used these tools because of their concern over plagiarizing and because their professor(s) encouraged them to do so. As to what kind of writing students chose to use these tools on, the most prevalent response was papers they felt were very important (I 00 responses), and then rather important (63 responses), followed by less important (19) and not very important (19). In the interviews, most students stated they used the checkers frequently: Five of the nine (S3, S4, S6, S8, S9) reported that they use them for everything, two (S2, S7) said to check specific phrases, one (Sl) said most things, another one (S2) said for essays of two or more pages. In the survey, students reported that they learned about these technologies mainly from their professor (117 participants), much more than from a classmate/ friend (25 participants), a librarian (10), or on their own (18 participants). Students could choose more than one response.

264

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGUUUSM

Table 4 shows the reasons students reported for not using technology to check for plagiarism (again, students could choose as many items as applied). Table 4 Reasons why Students Did not Use Technology to Check Their Writing for Plagiarism Reasons chosen

Number of times chosen

I knew about these technologies but never thought of using them to check my own writing

46

I didn't know about these technologies

40

I don't think that these technologies work very well for finding plagiarism

25

I'm not worried about plagiarism; I'm sure my writing is fine

25

I don't write many papers so I don't have to worry about checking for plagiarism

22

Many of these services cost money, and I don't want to pay

19

I don't have the time to check my writing for plagiarism

17

It's difficult to use technology to check my writing for plagiarism

14

I don't think my professors care much about plagiarism

4

I think using technology to check for plagiarism is cheating and students shouldn't do this

3

According to the survey results above, the major reasons students did not use these tools were because they never thought of checking their own writing and they did not know about these technologies. The least often chosen reasons were a belief that students should not use these technologies and that professors did not care about plagiarism. The results in Table 4 show that the majority of the participants felt that professors did care about using sources accurately, as is evidenced by the low number of responses to the option "I don't think my professors care much about plagiarism." 4.2 Students' Satisfaction with Technology Used to Check Writing for Plagiarism

The second research question investigated the degree to which students were satisfied with the technology they used to check their own writing for plagiarism. Table 5 shows student satisfaction in four areas.

265

DAWN BIKOWSKI

Table 5 Students' Reported Satisfaction with the Use of Technology to Check Their Writing for Plagiarism Type of Checking

Not satisfied Moderately satisfied (4-6) (1-3)

Very satisfied (7-9)

Search engines

17%

48%

35%

Open-access plagiarism detectors

14%

50%

36%

Restricted-access plagiarism detectors

16%

41%

43%

Offline searches

28%

46%

26%

The majority of students were at least moderately satisfied with all of these options for checking their writing. The technology receiving the greatest percentage of very satisfied was restricted-access plagiarism detectors, while offline searches left students feeling the least satisfied. This technology was also the least often used. In the interviews, students expressed overall satisfaction. Seven of the eight students who used plagiarism detectors were satisfied, while one (S4) noted that he tested them and that they too often failed to identify copying. Other interviewees noted that they would have appreciated increased capabilities in the free plagiarism detectors. 4.3 Students' Views on What the Tools Had to Offer, or Not to Offer,for Writing

The third research question asked what the students thought these tools had to offer, or not offer, L2 writers. This question was answered from both survey questions and interviews. In the survey, an open-ended question asked students if they thought using technology to check their writing for plagiarism helped them in their writing. Eighty-three percent of the participants answered Yes, 12% responded No, and 5% were unsure. The participants who responded Yes gave the following reasons: increased confidence in writing (23% ), ability to identify and correct errors (25%), increased awareness and understanding of plagiarism (19%), improved paraphrasing skills (10%), improved quotation skills (5%), and decreased anxiety about plagiarism (2%). Sixteen percent gave no reason. The two most often cited reasons for the usefulness of the checkers were increased confidence and the ability to identify and correct errors. In the interviews, two students specified that checkers could help them improve the quality of their writing because they helped with grammatical accuracy (S3) and suggested synonyms to revise copied phrases (S8). These students thus saw plagiarism as part of a larger concern on writing quality. Student S3 summarized the usefulness that she saw in the tools when she noted that even "poor writers" can avoid plagiarizing with their use. Other students, however, noted that plagiarism detectors could actually decrease the quality of writing and they felt frustrated that the checkers required them to change their words. For example, two students (Sl, S2) said the checkers required them to rewrite a phrase that had "beautiful words" (Sl), while

