Instructions for the 2500 word assignment
worth 20% due week 11,
The title is “How the concepts taught in a research methods course can help
students deal with a wide variety problems and publish their findings”

Two examples of problems and solutions
need to be discussed, these are
“How a university can reduce plagiarism” and “SUITABLE topic of your choice”

For the example “How a university can
reduce plagiarism” you need to skim through the articles

Chao, C., Wilhelm, W. J., &Neureuther, B. D. (2009). A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC
DETECTION AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES FOR REDUCING PLAGIARISM. Delta Pi Epsilon
Journal, 51(1), 31-42
This is available on EBSCO
Davis, M., & Carroll,
J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for
text-matching software?.International
Journal for Educational Integrity,5(2).
(This is available on google scholar)

Both of these article explain to how reduce
plagiarism by discussing plagiarism reports
you will need to
*paraphrase the main findings of the articles
*discuss the research methods used
*discuss how the authors of the articles review the information found in OTHER sources
*discuss what ethics the RESEARCHERS needed to consider
*Compare and contrast the articles authority , validity and conclusions

For the example “SUITABLE topic of your choice” you need to
find at least 5 references on a very specific aspect of the topicand paraphrase
and carefully read at least two of the articles and discuss the research
methods used,
for the 2 two articles you read carefully you will need to
*paraphrase the main findings of at
least two of the articles
*discuss the research methods used
*discuss how the authors of the articles
review the information found in OTHER sources
*discuss what ethics the RESEARCHERS
needed to consider
*Compare and contrast the articles authority, validity and conclusion
*Find a “gap” in the articles and propose new research that would fill this
gap, you do not have to do the research yourself

The “SUITALBE topic of your choice” can
also be “How a university can reduce plagiarism” , if you do this just add some
discussion about how the concepts taught in bus701 can be applied to many
problems

.png”>email
Matt if you want to do a different question such a literature review, Different
questions will only be approved if they will demonstrate an understanding of
research methods. For example you do a
literature review that includes discussion of what research methods are being
used, Qualitative or Quantitative

The rest of this handout discusses the two
articles on how to reduce plagiarism by discussing turnitin reports

Page 2 is a sample turnitin report

Page 4 isthe introduction toChao, C., Wilhelm, W. J.,
&Neureuther, B. D. (2009). A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC DETECTION AND PEDAGOGICAL
APPROACHES FOR REDUCING PLAGIARISM. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(1), 31-42

Page 5 is part of Chao(2009) , It gives
a summary of some appropriate data and analyses
this information using QUALITATIVE methods

Page 6 and 7 is the introductionDavis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within
plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software?.International Journal for
Educational Integrity,5(2).
that gives a summary of some appropriate data and analyses this
information using Quantitative methods

page 8 is page some of the article by Davis(2009), It gives a summary of some
appropriate data and analyses this
information using QUANTIATIVE methods

To understand the two articles that discuss
how to reduce plagiarism by discussing turnitin reports look at the following.

Sample Turnitin report, Stutent should
submit their answer to the 0.5% turnitin task so they can look at their own turnitin
report.

	.png”>

Introduction to Davis(2009), an article that
uses proper research methods
Please refer to part of the articleDavis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within
plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software?.International
Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2).given
below
The Authors clearly demonstrate they know the proper way to do research and
this has nothing to do with what question is actually being researched,
It is clear that the authors
*Used proper referencing (Most of this is easy just find the article on google
scholar click cite and select APA)
*Dealt with a specific problem instead of just giving broad definitions like
MOST students do in assignments and exams
*They did an appropriate search for other articles, Many the articles have a
clear connection with the specific problem being studied and the start of the
article discusses what the existing literature states about a problem.

Formative feedback within plagiarism education:

Is there a role for text-matching software?

Abstract

The need for effective education to enhance students’
understanding and development of academic integrity has been well established,
particularly for international students new to tertiary study in
English-speaking countries. Most research recommends the use of methods such as
instruction and warnings, as part of a plagiarism education programme. Few
studies have looked at the role of formative feedback through tutorial
intervention in the process of academic writing, in

which use of the text-matching toolTurnitinis made in ways which support
learning, rather than guide assessment. This study addresses that gap using
data gathered over three years from cohorts of international students in the
United Kingdom (UK) with regard to four identified areas of development:
avoidance of plagiarism, decrease in over-reliance on some sources, correct use
of citation and appropriate paraphrasing. Individual tutorials were held to
give formative feedback on students’ own writing, with particular regard to
their use of sources. A supportive environment was created in which questions
about references could be discussed, by using theTurnitinoriginality reports directly. The tutorial feedback
appeared to have a positive effect on students’ understanding of academic
integrity reflected in improved drafts.

