Project-Based Learning and Its Contribution to Avoid Plagiarism of University Students

eib0855824107

Project-based learning and its contribution to avoid plagiarism of university students

Daniela Sorea* Angela Repanovici**

Artículo recibido: Abstract 2 de febrero de 2020 Artículo aceptado: This study presents the results of a documentary re- 30 de abril de 2020 search on recent approaches related to the causes and solutions of university student plagiarism. It con- Artículo de investigación tains a classification of causes according to the level on which they occur. Thus, based on the results of a direct observation, the study shows that in Romania, where project-based learning is promoted, the students’ habits to unethically use Internet based sources is developed rather than academic education, with the requirement for pupils to elaborate school projects. This is proposed as an additional cause of plagiarism

* Faculty of Sociology and Communication, Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania [email protected] ** Faculty of Product Design and Environment, Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania [email protected]

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321 pp. 155-178 155 156

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 by part of the university students. The habit of copy- The students. university of the by part disponibles en línea. en disponibles ya que están sobre materiales comentarios hagan que pide les se explícitamente cuando estudiantes los para ya eficiente no es plagio El nuevosde conocimientos. adquisición la hacia ydirigirse puede corregirse pero eficiente, manera de contrarrestar de difícil es línea en disponibles materiales hábito ypegar copiar El de universitarios. estudiantes de plagio de adicional causa propone se Esto como una proyectos escolares. boren ela alumnos los que de requisito el con académica, educación la de antes desarrolla se ética poco manera de internet en basadas fuentes usar de estudiantes los de costumbre proyectos, la en basado aprendizaje el donde promueve se Rumania, en que muestra estudio el directa, observación una de resultados los según Además, ocurren. que el en nivel el con acuerdo de causas las de clasificación una Contiene versitarios. uni estudiantes los de plagio ysoluciones del causas las de recientes sobre enfoques los documental ción investiga una de resultados los presenta estudio Este Resumen Sorea Daniela universitarios estudiantes de plagio el evitar para contribución ysu proyectos en basado Aprendizaje online. available ready al are which about materials comments to make asked explicitly are they when forstudents no efficient longer is Plagiarism knowledge. of new acquisition the wards to directed and corrected be ter efficiently, but can it coun to difficult is online materials available pasting Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos; Recursos en Línea en Recursos Proyectos; en Basado Aprendizaje Palabras clave: ject-Based Resources Online Learning; Keywords: y Plagiarism; University Students; Pro Students; University Plagiarism; Angela Repanovici Angela Plagio; Estudiantes Universitarios; Universitarios; Estudiantes Plagio; ------

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Introduction 58241 he academic environment increasingly confronts with the issue of mana- Tging various forms of plagiarism. Some of these have led to spectacular resignations on behalf of political decision makers a few years ago (in Ger- many, the Minister of Defense, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, in 2011, and the Minister of Education, Annette Schavan, in 2013; in Hungary, the president of the country, Pal Schmitt, and the vice prime minister, Zsolt Semjen, in 2012; in Romania, the Minister of Education, Ioan Mang, in 2012; the Chief French Rabbi, Gilles Berheim, in 2013) or at least have persistently brought into the limelight the possibility of resignation as it was the case of the Roma- nian Prime Minister, Victor Ponta (who was accused of having plagiarized his doctoral thesis in 2012, resigned from his position in 2015 but for completely http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. different reasons and his doctor diploma was only withdrawn in 2016). There DOI: were also instances when the accusations of plagiarism were dismissed as un- founded by academic institutions –as it was the case of the current president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who asked for a review of her doctoral thesis in 2015 in order to refute accusations, as well as that of the current EU Chief Prosecutor, Laura Codruţa Kovesi whose doctoral thesis was reviewed again in 2016 after accusations of plagiarism related to her work had already been rejected in 2012. Nonetheless, even the last two cases highlight the issues raised by plagiarism nowadays. On a less spectacular level, plagiarism has increasingly become a topic for studies published in scientific or ethical journals around the world. A search for the term plagiarism in ScienceDirect yields 57 search related results for 2000 and 444 for 2019. SpringerLink displays 101 articles on plagiarism in 2000 and 893 in 2019. As one of the specific instances of academic lack of integrity plagiarism is probably one of the most frequent unethical behaviors (Marques, Reis, and Gomes, 2019). As academics at the Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania, we have directly noticed a growing number of plagiarized papers submitted by students for the past years. Even though it started as an isolated phenomenon, it has soon transformed into a quite common approach to our didactical requirements. We wanted to find out what are the causes of this phenomenon, which disrupts the development of the educational process. If they plagiarize, students miss the opportunity to apply and consolidate the knowledge gained during the course. They do not really involve themselves in the teaching process. They also miss the exercise of thinking alone and trusting their own opinions. Thus, why do students plagiarize? Our objective was to configure a comprehensive table of the causes of university student plagiarism. 157 158

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 kler and Forde and kler (2014), (2014a, Bastos and Dias 2014b). (2007), (2012), (2010), al. et East Loewy and Hec Granitz Ramzan research: mentioned, separately either been or together, have authors’ also They other in Students- Internet- triad to the Academicstonymically presented in factors one). correspond These most me important students, to the the ding accor representing, latter students (the and teachers between relationship the as well sources, as based to Internet use access and opportunities technological overload), task with along students’ management factors: (poor behavior time three following to the spread students attributed the viewed, of plagiarism med ( responsible for plagiarism simplefrom dee to are factors complex, that contextual the actors and the are, framework. These Educational and environment, Institutional Internet, Students, five Academics, categories, in concerning: on studentks plagiarism the worin ways decades. for We two past identified the answers grouped the question The appropriate the solution. to highlight tried we advanced and by researchers solutions student plagiarism to university the of efficiency the reconsidering cause requires this adding that thought We students case. Romanian the we at considerin which least important, one articles, consulted more was the notrism mentioned that explicitly in arepresentative sample. with designed be will that research re for ahypothesis a futu as suggested explanation supportlow causal of in the exploratory was an briefly observation are one.Our presentedbe Its results method. city. snowball the sample the in schools The wasrious made using 10-17 aged of children 22 2-4 a total members, atwith va classmates years, children’s teams seven is, these groups that our and from of friends, friends children the children, on own our focused observation cation The system. edu pre-university contemporary Romanian in use of Internet observation ones generated the by with direct data research compared documentary the (2000-2019 decades for two past the academic period). We journals in rism We approaches the to considered overview to student it plagia necessary As Comas-ForgasAs Sureda-Negre (2010) and inter indicate, directly when student plagia university underlying of we causes addedThus, list to the Why do studentsWhy do plagiarize? concerning causes of student plagiarism causesofstudent plagiarism concerning Analysis of results: theoretical answers Analysis theoretical ofresults: Materials andmethods Materials Figure 1 Figure ). has been answered in multiple in answered been has