266

TECHNOLOGY AND PLAGIARISM

one student (S8) noted that the quality of papers can decrease if a checker offers a synonym that does not fit the context. Information gathered from the interviews was further analyzed regarding the ways in which the tools can help L2 writers. Students' comments indicated that they felt technology could help them in two distinct ways: (a) to understand what plagiarism is and (b) to gain a feeling of power and ownership in their writing. These areas are explored in detail below. 4.3.1 Understanding what plagiarism is All of the students interviewed but one (S5) reported being confused about many of the details regarding plagiarism as they write and therefore look to technology and plagiarism detectors for guidance. They stated that they often do not feel they receive sufficient support from their professors, due either to a lack of time (S2, S4) or a lack of knowledge (S3). Comments from instructors such as "don't plagiarize" without providing guidance or suggesting tools resulted in students feeling even more concerned and confused and thus caused them to turn even more to plagiarism checkers (S3). For one student (S3), more knowledge about plagiarism resulted in greater anxiety and confusion. Students' confusion led the researcher to examine what students thought plagiarism was and their impressions of paraphrasing versus quoting. Table 6 shows that seven students (Sl, S2, S3, S4, S5, S8, S9) viewed the definition of plagiarism as stealing, while one student (S4) defined plagiarism in a number of ways: stealing, falsifying data, translating from Ll with no citation, and copying sentence structures. Table 6 Students' Responses on Definition of Plagiarism Responses What students reported as being plagiarism Stealing, lying, cheating by stealing words or ideas Falsifying research/results/data Material translated from a student's Ll to the L2 without citation Copying sentence structures What students reported as not being plagiarism Copying phrases with own words between Reusing words

Participants Sl,S2,S3,S4, S5,S8,S9 S4 S4 S4 S5 S4

What students reported as uncertain "Formatting mistake" of forgetting to use quotation marks S7 for a quotation Source material read years ago and memorized, with source S6 now unknown Material translated from a student's Ll to the L2 without S5 citation

DAWN BIKOWSKI

267

Table 6 shows that students in general perceived plagiarism to be a matter of ethics more than quality of writing, and many noted that it takes years to begin to internalize this ethics system. Only two students (Sl, S2) even mentioned writing quality in their responses, stating that plagiarism leads to lower quality papers in addition to being an act of cheating. Table 6 also shows that students continued to be confused about topics such as how many words can be copied, when to use quotation marks, how to mark memorized material, and if it is necessary to cite translated material from their Ll. These issues all represent areas where plagiarism detectors and other forms of technology may be able to help L2 writers avoid plagiarism, particularly given the feeling that many L2 writers have that they are uncertain where to tum for guidance as they use sources. Students were also asked about their perceptions of the role of paraphrasing as a way to avoid plagiarism because this area is one that confuses many L2 writers. Two students (S3, S9) said that yes, paraphrasing definitely demonstrates increased understanding over directly quoting, while three students said they could not think of an answer and four stated they were unsure because some paraphrased sentences are less accurate (S4), identifying a sentence to quote also demonstrates understanding (Sl), direct quotes are often more "readable" and thus more understandable (S8), and memorized sentences inserted in the appropriate place also demonstrates understanding (S6). Yet these students were aware that they needed to paraphrase and noted that using plagiarism detectors and other technology can help them resolve the tension of wanting to tum in grammatically accurate work and also needing to write in their own words. Discussions on the definition of plagiarism and the role of paraphrasing led to issues of fairness. In spite of feeling confused and anxious, all students stated that they felt that the Western concept of source use is fair because it values a writer's ideas and rights (S 1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S8, S9). They also agreed that plagiarism is a serious issue, though they did not all agree how severely it should be punished. Most students (Sl, S2, S3, S6, S7, S8) stated that they felt that NNESs should be punished less severely at first because learning plagiarism guidelines takes considerable time and native speakers of English have years of practice. Three of the nine students (S4, S5, S9) stated that NNESs should receive consequences the same as US-born students due to fairness. One student (S6) noted that because some NNES students will learn how to use sources without plagiarizing in a short period of time, educators should focus on the ones who need more time. These student perspectives are important to keep in mind as we research how students use or do not use tools to help them paraphrase accurately. The other point made in interviews, in addition to understanding plagiarism, is that these tools can help many NNES students feel greater ownership of their writing. 4.3 .2 Power and ownership of writing Students also valued the checkers because they helped them gain a feeling of power in their writing. Six of the nine students reported being frightened about the possibility of plagiarizing (Sl, S2, S3, S6, S9). Because of this fear, some participants (S3, S6) would like checkers that will give 100% assurance of no pla-