This implies that tutorial feedback usingTurnitincould be a key factor in plagiarism
education. Recommendations for future use are given at the end of the study.

Introduction

This paper explores ways of providing plagiarism education
through individual feedback on students’ own work during a formative stage of
students’ writing practice. It also examines the place of text-matching software
in supporting and evaluating the impact of tutor interventions designed to
teach students academic citation skills. The

tool used in this study, marketed under the trade name ofTurnitin, is referred to with a variety of
claims (“the standard in online plagiarism prevention”, iParadigms, 2007;
“anti-plagiarism software”, Sutherland-Smith, 2008), but in general, has the
purpose of highlighting students’ unoriginal work. In brief, the tool functions
in the following way: once a text is uploaded to the tool’s software, it
provides what the makers call an “originality report”. The report suggests an
overall percentage of the student’s text which matches sources on its database,
and indicates the level of match with a

coloured icon (0=blue, 1-24=green, 25-49=yellow,
50-74=orange 75-100=red). The software can also indicate the percentage of
matching text for each named source and presents these as a ranked list in
order of quantity. With each student’s text, a reviewer can click on a matched
section and then see the suggested ‘original’ text side-by-side for an instant
comparison between the two texts. The authors present a three-year case study
in the UK where they investigate the effect of feedback on students’ attention
to important aspects of academic writing, in particular to avoidance of
plagiarism. The approach also examined three features of writing that may be
connected with plagiarism: over-reliance on some sources, incorrect or
incomplete citation, and insufficient paraphrasing. The underlying approach
supports the argument for shifting the focus away from a ‘catch-and-punish’
approach to student plagiarism (Carroll, 2005), and towards one designed to
support learning, through formative feedback to students on the use of academic
conventions.

Debates continue in higher education as to an appropriate
role for text-matching software. Levin (2006) probably speaks for many when he
describes those who useTurnitinas
the “plagiarism police” since in his view, it polarises student work into two
categories: original or potentially plagiarised. In contrast, advocates of
usingTurnitin, such as the authors, believe it to
be a useful support to other traditional teaching methods when used
formatively. It is likely that the dichotomy of views between those in favour
and against usingTurnitinwith
students reflects much wider beliefs about

student learning, and the role of teachers. This study
offers evidence of positive impacts fromTurnitinon students’ learning and a key role for teachers.

….
Refer to moodle/ EBSCOfor the rest of the article

Selected references
Carroll, J. (2005). Deterring, detecting and dealing with plagiarism, a brief
paper for Brookes staff for Academic Integrity
Retrieved
January 4, 2007, from.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/5_research/jude.html”>http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/5_research/jude.html
iParadigms (2007). iParadigms:
Digital solutions for a new era in information. Retrieved October 15, 2007,
from.iparadigms.com/”>http://www.iparadigms.com
Levin, P. (2006). Why the writing is
on the wall for the plagiarism police. RetrievedJanuary 20, 2009,
from.student-friendly-guides.com/plagiarism/index.htm”>http://www.student-friendly-guides.com/plagiarism/index.htm
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008).Plagiarism, the internet and student
learning: Improving academic integrity. New York:
Routledge

An
example of using qualitative research methods on a sample and numerical summary
of a sample,
taken from
Davis, M., & Carroll,
J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for
text-matching software?.International
Journal for Educational Integrity,5(2).

“Plagiarism education formed a central theme of
the module. At least six weeks of instruction was devoted to
information-giving, examples and awareness-raising activities, supplemented by
online discussion facilities and institutional warnings in the student
handbook. To be consistent with the approach across the university, the

Harvard system was taught, practised and
discussed with particular emphasis on issues related to accurate use of
sources. Following one trial ofTurnitinin 2006, its use was made an integral part of the
educational process during the module eachyear. Students submitted an
electronic version of their first drafts to their tutor, who

uploaded them toTurnitinand studied
the resulting originality reports, before using the screen-based information as
part of 15 minute individual tutorial feedback interviews. Tutors asked
questions during the tutorial to promote student thinking about source use.
Data on the impact of the above teaching strategy was gathered by analysing
issues that arose from perceived changes in student work from first draft to
final draft in the tables below using similar measures of severe, moderate,
minor and none, for consistency. TheTurnitinoriginality
reports (excluding the matches to bibliographies) were analysed for changes
between the drafts. At the end of the module, all students in the research also
completed a questionnaire to evaluate the usefulness ofTurnitinbelow), “

One of the
four key findings in the study was how
using drafts and discussing the turnitin
report with students could help reduce plagiarism

“For the purpose of this study, levels of plagiarism were categorised
as severe, (10% or more of unattributed text in the draft), moderate (5-9.9%),
minor (0.1-4.9%) and no plagiarism (complete absence of unattributed text). To
produce a representative result, particularly with the varying lengths of first
drafts compared with second drafts,

the number of unattributed words from a matched source was calculated
as a percentage of the word count (excluding bibliography).