Figure 1 Figure ------. PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM... 58241

Figure 1. Relations among the factors deemed responsible for student plagiarism http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. DOI: DOI: Internet access simultaneously affects the attitude of students and the attitude of academics towards plagiarism. These attitudes adjust each other according to the characteristics of the institutional environment, in the wider context of the educational framework. Each of these five categories of identified answers is presented in detail below.

Students and their share of the blame Besides faulty time management, already mentioned previously, students also indicate their lack of experience in research and in academic writing as cause for plagiarism (Singh, 2017). Adam, Anderson, and Spronken-Smith (2017) in their turn refer to assumed problems of moral and academic writing. In addition to the causes of plagiarism assumed by students themselves, researchers blame them for other causes of plagiarism spreading. Investigating the articulations and meanings of student plagiarism by resorting to the philosopher’s instruments, Granitz and Loewy (2007) identify six categories of answers to the ethical dilemmas associated with student plagiarism that correspond to the same number of distinct ethical theories: deontologically speaking, students believe they can plagiarize if they do not understand or are not aware of theories; from a utilitarian perspective students believe that they can plagiarize as long as that generates good results; in terms of their own justifications, they believe plagiarism is justified if tasks are boring and irrelevant; from a Machiavellian perspective students believe their own interest prevails; in terms of cultural relativism, they view plagiarism as justified since it is an acceptable norm in their culture; from the perspective of situational ethics, they think that special circumstances justify plagiarism. 159 160

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 while being a student as factors favoring plagiarism. astudent factors plagiarism. as favoring being while copy-paste). a job Jereb (2018) al. having et and life consider social alively tocomputers no not for is need are predictors there since advanced skills about and Internet to (knowledge related the students’ intent to plagiarize as and behavior predictors information) past access efficient and to thinking becomes. practices involvement the unethical in higher the of punishment, certainty the Shmeleva (2019) and Maloshonok as contrary, Russia, the in show, higher the more subtle in ways. On plagiarize they studies their students progress in as previously that mentioned knowledge. The authors belive of their creations as texts own to relate their cannot they that and serious as do notthey view Kupila and (2017)tari ways that in plagiarize out point students mostly that Huo Löfström, respect, this In possibleof the consequences of plagiarism. aware are they that means which smaller, are stakes the when to plagiarize 2014). Bilgin, and (Busch of resources lack their of students’ to the result the of attention lack is to teachers’ of advice, and 2017;Ahmadi, Ilya, 2018; and Rets Palmer, Oakley, and 2019). Pegrum That 2014;students (Vanbaelen 2013; and Harrison, Bilgin, and and Busch Zarfsaz among spread the of plagiarism pointed underlying out causes as also it are understanding in or difficulty of academic writing rules on the of information 2017; it suchable (Chien, as to recognize Ilya, 2018). and Rets lack Anyways, (Šarlauskien academicmeet standards not does understanding but is, their what plagiarism know they convinced are (Vanbaelen 2013). Harrison, and its meaning and latter of the students Many not are aware they because cite but do to not they plagiarism correlate these Kupila, and 2013)(Löfström how to courses in or versa, students learn vice standards by competences adequate required academic necessary writing the Forde, and (Heckler 2014); phenomenon, the but lack students recognize they know what theyit, define henceit means students can opinions: various are profile.sity univer assigned versus chosen the in admission upon their distribution the students’ university fraud intentions and Romanian level of the the between correlation have indicated above. a significant Atudorei (2015) highlighted we as by students themselves, assumed already causes of plagiarism, causes as ned about, to of as skills how knowledge lack to of cite research lack and Chou and (2017)Chen of for indicate interest lack subjects to lear the be Heckler and Forde and Heckler (2014) refer to for students’ authority. disrespect Uzun and Kilis (2019) source of critical the (as Kilis attitudes indicate and morals, Uzun Vargas and Salazar, Gómez, (2013) more show students are inclined that forAs students’ there problem the capacity to of understand plagiarism, ė and Stabingis, 2014) Stabingis, and not are thus and - - - PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Zarfsaz and Ahmadi (2017) point out poor English level (in Iran), lack of motivation (related to academics’ reaction towards students who plagiarize), 58241 the strong wish to get better grades, fear of failure and overwork (which can be associated with students’ laziness) as causes underlying students’ option for plagiarism. Sometimes, the latter is associated with a commendable goal, such as shielding their parents from disappointments (Heckler and Forde, 2014). In a previous study, Bernard E. Whitley showed that “among the stron- gest correlates of cheating were having moderate expectations of success,having cheated in the past, studying under poor conditions, holding positive attitudes toward cheating, perceiving that social norms support cheating,and anticipating a large reward for success” (1998: 235). http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85.