268

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGUUUSM

giarism. Students not reporting concern about possible accusations of plagiarism stated the following reasons: because they did not plagiarize (S5), because they did not know the consequences of plagiarism (S4), and because they used plagiarism checkers and therefore could be confident there was no plagiarism (S7, S8). Thus, one of the three reasons for not being afraid of plagiarizing was due to the use of the plagiarism detectors, while the other two are due to ignorance of the situation and to self-confidence. The role of self-confidence in writing with sources is one that emerged in the interviews as a response to the question about whether students believed that using technology changed how they felt about the process of writing with sources. The power dynamic in plagiarism is clearly evidenced by interviewees' reflections on who decides if something is plagiarism. Results showed that professors and technology were seen by students as having the most power. Only one student (S7) perceived the professor alone as having the power to determine if a text had been plagiarized; he stated that students would not be concerned without threats from professors and that professors had the power because "they're the only ones who care." Another interviewee (S8) thought that students should have a role in determining if writing had been plagiarized. Three interviewees (S4, S5, S9) viewed technology alone as determining plagiarism. Together, seven of the nine students (Sl, S2, S3, S4, S5, S8, S9) saw technology as having at least some role in identifying a passage as plagiarized, while one interviewee (S6) was not sure who should decide if a text had been plagiarized, though this participant noted that students should have a voice in deciding this issue. When plagiarism detectors were used, students ranged in their opinions on how much matching/copied text is acceptable, from 5%, to 10%, to 15%, to 40%. These numbers represent a clear area for discussion in the writing classroom. All nine interviewees remarked that they felt there is a power dynamic with plagiarism detection services, and eight indicated they felt it is unfair. Seven students (Sl, S2, S3, S6, S7, S8, S9) expressed particular concern about teachers having access to more technological resources than they had and with teachers intentionally keeping that information from students, particularly when the tools were useful for instructional purposes (S3). Only one student (S5) saw the power imbalance as fair, stating that students have no right to use these tools. Students' concerns over fairness were mitigated with the use of these tools. As a result of using technology to check their writing for plagiarism, interviewees overwhelmingly indicated that they felt confidence in their writing, more comfortable, and less anxious (Sl, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, S9). Five students (Sl, S2, S3, S6, S8) noted that these feelings of security with their writing are the reason that plagiarism checkers should be taught to NNES students. Thus in general, interviewees perceived technology as having more power than individuals in this aspect of evaluating their writing. 4.3 .3 Student thoughts on whether the use of plagiarism detectors should be taught by professors Students were asked in both the survey and the interviews if they thought profes-

DAWN BIKOWSKI

269

sors should teach and encourage students to use technology to check their writing for plagiarism. In response to the open-ended question in the survey, 87% of the students said that they thought professors should teach students how to use technology for this purpose, 7% said they should not, 5% were unsure, and one student said it should be the professor's decision. Reasons given for not asking professors to encourage students to use technology to check their writing included the fact that many students already knew this information and therefore professors did not need to cover it (2 responses), that the software would not help honest students but only help cheaters (1 response), that students did not want professors to check their papers and did not want services such as SafeAssign or Turnitin to be used (1 response), and that students should be responsible for finding out this information since it is their grade in question (1 response). Participants who were not sure professors should encourage students to use these services stated that these tools should only be taught if professors use them to teach paraphrasing ( 1 response); that it depends on how effective the tools are in detecting and reporting matching words and also on whether they require a fee (1 response); and that if these services are encouraged, professors should teach students how to interpret the services effectively (2 responses). These responses hold important considerations that will be explored in the discussion and conclusion sections below. In the interviews, the majority of students wanted professors to teach and encourage the use of technology to check their writing. The reasons the students gave included helping students not to plagiarize (S1, S2, S3, S4, S8, S9), helping students to take plagiarism more seriously (S1, S2, S7, S8), decreasing student anxiety (S3), assisting professors by explaining plagiarism and checking students' writing (S3), and being "good for lazy people" (S8). Seven of the nine interviewees (S1, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, S9) felt the tools should be taught to lower proficiency language learners so that they can see potential paraphrasing errors in early stages of their language development, while one interviewee (S2) felt that learners should be at the intermediate level of proficiency so as to minimize frustration with the tools and decrease the chances of lowered motivation. This student also noted that some students would choose not to use the tools, however, due to complicated citation rules, and another student (S3) wanted more accurate checkers developed for student use. Only one interviewee (S5) felt the tools should not be taught because the tools could help dishonest students cheat. Most interviewees (S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) remarked that though these resources can facilitate cheating by some students, this should not be a sufficient deterrent to keep the resource from students who use them as a learning tool. In fact, one student (S1) remarked that he taught other learners to use them. Two students (S 1, S2) even commented on how these resources could help instructors as well since they doubted that--faculty want to give failing grades.