.jpg”>

Qualitative Analysis
“The table indicates a reduction in levels of severe and moderate plagiarism to
the majority ending in the minor or no plagiarism categories. The results were
affected by one student in 2008 submitting a shorter first draft with little
source use, and a final draft with long sections of copied and pasted
unattributed text; as an example of

severe plagiarism at the final draft stage, this
is clearly a case where the tutorial feedback was unable to help. Nevertheless,
most identified plagiarism was at a very minor level of 1-2% of text, and a
mean of almost half (45.5%) reduced plagiarism between drafts over the period.
Overall, from the questionnaire results, a mean of 73% stated thatTurnitinwas useful for understanding how to avoid plagiarism and talked about
the important learning opportunity they had experienced

‘The software shows your mistakes. Then we
can correct them. At the end, when we submit the final draft we don’t want to
fail’(Business student).

‘I would like to use it again because
sometimes we do plagiarism without noticing it ‘(Hospitality student).

‘The software is to find plagiarism, so it
does not teach how to avoid it. The teacher teaches us that’(Tech
student)

As perceived by the students,Turnitinoffers support to help them avoid ‘mistakes’ or unintentional
plagiarism, but importantly, they also recognise its limitations and the
importance of the tutor’s role. “

Chao(2009) An article that is well
researched page 1 of 2

In the article below, The Authors clearly
demonstrated they know the proper way to do research and this has nothing to do
with what question is actually being researched,
It is clear that the authors

*Used proper referencing

*Dealt with a specific problem instead of
just giving broad definitions like MOST students do in assignments and exams
this is great for the first part of an undergraduate course but it is not
acceptable when you are doing a postgraduate course or proper research

*They did an appropriate search for other
articles, Most of the articles have a clear connection with the specific
problem being studied

These points are very important for the 30%
section of the exam that does not use formulas and the 20% , 2500 word essay
due week 11.

Chao, C.,
Wilhelm, W. J., &Neureuther, B. D. (2009). A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC DETECTION
AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES FOR REDUCING PLAGIARISM. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,
51(1), 31-42.

“Abstract

Plagiarism is an increasing problem in high
schools and universities. To address the issue
of how to teach students not to plagiarize, this study examined several
pedagogical approaches for reducing
plagiarism and the use of Turnitin, an online plagiarism detection software.
The study found a significant difference between the control group and one
instructional treatment group that was reflected in the reduced level of
plagiarized text. This finding indicates that the lack of knowledge in proper
documentation and paraphrasing is a primary reason why some students
plagiarize, albeit perhaps inadvertently. Implications point to the need for
consistent in-depth instruction in proper quotation, citation, and paraphrasing
techniques.

Introduction

Studies on various forms of academic
dishonesty such as cheating on examinations and plagiarism have appeared in
academic journals for over 60 years. The
rates of student cheating reported in these studies ranged from 23%

in 1941 as reported by Drake to 59% in 1964
(Hetherington & Feldman) to 76% in
1992 (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor). Similar to cheating, plagiarism
is a growing problem. According to a
1999 Center for Academic Integrity survey
that included over 12,000 students on 48 different college campuses, 10%
of the students admitted to using other
people’s ideas and words without proper citation (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).
In a later study (McCabe, 2005), 40% of the students surveyed admitted to
plagiarism. Research has shown that plagiarism
in the form of copying text from electronic documents available through
the Internet and other electronic sources is an increasing problem in
universities as well as high schools (Larkham&Manns, 2002; McCabe, Trevino
& Butterfield, “

Body

See original document for full body just
enter the title on ebsco,this was 38
pages long, it basically said that there was a lower proportion of plagirarism
in the semesters where student were given a lesson on turnitin, And a relevant
hypothesis test and p-value was calculated.
Since the argument in the argument was supported by a p-value and
p-value uses formula the body of the article used Quantitative research
methods, You have to demonstrate you understand the difference between
Quantitative and Qualitative methods and state which is more appropriate, Using
“mixed methods” is commonly a good approach

An article that used the proper research methods page 2 of 2

References

Auer, N. J., &Krupar, E. M. (2001). Mouse
click plagiarism: The role of

technology in plagiarism and the librarian’s role in combating it.Library

Trends, 49(3), 415-432.