Academics and their share of the blame DOI: When directly interviewed, teachers state an easy access to the Internet, the lack of a critical approach to information on the students’ part, their laziness and poor time managing skills as reasons for plagiarism, show Dias and Bas- tos (2014a, 2014b). Nonetheless, researchers also show teachers’ role in the spread of students’ plagiarism. Townley and Parsell (2004) mention teachers’ failure in disseminating their intellectual and moral values in the new information context as a cause contributing to student plagiarism. The failure resides in the formers’ inability to transmit practices, meanings, academic virtues and trust to their students. It is not an easy task for teachers to manage student plagiarism, mentions Rosenberg (2011): checking texts is time consuming and students can easily change plagiarized text in such a manner that plagiarism is hard to detect; the rigor employed in checking texts for plagiarism can be viewed as maniacal and there are many chances that students continue to plagiarize when opportunities are presented. There are teachers who assume that students plagiarize anyway and hence they avoid asking for written papers even in the case of disciplines when such a requirement is necessary, Rosenberg (2011) point out. For many teachers it is more comfortable to ignore the possible cases of plagiarism for various reasons: lack of direct evidence, bureaucracy, lack of administrative support, lack of consequences (Busch and Bilgin, 2014). Re- porting on plagiarism is the attitude deemed by teachers as the correct one and yet it requires a lot of extra work and encountering potentially unpleasant situations (Stowe, 2017). Vanbaelen and Harrison (2013) show that some teachers hesitate to reveal student plagiarism because they view it as pointless or they believe that the accusation will fire back at them as suspicions of poor didactic performance. Cortes-Vera, Garcia, and Machin-Mastromatteo (2018) 161 162

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 suggest that teachers may be reluctant to use digital resources, such as Tur such as resources, to digital may teachers use reluctant be that suggest (2013a) highlights the two facets of the request made request facets to of the students to two check the (2013a) highlights “classical” plagiarism. the that serious less and integrity demic for not Internet aca dangerous easy, the from students consider plagiarism for and free access is everybody since Internet to that the (2012) signal also al. et Ramzan culture. of college part as campuses, spread is which all out in perceive they plagiarism, unethical; academically as Internet the from pying effort. an too much of withoutmaking tasks school fulfill order in to paper mills of using attractiveness the highlight and of plagiarism (2016) Razmjoo and role on focus the spread played the also by in Internet the (Vanbaelen 2013).ciously or unconsciously Harrison, to and plagiarism Amiri Kupila, and 2013) (Löfström comes to cons rules copyright them leads and net favors copy-paste the it students when practices. access Internet puzzles mas-Forgas Inter of the Sureda-Negre (2010) and structure the that believe 2017;2014; Ahmadi, and Zarfsaz Shmeleva, 2019). and Maloshonok Co Forde, and to handy (Heckler and use easy perceived is apracticeis as that 2014a, 2014b; Chou, and 2017). Chen plagiarism Internet, of the Because Bastos, and practices (Dias spreadcessible the encourages of and plagiarism ac context.educational apublic easily is latter As the source of information, role current played the important on the by in Internet agree the Researchers The asafactorfavoring plagiarism Internet student plagiarism. to manage ty of teachers’ abili of emotional lack likelihood the as process, well as learning Kupilaand (2017) of a part as teachers’ plagiarism tendency to signal view Huotari, Löfström, sider teachers’ a factor as plagiarism. favoring clemency (2016) copy-paste. Razmjoo and than students con indicaterism that Amiri consequence forms of the be teachers’ of other plagia to sanction reluctance could of forms different plagiarism recognizing in student’sthat difficulty 2014). 2013;Bolliger, Bilgin, and Bruton Busch and (2016) Childers believe (Halupa academic and behavior in training previous of their aresult cepts as con the with chers’s familiar already preconception students are their that (2019). Aleksieva and Mellar, out point hand, other Peytcheva-Forsyth, on authority the decision-making own up their of giving discomfort on one the and hand, plagiarism reporting procedures on institutional of clear Teachersnitin. dilemma the experience The Internet allows for the use of plagiarism detection software. Li Li software. detection for of plagiarism use the allows Internet The Forde and Heckler (2014) co most their students do not that view signal due mostly to is tea Students’ of on academic knowledge lack writing ------PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM... their own texts with an anti-plagiarism software: honest authors can identify and manage accidental borrowings, but the less honest authors are forced 58241 to plagiarize in an even more sophisticated manner in order to avoid plagiarism detection. Alzahrani, Salim, and Abraham (2012) believe that potential plagiarizers have an advantage in their battle with institutions whose strategies in detecting plagiarism are expressions of their incapacity and limited resources. Additionally, detection systems work well for copied texts but not in the case of intelligent plagiarism (Alzahrani, Salim, and Abraham, 2012; Townley and Parsell, 2004) and the success of Turnitin depends on the amount of the available database (Townley and Parsell, 2004). Wrigley (2019) shows that the dependency on the Internet to elaborate papers along with the generalization of plagiarism detection services like Turnitin and Grammarly leads to the development of the de-plagiarism strategy, namely http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. cleaning copied texts in order to avoid plagiarism detection. Students’ de- DOI: pendency on online resources makes them invisible in the writing process, according to Wrigley (2019). According to the aforementioned author and based on his direct observations, students write better (that is the content is better and more original) if they write by hand rather than if they typewrite.

The institutional environment as a factor favoring plagiarism Bell (2018) signals the lack of neutrality in quoting practices, which are in- dicators of power and influence in the academic community. He shows that students may be asked to apply different practices of quoting depending on each subject matter. Busch and Bilgin (2014) refer to absence of activities related to anti-plagiarism education in the academic curriculum. Heckler and Forde (2014) discuss the rare detection and sanctioning of plagiarism, and thus its efficiency. In Russia, as Maloshonok and Shmeleva (2019) show, students’ decisions are strongly influenced by their peers’ behavior and they often see their colleagues cheating without being punished. Mungiu-Pippidi and Dusu (2011) show the weak interest in integrity policies among students, academics and researchers in the Romanian academic environment. According to Zarfsaz and Ahmadi (2017), students are not really convinced that teachers are interested in detecting plagiarism since they do not see any detection results. The dominant tendency for students witnessing their peers plagiarizing is not to tell on these (Busch and Bilgin, 2014; Ramzan et al., 2012). Teodo- rescu and Andrei (2009) point out the general passive attitude of Romanian students towards academic integrity and show that many of these do not feel that it is their duty to report on their colleagues’ plagiarism. 163 164