5. Discussion The aim of this study was to understand if and how students use technology to improve their paraphrasing skills and avoid plagiarism in their academic writ-

270

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGUUUSM

ing, if they are satisfied with the tools, if they think the use of these tools should be taught, and how technology can be used to help them with their writing. The study is a response to a call for more practice-oriented research on how educators can assist students in the effective integration of sources in their writing (Wette, 2010). Survey data from 141 NNES undergraduate and graduate students in a variety of programs and different Lis was supplemented with interview data of nine students in order to gain insights into these issues. Results show a clear picture emerging on student use and opinions of these tools. Nearly three fourths of the students surveyed used technology to check their own academic writing for plagiarism, with the most frequently used tool being a restricted-access tool (e.g., SafeAssign in Blackboard). Restricted-access tools also received the highest percent of high-satisfaction scores in which satisfaction was based on cost and how well the students thought the tools worked. The major reasons for using the tools were concern about being caught for plagiarism and professors' encouragement, but other reasons emerged as well. Being curious about their writing, wanting to improve their language skills, being required by a professor to use the tools, liking to play with technology, and experiencing a greater sense of confidence about their writing were all responses that were chosen a number of times. Most students learned about the checkers from a professor, and the major reasons for not using plagiarism detectors or other forms of technology were because the students did not know about the tools or because they had never thought of using the tools to check their own writing. Students' comments indicated that they felt technology could help them understand plagiarism and gain a feeling of power and ownership in their writing. Students indicated that they prefer a tool that is not accessible unless access is granted by their instructor. Students are aware of this power imbalance (see Buranen, 1999; Howard, 2000; Lyon, 2009), which leads to feelings of unfairness and fear of unintentional plagiarism and its repercussions. L2 writers want their professors to teach NNES students how to use the tools effectively, believing that though some students may use the tools to cheat, most students use the tools honestly to check their work. Many students indicated that wanting to improve their language skills was a large motivator in their use of the tools. They also stated that when professors show them the tools, they use them. Power and technology issues also arose in interviews. The majority of interviewees viewed technology as having more power than individuals in identifying and labeling a passage as plagiarized. Issues of power regarding both plagiarism and technology use in general have existed for some time. Now, however, as repercussions for plagiarism become increasingly serious and as technology allows a greater number of possible cases of plagiarism to be identified, the two areas are merging and providing an opportunity for educators to consider their roles in these areas, that is, educator and enforcer. The participants in the study recommended that instructors ad6pt both roles openly, fairly, and equally. This study builds on previous research that has found that many L2 writers are concerned about unintentional plagiarism (Bikowski, 2009), that misunderstandings about plagiarism (Bloch, 2007; Pecorari, 2003; Spack, 1997) and paraphras-

DAWN BIKOWSKI

271

ing continue to exist in spite of instruction on the topic (Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Wette, 2010), that students want to succeed in their writing and not plagiarize (Valentine, 2006), that having different cultural norms regarding plagiarism (Pennycook, 1996) and little to no experience with academic writing (Abasi et al., 2006) both pose difficulties, that patchwriting exists in L2 writers' work (Howard, 1993; Pecorari, 2003), and that students want and need ownership in their writing in order to develop their autonomy and continue to improve their writing quality (Bloch, 2007) and engagement (Lo & Hyland, 2007). The L2 writers in this study are also confused and concerned about plagiarizing, want to succeed, want ownership of their writing, want to be honest, and seek means to help themselves develop their writing skills. Many of them are aware that they may be patchwriting (as evidenced by their behavior of putting phrases from their papers into plagiarism checkers) but are unclear about the rules of paraphrasing and use technology as a means to check their work. There is also evidence (based on interviews) that they see patchwriting as a stage that L2 writers move through, as do Dong (1998) Hayes and Introna (2005), and Pecorari (2001), albeit at different rates, and that technology can facilitate the passage of students through this process. Finally, some students perceive the strict guidelines of paraphrasing in American universities as limiting their personal expression (Valentine, 2006) as they change their wording to ensure that their papers pass the plagiarism detectors even though the revision, in their mind, is inferior. As this and other studies (Hayes & Introna, 2005) have shown, many students continue to view plagiarism as a matter of ethics (e.g., stealing) and not a problem of writing or communication. One finding that has not been discussed up to this point in the literature regards students' confidence and the use of sources. Ironically, the one L2 writer interviewed for this study who expressed no concern over plagiarism and thus did not use any type of plagiarism detection tool was also the one who appeared to know the least amount about the use of sources (as evidenced by his interview statements). This is contrary to claims that as students' self-confidence rises, they will copy less (Campbell, 1990). In fact, in this study, students who were the most conscientious and reflective in their source use continued to express feeling low self-confidence in their writing, which is why they said they used the plagiarism detectors. Several interviewees noted that the checkers helped them feel less anxious and, therefore, recommended that plagiarism checkers be taught to a variety of NNES students.

