European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.832326
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON
CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
Oğuz Özbeki,
Senem Çeyiz
Ankara University, Faculty of Sport Sciences,
Department of Sports Management, Turkey
Abstract:
The aim of this research is to find out the reasons for cheating and plagiarism
tendencies and behaviours of university students, to suggest solutions with these
findings and to contribute to the literature on this topic. Descriptive methods were used
in this research. The research population consists of students from the Faculty of Sport
Sciences. Two separate measuring instruments were used in the research to collect
qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data were collected from 220 students
while quantitative data were from 32 students. Frequencies were calculated for
qualitative data and the common statements found were analysed. Normal distribution
of the quantitative data was observed and the data were not distributed normally.
Therefore; Mann-Whitney U test was applied for dual groups and Kruskall-Wallis test
to groups more than two, from non-parametic tests. According to the results obtained
from the study; more than half of the participants cheated. These results showed that
the tendency for reference dishonesty, homework project dishonesty and cheating was
at medium level while research reporting plagiarism is at a lower level. The main
reasons behind cheating and plagiarism according to student views were the fear of
receiving a low grade, taking the easy way out and not studying, rote-learning based
education system and teachers not making a fair and equal evaluation. In order to
prevent cheating and plagiarism which became current issues in education system,
instructors must not frighten the students with grades, must enhance exam inspection
and try for students to like the courses.
Keywords: plagiarism, cheating, dishonesty, university students
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
323
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
1. Introduction
Cheating and plagiarism are important issues in the education system. It is proved that
cheating is common in academic institutions and increased significantly in the last
thirty years (McCabe et al., 2001). Cheating became more common among students in
the recent years; in parallel to the capacity growth of information on the internet, there
has been a significant increase in plagiarism and academic dishonesty (Lau et al., 2013;
Sisti, 2007; Breen and Maassen, 2005). It has been theorised that the increase of cheating
in university students is linked to the loss of ethical values in society Ye<ilyaprak,
1996). A connection between cheating at school and showing unethical behaviours at
workplace has been confirmed (Sims, 1993).
The lexical meaning for cheating is receiving help from somebody else in an exam or
looking at the book or notes
else’s work as one’s own
Demiray,
Demiray,
and for plagiarism is presenting somebody
. Cheating dates back to ‚ncient China where
civil service exams were made in separate jars after the participants were searched
thoroughly in order to prevent cheating (Selçuk, 1995 ref. from Brickman, 1961).
There can be no arguments on how beneficial scientific researches, projects,
publications and other academic studies are to a country s development. Ethics is a very
important subject in science like in every other field. One of the main issues of science
ethics is honesty. According to the honesty concept, studies conducted by a scientific
persona must be striking and must have no concerns on monetary gain or personal
fame ‚ydın,
. ‚cademic dishonesty is a versatile and harmful behaviour that
includes cheating, plagiarism and fraudulent conduct Yazıcı et al.,
. ‚cademic
dishonesty which sometimes occures from ignoring the honesty concept and sometimes
from researchers not having enough knowledge on scientific research ethics, is one of
the unethical behaviours that affect the quality of education and scientific studies
negatively. These behaviours that are more common in high school and higher
education levels are seen as cheating, plagiarism or unauthorised help (Giluk and
Postlethwaite, 2014).
Academic dishonesty, especially cheating is seen as a normal behaviour by
students which is among the reasons why it is so frequently preferred (Chapman et al.,
2004). Tendencies on academic dishonesty that we witness at undergraduate level are
based in primary and high school levels because of the rote-learning based education
system (Semerci, 2004). Today, academicians express that they are against academic
dishonesty. However; they present unethical behaviours sometimes due to their low
foreign language levels and time limits, and sometimes to their lack of knowledge on
academic dishonesty Eret and Gökmenoğlu,
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
.
324
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
University students use cheating as copying from another students homework
and letting other students copy their homework Yardley et al.,
‚kdağ and G(ne<,
2002). Reasons for cheating among university students include course difficulties,
receiving high grades, insufficient time limits for preparation, difficulties in finding
time for studying, fear of failure and low risk of getting caught Yazıcı et al.,
. In
‛ozdoğan and 5zt(rk s study, prospective teachers specified reasons for cheating as the
importance of grades in the system, passing a course being more important than
knowledge, the evaluation system forcing the students to memorisation and commentbased questions not being asked.