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 design becomes inadequate in the context of enlarging student work groups, context the of enlarging inadequate in becomes design didactical traditional the research, their with activities didactical merge their 2014). Bilgin, student and (Busch encouraged/pressed to academics are The attention paid to individual the each students/teachers ratio, diminishing the adoptties amarket 2010) oriented (East, attitude changing while and, al., et 2012). (Ramzan Pakistan in of research ethics the affected has de, 2014). gain for promotion financial and reasons Publishing For and to according Heckler 2004, a “culturepes (Callahan, of plagiarism” favorscompetitive profitthus environment andsha over uprightness moral Forde and ideas, Heckler foundational (2014)its own show. American The multiple has factes, possibly by opposed, butplagiarism underpinned each values and American Sureda-Negre, 2010). traditional between relation The (Comas-Forgas course the conducted and mation during onto activities the infor acquiring from focus the educationConvention, shifted European the world. Bologna of the of the aresult parts As various in toblems occur seem pro context. Similar was mentioned youth of which this abovethe part is Teachers’ contributesthat to plagiarism. to become role for failure models afactor be favors that can plagiarism. environment learning new towards students’ a and backgrounds educational dissatisfaction on their depend (2019) needs Stoesz al. et students’ that culture. learning underline Confucian of the part are masters of the texts the repeating and morizing (Li, 2013a). Vassalloplagiarized hand, other (2018) the On me that reminds it that is are odds the than well-written, is atext concerned,students if are (2013b). Li Chinses as far highlights As journals, editors of prestigious the of academics on behalf Chinese against reaction critical a strong triggered approach loose phenomenon The fortion years. past already to the has this aform as of academic corrup plagiarism discussing been has environment academic Chinese issue. The acultural is of Taiwanese student plagiarism (2017), According torooted, Chien indicate researchers. for half more than culturally be could blamable. appetite and or serious less The for plagiarism lead to that it it make more circumstances the that fact the as well as giarism, of statements on pla relativism the (2015) Eriksson and highlight Helgesson The educationalframework favoring plagiarism (2012) (2013a). Li and al. et contribute show Ramzan spread wide to also the ofblish plagiarism, The pressure to perform well on exams, along with the obligation to obligation pu the with along on exams, well to pressure perform The Financial interests interfere with the academic spirit, making universi academic spirit, the making with interfere interests Financial of abroader existence the context educational highlight Researchers ------PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM... and discouraging competition and protecting the access to students’ individual performance transform the educational process from an instrument in- 58241 to a result (Heckler and Forde, 2014).

A plethora of causes leading to student plagiarism Most of the aforementioned causes can be found in the classifications resul- ting from other documentary researches made by Amiri and Razmjoo (2016) and by Husain, Al-Shaibani and Mahfoodh (2017). We reproduce below these classifications. Amiri and Razmjoo (2016) divide the factors responsible for plagiarism in major factors (individual, academical, cultural, and technological) and minor http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. factors (curriculum demands, parental issues, and personal characteristics) DOI: DOI: (Table 1).

Major factors Individual Unfamiliarity with the topic Perceived seriousness Students Academic staff Educational system Academical Poor writing skills Lack of citation skills Weak authorial stance Weak argumentative skills Giving excessive credit to the source Cultural Culture Western Eastern Technological Paper mills Internet Minor factors Curriculum demands Excessive workload Time constraint Parental issues Parents’pressure Fear of consequences of failure on family Personal characteristics Desire to receive good grades Laziness Fear of asking for help from instructors

Table 1. Factors contributing to student plagiarism according to Amiri and Razmjoo (2016)

165 166

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 Minor factors, individual and academic and factors may subordinated be toca factors, the individual Minor ( factors technological and personal, academic, external, institutional, gories: main cate in the five field in literature the identified by student plagiarism factor technological Internet. to the framework, and the Educational the be subsumed factorto can cultural The classification. our of Studentstegory in Table 2 Table factors Technological factors Personal factors External factors Academic factors Institutional Table 2 Table (2017) to factors leading Mahfoodh the and Al-Shaibani, Husain, classify ). . The five factors contributing to plagiarism according to Husain, Al-Shaibani and Mahfoodh (2017) Mahfoodh and Al-Shaibani Husain, to according plagiarism to contributing factors five . The Students’ attitudes towards plagiarism attitudes Students’ of perceptions plagiarism Students’ management time Poor parents from Pressure pressure Group Cultural and factors ethnicity Peer behaviours number of assignments Large assignments for demand Excessive on theories Assignments skills) writing poor students’ as (such skills Language /assignments tasks of understanding of Lack course the of matter Subject assignments of difficulty / set tasks the of difficulty Type and tasks students’ of nature and Difficulty penalties and behaviour misconduct academic of policy Unclear teachingConventional methods and methodology) strategies (teaching framework Educational Students’ access to software programs used for detection of plagiarism of detection for used programs software to access Students’ via copying of Ease Internet the via material to access of Ease plagiarism of concept the with Unfamiliarity that are the perceptions assignments boring Students’ well plagiarism know not do lecturers that perceptions Students’ laziness Students’ bycommitted students have that lecturers perception apathy and disinterestStudents’ regarding plagiarism grades better for Desire ICT and the Internet - - PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Personal, technological and academic factors directly impact student plagiarism, while external and institutional factors only indirectly impact the 58241 latter, as Husain, Al-Shaibani, and Mahfoodh (2017) indicate. Institutional, academic, and partially external factors can be subordinated to the Institu- tional environment in our classification. Personal factors and the other part of the external can be subordinated to the Students category, and the technological factors to the Internet. Synthesizing the results of the documentary research, we can group the causes of student plagiarism previously outlined, whether assumed by students and/or attributed to them by the authors of the studies (Table 3).

Students Lack of time Bad time management

Very hard tasks http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. DOI: DOI: Lively social life Lack of motivation Tasks viewed as boring or irrelevant Failure in understanding lectures Lack of information Lack of experience in conducting research and in academic writing Information literacy Lack of consequences Small of odds of getting discovered and punished Risk propensity Lack of ethics Lack of respect towards authority Attitudes towards plagiarism Students’ morality Previous behavior Contextual factors Working while studying Studying in inappropriate conditions Specific circumstances used as justification Expectations towards the Desire to obtain good results benefits of plagiarism Fear of failure Desire not to disappoint parents