6. Pedagogical Implications The results of this study emphasize the importance of helping L2 writers develop their electronic literacy skills by teaching them how to use technologies appropriately to check their own writing for plagiarism, practices which empower them in the writing classroom. Students· can be provided with lists of various technologies they can use to check their writing for potential plagiarism, yet, perhaps more importantly, they also need to be provided with strategies for using these tools effectively. L2 learners often struggle with reading and interpreting reports produced

272

TECHNOLOGY AND PLAGIARISM

by these tools, specifically regarding how much matching is too much or which phrases are standard phraseologies and thus acceptable to be copied. Some students expressed great concern that a plagiarism detector report might find 15% of their text matching an outside source, while other students showed little concern with up to 40% of their paper being identical to a source. Knowing in which parts of papers it is acceptable to have wording matching that of other documents also requires training. Students need to be made aware that a reference list will often inflate the matching score of the plagiarism detector report. Other students will benefit from being reminded and shown that not all matching text will be identified by these tools. All of these areas require education and instructor support. Another crucial area that these tools provide to educators of L2 writers is the opportunity to help these students understand where they may have unintentionally plagiarized something due to insufficiently paraphrasing the original in their own words. Participants remarked that teaching students about these tools as early as possible is important so that learners can begin to develop the very difficult skill of paraphrasing. Students can use these tools in class with their own writing, with writing provided by the teacher, or with a peer's writing in order to practice and learn to check their paraphrasing, a step which should be part of every student's proofreading process. Participants commented that, for many students, the process of learning to paraphrase effectively takes considerable time and practice. Allowing students to practice paraphrasing skills with these technologies in a safe classroom atmosphere offers great potential. Participants acknowledged that some students would likely choose to use these tools in unethical ways, using them only to find and correct plagiarism that the tools detect and leaving undetected plagiarism unchanged. This is certainly possible, but, as teachers discuss the textual merits to paraphrasing texts as opposed to directly copying, they can provide demonstrations showing how checkers have variable rates of accuracy in finding matching text. As this study and others have pointed out, it is important that L2 writers see source use within the broader context of clear academic writing and not simply as a time-consuming and somewhat unnecessary detail. These tools have the potential to help students gain more control over their writing and also experience less fear, in addition to helping them better understand how to effectively integrate source ideas into their own texts. Many L2 writers already use these tools; we as educators may want to consider how we can help them use them better.

7. Limitations and Future Research The aim of this study was to explore students'use of and satisfaction with technology to check their own writing for plagiarism and how plagiarism checkers can help students improve their writing. Data consisted of an online survey completed by 141 students and follow-up interviews with nine students. In the future, more extensive interviews with a greater variety of students from different L 1s and disciplines could provide more insight into students' use of these tools. Observing students using the tools was also beyond the scope of this study but would provide useful data to add to our understanding of this topic. Longitudinal studies

DAWN BIKOWSKI

273

focusing on how students' use of these tools changes over time would begin to answer questions regarding patchwriting and how patchwriting may or may not progress as a phase in many L2 writers' academic development. Studies analyzing students' writing for possible plagiarism and how the use of plagiarism checkers may or may not actually decrease instances of plagiarism would also be helpful. Finally, investigating educators' views on students' use of these tools would lead to understanding on the compatibility of the views of L2 writers' and those of their instructors as these tools continue to evolve and gain more widespread use. 8. Conclusion