Barry, E. S. (2006). Can paraphrasing
practice help students define plagiarism?

College Student Journal, 40(2), 377-384.

Braumoeller,
B. F., & Gaines, B. J. (2001). Actions do speak louder than words:

Deterring
plagiarism with the use of plagiarism-detection software.College

Political Science & Politics, 34(4), 835-839.

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963).
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage
(ed.),Handbook of Research on

Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H.,
& McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic

dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants,
techniques, and punishments.Teaching

of Psychology, 19(1), 16-20.

Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat.Journal of Higher Education, 12(8),

418-420.

Fanning, K. (2005). Is honesty still the best
policy?Junior Scholastics, 107(17),

8-9.

Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E.
(1964). College cheating as a function of

subject and situational variables.Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(4),

212-218.

Howard, R. M. (2002). Don’t police plagiarism: Just
TEACH!The Education

Digest, 67(5), 46-49.

Lambert, S. (2005, February 28). We must
promote academic integrity– now.

Community College Week,4-5.

Landau, J. D., Druen, P. B., &Arcuri, J.
A. (2002). Methods for helping students

avoid plagiarism.Teaching Psychology, 29(2), 112-115.

Larkham, P., &Manns, S. (2002).
Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education.

Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26,339-349.

Maramark, S., &Maline, M. B. (1993).Issues in Education:Academic dishonesty

among college students. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Research

and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 360903).

Martin, D. F. (2005). Plagiarism and
technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism.

Journal of education for Business, 80(3), 149-152.

McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield,
L. (2001). Cheating in academic

institutions: A decade of research.Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.

McCabe, D. (2005). CAI research. The Center
for Academic Integrity. Retrieved

on March 30, 2005, from
http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp

McLafferty, C. L., & Foust, K. M. (2004).
Electronic plagiarism as a college

instructor’s nightmare– prevention
and detection.Journal
of Education for

Business, 79(3), 186-189.

Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). (2001).

Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.

Robinson–Zañartu, C., Peña, E. D., Cook-Morales, V., Peña, A. M., Afshani, R.,

Volume LI, No. 1, Winter, 2009.
42

A Study of Electronic Detection and
Pedagogical Approaches

& Nguyen, L. (2005). Academic crime and
punishment: Faculty members’

perception of and response to plagiarism.School Psychology Quarterly,

20(3),
318-337.

Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students
determine whether text has been

plagiarized?The Psychology Record, 47(1), 113-122.

Talab, R. (2004). A student online plagiarism
guide: Detection and prevention

resources.TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,

48(6),
15-18.

An example of using quantitative research
methods on a sample and numerical summary of a sample, taken from
Chao, C., Wilhelm, W. J., &Neureuther, B. D. (2009). A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC
DETECTION AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES FOR REDUCING PLAGIARISM. Delta Pi Epsilon
Journal, 51(1), 31-42

The turnitin matches of the assingments of students in 3 different
groups was collected

“Control Group

The control group received minimal
instruction about avoiding plagiarism

Level 1
test group
While there were explicit instructions given to the students in
this group to employ proper paraphrasing techniques, there were no activities
that made students practice paraphrasing techniques. To familiarize students with the Turnitin
plagiarism detection software, an originality report of an anonymous previous
students written submission was shown and discussed during class as a negative
example.”

Level 2 Test Group
the same as level 1
, Except that they had and additional
exercisein which
students paraphrased two paragraphs. The exercise was graded by the

instructor and returned to the students along with detailed
feedback.“

Results

Study groups	n	Meanturnitin match	Standard deviation
control	33	5.45	8.74
Level 1 test group	42	2.29	5.452
Level 2 test	41	1.9	4.51

Quantitative Analysis

Use computer to perform an ANOVA (the
formula is very long so use a computer instead of doing it by hand)
H₀:
µ₁= µ₂= µ₃
H₁: at least one difference

.jpg”>

,
the p-value=0.0372 is less than the
default significance level α=0.05 so reject H₀ because there is
strong evidence at least one of the means is different

“To test the
hypothesis that there would be significant differences among the control group
and the two experimental groups, a one-way ANOVA was used to compare the
percentages of plagiarized text. As shown in Table 2, the control group had a
much higher average percentage of plagiarism (5.45%) than the experimental
groups. The result of the ANOVA test was significant (α = .05),p= .037“

References

Chao, C., Wilhelm, W. J., &Neureuther,
B. D. (2009). A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC DETECTION AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES FOR
REDUCING PLAGIARISM. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(1), 31-42
Davis, M., & Carroll,
J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for
text-matching software?.International
Journal for Educational Integrity,5(2).