167 168

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 Academics Internet Improved plagiarism strategies strategies plagiarism Improved dimension ethical Fuzzy use of ease instrument An battle A lost discomfort of A source ofMismanagement problems Verifying plagiarism is time consuming consuming time is plagiarism Verifying Teachers’ clemency writing academic of rules the know already students that Assumption performance didactic poor of Suspicions plagiarism manage to readiness emotional of lack Teachers’ values personal conveying in Failure students with relation (Individual) De-plagiarism detection avoid to techniques leads to sophisticated software Anti-plagiarism unethical considered not is Internet the from Copying plagiarism prompts Internet The copyright about Confusions plagiarism copy-paste favors Internet the of structure The mills paper of attractiveness The Plagiarism is handy resources to access Easy on plagiarismReporting bears no consequences plagiarism managing in support administrative of Lack on plagiarism in reporting Bureaucracy of doubt shadow any beyond prove to difficult is Plagiarism lost already is plagiarize who students with battle The plagiarism of form copy-paste the only sanction Teachers autonomy decision-making Individual PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Institutional Ambiguity about rules Different requirements for different disciplines environment 58241 Absence of anti-plagiarism education from academic curriculum Tolerant attitude Plagiarism is seldom detected and sanctioned Studențs do not report on their peers’ plagiarism Pressure for professional Pressure for getting good grades success Pressure to publish

Educational Cultural relativism Culturally justified plagiarism framework The relativism of references to plagiarism Insatisfaction with the new learning environment Financial gain orientation Favoring profit over morals

Publishing for personal gain http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. DOI: DOI: The financial interest of universities prevails Increasing the number of students/series Many commercial sites targeting students Reconfiguring the Switching interest from information acquisition to the educational process conduct of common tasks in higher education (after Bologna Convention) Diminished interest showed to each student Discouraging competition among students Research tasks added to teaching tasks

Table 3. Causes of student plagiarism

As grouped in the Table 3, the causes are subordinated (are subcategories) to the five categories highlighted above Figure( 1): Students, Academics, Internet, Institutional environment, and Educational framework. Table 3 contains all the types of answers we identified to the question Why do students plagiarize?

Discussion: Popularity of school projects and plagiarism in the contemporary educational context

The contemporary educational environment features a shift from acquiring knowledge to compiling and using available information and a wide spread of Internet access. In Romania, the Education Law (issued in 2011 and updated in 2016) im- posed a paradigm change: from a learning focused on information gathering towards a more pragmatic, skills-oriented learning. The systemic change proposed is aligned to the EU policy, tendencies and norms (Ulrich, 2016b). 169 170

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 Competence core at is the proof as acquisition performance of educational is more, the scores gained as a result of projects are higher than the ones the than higher of projects are aresult as more,is scores gained the to work have delighted they together. are to they meet, requirement What by not teacher pupils whose are the frightened If friends. with time ce past may and become members house ani of the one team ofweekend the in manner. inciting an in front class it of the in and topic),information presenting themain issue related to cific organizing a spe assigned member is team (each Internet on the information searching atopic proposed a plan, by list teacher, choosing the the from means making Such on projects aproject for teams or disciplines. various in individually it that yields. school behavior the process through educational entire the influences indirectly situation This Romania. in hion identified. already plagiarism order in to complete student thesis underlying causes of framework the the hypo we as recommend to which explanation, supportsults causal anew Bra from schools the school projects in for Internet were to encouraged the use various colleagues their and friends group our from school. of We high and children the noticedcondary that elementary, of pupils se parents who in as have experience been of own our debut the one, made with for started along period unstructured was an tion observa The school pre-university environment. Romanian in Internet the 2016b). students (Ulrich, other the test than standard in do better and learned what remember they better included), to more be open, learn (problem skills solving skills dent learning 2016a), (Ulrich, school, pay moreclass attention in develop indepen better havein project-basedfrom more self-confidence,results better get learning students who benefit shows that Research a form of collaborative learning. (Pecore, Kilpatrick 2015; 2016a), Ulrich, of William method is learning red child-cente the continues Project-based that 2006). (Predescu, learning, development the and skills of metacognitive thinking group, critical their the within work students to onsed team encourages express themselves and policy. educational as context encouraged is and adequate this in se contents (Cojocariu approach contents, applied,knowledge to the an but functional it requires the changing or dramatically It not does involve change. of the diminishing The long work meetings required by such projects usually unfold at by the such projects usually required long workThe meetings school (grades elementary Frequently, with starting show, observation of the results fas the in As is project-based learning theuse of Weon observation direct of brieflythe results below present education alearner-centered is strategy. It ba is learning Collaborative

et al., 2006). Learner-centered education is viewed as as education viewed is Learner-centered al.,et 2006). ş ov city. We employ re observation I - IV ), pupils work ------PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM... obtained as a result of traditional forms of knowledge evaluation. In many cases the requirement to elaborate a project is a solution to increasing the 58241 average score of pupils. Therefore, the latter’s perception of projects and their inherent documentation stage is favorable. Projects are included in the educational process for pedagogical reasons since they support pupils develop their search skills, as well as the ability to work as part of teams. The teachers view project based evaluation as a proof of their open attitude to novelty (project-based learning) and that increases their professional prestige in front of their own evaluators, namely inspectors. This is a good thing, elsewhere is the problem: encouraging pupils to use online resources is not accompanied by adequate instructions or training concerning their correct use. Teachers prefer not to explain to their pupils how and why they need to indicate the source of the information they employ. This http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. reality observed in the case of the pupils from Braşov agrees with the research DOI: conducted by Dias and Bastos (2014a): only a third of European students who were interviewed acknowledged having been told about plagiarism by their teachers. Given the access to a huge amount of information available online (that is actually difficult to check in terms of quality or accuracy) as a result of contemporary technological means students are encouraged ever since primary school to plagiarize. Besides, today’s young teachers in secondary and high school have been students in their turn already accustomed to project based evaluation and the use of the Internet with no ethical constraints. We could consider this situation an expression of a lack of energy and en- thusiasm (Ulrich, 2016b), or of a generalized demotivation of teachers working in pre-university education in Romania. For a long time now, they have gotten used to finding the less demanding solutions to the requests of the mi- nistry, whose representatives they do not actually have a very good opinion of. Nonetheless, it is our opinion that the lack of commitment and diligence on behalf of educators and teachers does not cause, but only favors the increase in university student plagiarism. The deep cause of the phenomenon is the incorrectly defined requirement to elaborate projects based on the information that is available online. Thus, the educational focus on project ela- boration has been unwillingly accompanied by the treasure of information on the Internet that can be plagiarized. Researchers have agreed that the way the Internet is structured and works encourages this phenomenon. Using it for writing school projects in pre-higher education strengthens this tendency. Therefore, we believe that this situation is characteristic not only of Romania, but also for all shallow promoters of learner-centered education –project-based learning, in which case it can be considered an undesirable effect of the paradigmatic change 171 172