The tension that exists in educators between policing writing for plagiarism and the desire to help students not to plagiarize (Lyon, 2009; Valentine, 2006) will likely persist. Students, however, see that instructors can do both: They can educate L2 writers on how to use and interpret these tools themselves before submitting assignments and then use the tools for checking students' work once it has been turned in. Students stated that they want educators to help them learn how to best use these tools. These recommendations are consistent with Lyon's (2009) suggestion to develop pedagogies that encourage ownership of texts by L2 writers, Warschauer's (2002) suggestion to build autonomy in students through technology as part of their electronic literacy, and Lu's (2010) recommendation to teach students to use technology to manage their own learning. Whether instructors choose to listen to these student voices and integrate student training and use of plagiarism detectors and other forms of technology into their courses is a choice that all educators ofL2 students will need to make. The results of the study described here indicate that most L2 writers would support Warschauer (2007) in raising the challenge to educators to "address this issue [plagiarism in the online era] head on in the classroom, and thus help students advance their understanding ofthe nature of academic research and writing" (p. 914).

References

Abasi,A. R.,Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 102-117. Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow, UK: Pearson. Barnes, S. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human communication across the internet. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Publishers.

274

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGVUUSM

BBC News Europe. (2011, February 18). German 'plagiarism' minister Guttenberg drops doctorate. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldeurope-12504347 Bikowski, D. (2009, November). Helping NNES graduate Engineering students better understand plagiarism. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, Tempe, AZ. Bikowski, D., & Broeckelman, M. (2007). An educational framework for nurturing a culture of academic honesty. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2007, Honolulu, HA. Retrieved from http://icee.usm!ICEE/conferences/asee2007 /papers/2114_AN_EDUCA TIONAL_FRAMEWORK_FOR_NURTURING_A.pdf Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah's blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 128-141. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/volllnum2/bloch Buranen, L. (1999). "But I wasn't cheating": Plagiarism and cross-cultural mythology. In L. Buranen & A.M. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 63-74). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 1-18. Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduate students' thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369-390. Ercegovac, Z., & Richardson, J. V. Jr. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: A literature review. College & Research Libraries, 65,301-318. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org Flowerdew, J ., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28,440-465. Harris, R. A. (2001). The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak. Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 213-231. Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11,233-46. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57, 788-806.

DAWN BIKOWSKI

275

Howard, R. M. (2000). The ethics of plagiarism. In M.A. Pemberton (Ed.), The ethics of writing instruction: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 79-90). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Hyland, T. A. (2009). Drawing a line in the sand: Identifying the borderzone between self and other in ELl and EL2 citation practices. Assessing Writing, I4, 62-74. Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students' engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16,219-237. Lu, D. (2010). A salutary lesson from a computer-based self-access language learning project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23,343-359. Lyon, A. (2009). "You fail": Plagiarism, the ownership of writing, and transnational conflicts. College Composition and Communication, 61, 222-239. Moeck, P. G. (2002). Academic dishonesty: Cheating among community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 479-491. Murphy, E. (2011, September 9). Plagiarism software WriteCheck troubles some educators. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/ed ucation/story/20 11-09-09/college-cheatingplagiarism/50338736/1 ?csp= 34news Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317345. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 210-230. Powers, E. (2008, February 22). "Distinguished" no longer. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com Rampell, C. (2008, April 18). Journals may soon use antiplagiarism software on their authors. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http:// chronicle .com/article/Journals-May -Soon-U se/705/ Secter, B., & Cohen, J. S. (2007, August 31). SIU leader Poshard accused of plagiarism. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune. com Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.),Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 171-185). New York, NY: Camb.ridge University Press. Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14,3-62.

276

TECHNOLOGYANDPLAGVUUSM

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). The tangled web: Internet plagiarism and international students' academic writing. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15, 15-30. Retrieved from http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_ bookview.cgi?bookid=JAPC%2015%3A1 Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for Academic Purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91105. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/thompson/default.htrnl Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literacy practice: Recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58,89-109. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Warschauer, M. (2002). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), The international handbook of English language teaching (pp. 907-912). Norwell,MA: Springer. Wasley, P. (2007, April6). Ohio U. revokes degree for plagiarism. The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Faculty. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/ article/Ohio-U -Revokes-Degree-for/23160 Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 158177. Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator's guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Acknowledgement

I would like to greatly thank Robert Stewart for his contributions and support in the development of this research project.