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 in the European educational policy. Making pupils realize the almost unli almost the pupils realize policy. educational European Making the in ses the appetite for plagiarism. appetite the ses for plagiarism. orientation not on educational projects, is abad which The one by increa itself, how to plagiarize. learn actually they years, pre-university to their elaborate in encouraged students are projects that on the manner same the by in working is: of values. system own have their already Jereband students (2018) al. et get into universities they when that underline education institutions higher in them with students bring that experiences (2016) of learning previous indicate. importance Powell the (2012) signals Razmjoo and repeat later, Amiri as will they early stages, the in recognized not are mistakes later if its frequency and, ly order possible as in to minimize ear as to increase needs show. plagiarism concerning level of awareness The (2019) proved behavior, has vior predictor Kilis best and of Uzun the future beha past future, the in for are educatedlower the chances to the plagiarize the plagiarism, with relation educators in earlier action The take plagiarism. on student recent studies several in of early education signaled portance is im The of sources information. the on use howstudents age) to correctly into account (formulated accompanied be explicitly by bycan taking rules for Simultaneously, Internet. onmation available requests the the projects infor using of working for didactics the time should teachers allow geting to teach) undergraduates improvement and right grant and the tar courses (which optional modules are Additionally, course. pedagogical writing mic include acade Romania in academic curricula of the Many online. available employ are that students materials to ethically it to is teach their important school should educated be high on and how how and secondary in teachers phenomenon. the in long On term, increase the to manage means the ring should not configu when that ignored be acause of is plagiarism years sity R and Borcoman, (Sorea, sity univer during a crime becomes school actually high and primary, secondary in of praise what worth was that deemed habits understand and their change to criterion). evaluation notis Therefore, an nowadays,difficult find it they project (whereas deontology of their the complexitythe spectacularity and evaluated rewarded forapproach and are resources, based Internet to using school pupils. primary case the in especially employchers mentioned are or consulted sources not, the whether to check tea same the number of resources limited the explains It also matic efforts. priority of teachers’ the is program goal of school projects. This purposes theis one of requirement every to answers mited capacity to of Internet find For now, it to as treated be needs situation the that onterm, we short believe to elaborate pre-univer requirement projects in the that we deem Thus, However, for encouraged students to have adopt been years such an ăţ ulea, 2011).ulea, ------PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Concerning the Internet, everybody agrees on the impossibility to ignore its existence in the educational process: it simply exists. One of the main 58241 engines driving human kind evolution is people’s capacity to exploit their su- rrounding environment to their interests. Thus, it would be rather worriso- me if such a friendly and easy to use resource would not be employed. For most of the causes underlying plagiarism and identified by the researchers in the field, ready available solutions to the academic staff involved in the didactical process have also been proposed: better educated students, more involved teachers, using anti-plagiarism software, clear anti-plagiarism policies. All of the above counter (that is prevent or sanction) students’ habit to unethically use online available information. As for the case of the implicit encouragement of the phenomenon through the projects required of the pupils in pre-higher education, the academic http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85. staff cannot manage them directly even though they are supposed to tackle DOI: their consequences. In such cases, they can actually contribute to building a future academic community based on trust by simply managing the students’ motivations. Such intervention is less costly that the one on the causes of university student plagiarism. Related to the use of deontological theory to motivate student plagiarism, Granitz and Loewy (2007) suggest that teachers should ask their students summaries of the materials that are available online. Such a solution builds upon and supports the inherent interest of the students in the Internet and therefore its application may turn plagiarism into a meaningless temptation. In our opinion, this is the best means to approach the issue of student plagiarism. The core of this practical approach consists in teachers valuing (and not inhibiting) the Internet using trend manifest among students. We believe it is more efficient for university students to be asked to explain and com- ment what they find rather than be prevented from plagiarizing. Plagiarism is no longer be encouraged if university students are asked to identify the relevant information sources for a given topic and to present their content along with their own opinions. If these requirements are clearly presented as rules of a game that has as a stake the acceptance of the evaluation portfolio, they are to be acquired by students since, after all, one of university students’ salient features is their capacity to learn.

Conclusions

Contemporary students have grown up using the Internet. The requirement for school projects during their pre-university education have shaped 173 174

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 their skill of resorting to the Internet in order in to Internet to teachers’ meet the didactical of resorting skill their https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9245-3 2016. Ayatollah Razmjoo. “On Iranian Seyyed and Farzaneh, Amiri, plagia 2012. Abraham. “Understanding Ajith and M., Salim, Naomie Salha Alzahrani, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0025-9 2017. Spronken-Smith. Rachel and Anderson, “‘It’s Vivienne Lee, Adam, not fair’: References Internet. on available the information dents to the use to stu for complied be with) their rules the and resources the is (that tions latter’s ones who out set condi the be the weapons. can teachers Thus, own “fight”the with process) to educational is of actually students the terms in is of efficiency. kind do best (that thatwhat havecan teachers this believe We arts Martial desirable behaviors. valuing orientation towards constructively thepedagogical with line misappropriate in to andthan is them efficient re framework). back educational to the discussion the brings situation for long-term solution the the (only outlined activities didactical their ting involvementshort-term abetter conduc targets of in teachers management solution framework. The for educational suggested the its in outlined is that into arequirement. it turned is process if nal actors educatio involved the the in to all become useful can online available of materials relevant use the Thus, of information. new processing sition and order upon in to built and support game) acqui of the the rules the imposing fact, it should not eradicated. be (by It much if is is corrected it more efficient to eradicate. In thusdifficult and becomes it benefits, tosimplest gain means of Er) for to myth and to search Plato the the as indicated referring when one, illegitimate may an be sometimes (that opportunity uponto every build tendency human natural the with comes along That on plagiarism. literature no references the to are it such there in as though even student plagiarism, spread the of university underlying causes to one be main ofquirement the ways. We re consider this challenging ethically sometimes in requirements ate Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism.” https://doi.org/ Systems,on and Cybernetics, Part Man, Applications and Reviews C: methods.” detection and features, textual patterns, linguistic rism university.” Zealand aNew in of plagiarism students’ understandings and discourses policy tendencies of aphenomenonTo mo manifest is natural of the use make orchestrated acause of is plagiarism project-basedUnethically learning Higher Education Higher 10.1109/ TSMCC 74 (1): 17-32. (1): 74 .2011.2134847 Journal of Academic Ethics Academic of Journal EFL 42 133-149. (2): IEEE 14 115-131. (2): Undergradu Transactions Transactions ------PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Atudorei, Ioana. 2015. “Importanţa echitţăii în determinarea justiţiei şşi a coeziunii

sociale.” In Justiţie șşi coeziune socialăă, edited by Gabriela Răţulea, 147-160. Iaşi: 58241 Institutul European. Bell, Stephanie. 2018. “Addressing student plagiarism from the library learning com- mons.” Information and Learning Science 119 (3/4): 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-10-2017-0105 Busch, Peter and Ayse Bilgin. 2014. “Student and Staff Understanding and Reaction: Academic Integrity in an Australian University.” Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (3): 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9214-2 Chen, Yinlan and Chien Chou. 2017. “Are We on the Same Page? College Students’ and Faculty’s Perception of Student Plagiarism in Taiwan.” Ethics & Behavior 27 (1): 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1123630

Chien, Shih-Chieh. 2017. “Taiwanese College Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85.

Cultural and Educational Considerations.” Ethics & Behavior 27 (2): 118-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1136219 Childers, Dan and Sam Bruton. 2016. “‘Should It Be Considered Plagiarism?’ Student Perceptions of Complex Citation Issues”. Journal of Academic Ethics 14: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9250-6 Cojocariu, Venera, Elena Seghedin, Mihai Predescu, and Florin Domunco. 2006. “Strategii educaţionale centrate pe elev/ subiectul învăţării. Delimitări concep- tuale.” In Strategii educaţionale centrate pe elev, edited by Laurenţiu Şoitu and Rodica Diana Cherciu, 38-97. Buzău: Alpha MDN. Comas-Forgas, Ruben and Jaume Sureda-Negre. 2010. “Academic plagiarism: Explan- atory factors from students’ perspective.” Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3): 217-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9121-0 Cortes-Vera, Jesus, Thelma J. Garcia, and Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo. 2018. “A Mexican strategy to promote greater ethics in academic communications through nation-wide access to Turnitin.” Information Development 34 (4): 422-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666918785849 Dias, Paulo C. and Ana Sofia Bastos. 2014a. “Plagiarism phenomenon in European countries: Results from GENIUS project.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 2526-2531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.605 Dias, Paulo C. and Ana Sofia Bastos. 2014b. “Plagiarism in Portugal – secondary education teachers’ perceptions.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 2598 -2602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.618 East, Julianne. 2010. “Judging plagiarism: a problem of morality and convention.” Higher Education 59 (1): 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9234-9 Granitz, Neil, and Dana Loewy. 2007. “Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism.” Journal of Business Ethics 72 (3): 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9 Gómez, Jaime, Idana Salazar, and Pilar Vargas. 2013. “Dishonest Behavior and Pla- giarism by University Students: An Application to Management Studies.” Proce- dia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83: 766-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.144 175 176

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 Halupa, Colleen M. and Doris U. Bolliger. 2013. U. Bolliger. Doris and M. Perceptions of Student “Faculty Colleen Halupa, https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1466301 2019. Grace Oakley. and Pegrum, Mark Palmer, “A Anne, With Issues Wake-Up Call? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.03.016 2011. of control Dusu. and Elena society Andra and “Civil Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09328-2 Jorge 2019. and Gomes. Reis, Nuno Tânia, “AMarques, Aca on Study Bibliometric https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-9324-y 2019. Shmeleva. Evgeniia Academic and “Factors Natalia, Influencing Maloshonok, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9285-y 2017. Kupila. Pauliina and Huotari, “Conceptions Elisa of plagia Erika, Löfström, https://doi.org/0.1007/s10805-013-9181-z of Stu Challenges 2013. Kupila. Instructional Pauliina “The and Erika, Löfström, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9342-7 su Chinese what Yongyan.Li, writing: 2013b. scientific in “Text-based plagiarism https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9367-6 develop Issues, Yongyan.Li, publishing: 2013a. scientific in “Text-based plagiarism https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9421-y Jereb, Eva, Urh, Marko Janja Jerebic, Polona and Šprajc. 2018. “Gender differences https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9274-1 Ali Hassan Omer and Al-Shaibani, Shaker Kamel Md, Ghayth Fauzilah Husain, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8 research.” in 2015. Eriksson. “Plagiarism Stefan and Gert Helgesson, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9221-3 Forde. R. 2014. David Values and Plagia C. in Nina Heckler, Role of Cultural “The https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9195-6 Plagiarism in Transnational Higher Education.” Higher Transnational in Plagiarism Development Educational of Journal al public universities.” of Romanian governance Assessing corruption: demic Dishonesty Research.” EthicsAcademic Universities.” J Undergraduate at Russian Students among Dishonesty lation.” regu of external landscape achanging in writing academic problems in and rism Plagiarism.” dent ethics engineering and students’ writing.” how to it reduce and in about copying think pervisors education.” and ments tion education.” higher in of plagiarism awareness the and 167-195. (2): of Studies.” aReview to Plagiarism: Contributing 2017. Factors and Mahfoodh. toward Plagiarism Attitudes “Perceptions of and and PhilosophyCare Education.” Higher in rism Ethics Study.” Multi-university Exploratory An Plagiarism: Self 21 409-426. (2): 11 297-310. (4): Journal of Academic Ethics Academic of Journal 17 (3): 313-329. Journal of Academic Ethics Academic of Journal 18 (1): 91-101. (1): 18 19 569-583. (2): Science and engineering and ethics Science Journal of Academic Ethics Academic of Journal Journal of Academic Ethics Academic of Journal 15 (3): 15 277-292. 31 532-546. (5): 11 (3): 231-242. Ethics and Behavior Journal of Academic Ethics Academic of Journal 19 (3): 1241-1254. 13 (1): 61-75. (1): 13 Social Psychology of Educa of Psychology Social 17 (2): 169-191. (2): 17 Journal of Academic Academic of Journal Medical HealthMedical 29 (1): 23-50. Internation ournal of of ournal Science Science 15 15 ------PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AVOID PLAGIARISM...

Pecore, John L. 2015. “From Kilpatrick’s Project Method to Project-Based Learn-

ing.” In International Handbook Of Progressive Education, edited by Mustafa 58241 Yunus Eryaman and Bertram C. Bruce, 155-171. New-York: Peter Lang. Peytcheva-Forsyth, Roumiana, Harvey Mellar, and Lyubka Aleksieva. 2019. “Using a Student Authentication and Authorship Checking System as a Catalyst for De- veloping an Academic Integrity Culture: a Bulgarian Case Study.” Journal of Aca- demic Ethics 17 (3): 245-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09332-6 Predescu, Mihai. 2006. “Opţiuni strategice în proiectarea şşi realizarea activităţilor centrate pe elev.” In Strategii educaţionale centrate pe elev, edited by Laurenţiu ŞŞoitu and Rodica Diana Cherciu, 144-172. Buzău: Alpha MDN. Powell, Lisa. 2012. “Understanding plagiarism: developing a model of plagiarising behavior.” Paper presented at the International Integrity & Plagiarism Confer- ence, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Accesed January 12, 2020.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0903/10b04ade5540c672c5b0db66e868bd805644.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85.

Ramzan, Muhammad, Muhammad Asif Munir, Nadeem Siddique, and Muhammad DOI: Asif. 2012. “Awareness about plagiarism amongst university students in Paki- stan.” Higher Education 64 (1): 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4 Rets, Irina and Ali Ilya. 2018. “Eliciting ELT Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism in Academic Writing.” Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 193-211. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.464115 Rosenberg, Melinda. 2011. “Principled Autonomy and Plagiarism.” Journal of Aca- demic Ethics 9 (1): 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9132-5 Šarlauskienėė, Lina, and Linas Stabingis. 2014. “Understanding of plagiarism by the students in HEIs of Lithuania.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 110: 638-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.908 Singh, Nirmal. 2017. “Level of awareness among veterinary students of GADVASU towards plagiarism: a case study.” The Electronic Library 35 (5): 899-915. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2016-0132 Sorea, Daniela, Mariana Borcoman, and Gabriela Răţulea. 2011. “Factors that Influ- ence Students’ Attitude Towards Copying and Plagiarism.” In Legal Practice and International Laws, edited by Cristinel Murzea and Angela Repanovici, 315-318. WSEAS Press. Stoesz, Brenda M., Sarah Elaine Eaton, Jennifer Miron, and Emma J. Thacker. 2019. “Academic integrity and contract cheating policy analysis of colleges in Ontario, Canada.” International Journal for Educational Integrity 15 (4): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0042-4 Stowe, Susan. 2017. “Will They Or Not? Online Faculty Intentions To Report Stu- dent Plagiarism.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 21 (1): 1-18. Ac- cesed January 12, 2020. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/will-they-or-not-online-faculty-intentions-to-report-student-plagiarism-6724.html Teodorescu, Daniela and Tudorel Andrei. 2009. “Faculty and peer influences on academic integrity: College cheating in Romania.” Higher Education 57 (3): 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9143-3 177 178

INVESTIGACIÓN BIBLIOTECOLÓGICA, vol. 34, núm. 85, octubre/diciembre, 2020, México, ISSN: 2448-8321, pp. 155-178 Sorea, Daniela and Angela Repanovici. 2020. Repanovici. and “Project-based Angela and learning Daniela Sorea, Para citar este texto: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.5p.214 2019.Wrigley, Stuart. of hand “Avoiding affordances the Exploring ‘de-plagiarism’: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018724900565 Stu College Among Cheating with 1998. “Factors E. Associated Bernard Whitley, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.04.028 2018.Vassallo, Josanne. “ https://doi.org/10.1109/ Townley, Cynthia and Mitch Parsell. 2004. “Technology and academic virtue: Stu “Technology virtue: academic 2004. and Townley, Parsell. Mitch and Cynthia http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2020.85.58241 and 2017. Causes Main Ahmadi. Rogayeh Some and Elham “Investigating Zarfsaz, https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735611 2013. awareness.” In Harrison. “Plagiarism Jonathan Vanbaelen, and Ruth, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103700 of plagiarism 2019. antecedents Kilis. “Investigating Selcan Murat and Ahmet Uzun, http://academiapedagogilor.ro/images/9.pdf C Ulrich, C Ulrich, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-5606-8 (85): 155-178. (85): Bibliotecológica:ción archivonomía, bibliotecología e información students”.its contribution of university to avoid plagiarism plied Linguistics &English Literature an in Plagiarism of Writing Reasons 167-179. process.” essay-writing the in writing AReview.”dents: colleagues.” with of dealing Conference ein Professionalternational ( Communication behavior.” of planned theory extended using VI education.” Romanian nowadays 271-277.(4): glass.” looking the through plagiarism dent (1B): 54-60. Accesed Ianuary 12, 2020. Ianuary Accesed (1B): 54-60. ă ă t t ă ă lina. 2016a.lina. lina. 2016b. “John Dewey and the project-based learning: landmarks for landmarks 2016b. project-basedlina. learning: the and “John Dewey Research in Higher Education Înv WASP ăţ IPCC area prin proiecte. porfesori area Ghid pentru prin (Write a Scientific Paper): Plagiarism and the ethics ethics the and (WritePaper): Plagiarism aScientific Early Human Development Human Early .2013.6623925 Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology and Sciences Educational of Journal 6 (5): 214-223. 6(5): EFL Active Learning in Higher Learning Active Education Context.” Computers & Education & Computers Ethics Technology and Information 39 (3): 235-274. International Journal of Ap 124: 65-67. 124: IPCC ) , 335-342. . Ia 144: 103700. 144: Investiga ş i: Polirom. i: IEEE 20 (2): 20 (2): 34 34 - In 6 - - - - -