In Semerci and Sağlam s study
participants expressed that methods
targeted at learning must be used instead of memorisation-encouraging learning
methods and invigilators must be more meticulous in order to prevent cheating. In
another study, reasons for plagiarism tendencies in university students were detected
as; time limitations, grade pressure, insufficient instructions and indifference towards
courses (Uzun et al., 2007). Cheating attempts of university students are usually
punished. According to the disciplinary regulations applied in our higher education
system, cheating and plagiarism behaviours of students are penalised. In accordance
with the mentioned Student Disciplinary Regulations (RG: 28388, 18.08.2012) Article 5
d) Cheating in exams are punished with reprimand, Article 7 e) Cheating or allowing
cheating and f) Plagiarism in seminars, dissertations and publications are punished
with one semester suspension, Article 8
d) Cheating in exams with blackmailing,
preventing cheating students from exiting the examination room, taking an exam for
somebody else and letting somebody else take an exam for the applicant are punished
with two semester suspension. Also with software programmes such as Turnitin and
Ithenticate becoming more commonly used, postgraduate dissertations and student
homeworks are checked for plagiarism. These software programmes perform
comparisons with a substantial amount of data on the internet and determine the
similarity rates in dissertations and homeworks with references from other sources.
The topicality of cheating and plagiarism necessitated further research on these
subjects. Therefore, the aim of the study is to learn the reasons for plagiarism and
cheating tendencies of undergraduate students, suggesting solutions for these and
contributing to the literature on this subject.
2. Material and Method
Descriptive method was used in the research. The research population consists of
students from a university s Faculty of Sport Sciences in the Central ‚natolia region.
Two separate measuring instruments were used in the research to collect qualitative
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
325
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
and quantitative data. A written form with three open cloze questions about cheating
and plagiarism behaviour, reasons and prevention solutions developed by the
researchers to collect qualitative data. This form has been distributed to a study group
of 32 volunteering final year students from the Faculty of Sport Sciences.
For the quantitative data, the Academic Dishonesty Tendency Scale (ASEÖ)
developed by Eminoğlu and Nartg(n
was used. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were used for the scale s structure validity. The exploratory factor
analysis showed that the total variance of the scale was 53.17% and that the factor load
for the items in the scale vary between ,40 and ,74. The results of confirmatory factor
analysis showed that the fit indexes of the model are acceptable Eminoğlu and
Nartgün, 2009). Factor analyses stated a total of 22 items under four sub dimensions as
following; "tendency for cheating", "tendency for dishonesty in homework and
projects", "tendency for dishonesty in researching and reporting" and "tendency for
dishonesty regarding references". Reliability coefficient for the whole scale has been
detected as ,90. In order to apply the scale, permission from the first author who
developed the scale has been asked. For scale evaluation, five point likert scale was
used. Research population consists of 497 students from the Faculty of Sport Sciences.
‚ccording to Ural and Kılıç
, the lower limit of samples from
population has
been calculated as 217 for mistakes that are 0.05 tolerable. 220 Faculty of Sport Sciences
volunteers have participated in the research.
Qualitative data obtained from interview forms were calculated for frequency
and common statements were found and analysed. Reliability coefficient (Cronbach's
Alpha) of the quantitative data from the scale were found as ,82. Normal distribution
for the data were observed and no normal distribution was detected. Therefore; MannWhitney U test was applied for dual groups and Kruskall-Wallis test to groups more
than two, from non-parametic tests.
3. Findings
3.1. Findings related to the qualitative data
The written answers of the final year student group from the faculty of sport sciences
were analysed and common statements were detected. The students frequency of
cheating in exams and using an already existing homework from the internet as their
own, opinions on the reasons for cheating and plagiarism and on how to prevent
plagiarism and cheating in exams are listed in Table 1 according to their frequency.
23 final year sport sciences students out of 32 stated that they have cheated while
stated that they have not cheated ,
from the internet
and
that they downloaded a prepared homework
that submitted a revised homework that has been done
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
326
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
before . It has been determined that more than half of the participants have cheated.
For reasons of cheating and plagiarism
receiving a low grade ,
of the participants expressed the fear of
of them taking the easy way out ,
not studying ,
rote
learning based education system ,
the wrong methods of studying ,
teachers not
making just and equal evaluation ,
teachers threatening students with grades and
participants stated laziness .
According to the participants, the main reasons for cheating and plagiarism are
the fear of receiving low grades, taking the easy way out and not studying. In terms of
preventing cheating and plagiarism,
of the participants suggested that
should not threat hen students with grades ,
strengthened ,
that
that inspection in exams should be
teachers should get the students to like the course ,
students should be given seminars to prevent cheating ,
different types of exams ,
same questions every year ,
and
teachers
that
that there should be more
that teachers should renew themselves and not ask the
that the punishment for cheating should be heavier
stated that students should make necessary preparations for exams on time . In
order to prevent cheating and plagiarism, instructors should not threaten the students
with grades, should increase inspection in exams and make students like their course,
according to the participants.
Table 1: Statements Obtained from Qualitative Data and Their Frequency
Questions
Have you ever cheated in an
exam, used an already
existing homework from the
internet or behaved in a
similar way?
What are the reasons behind
cheating and plagiarism?
How can cheating and
plagiarism be prevented?
Behaviours
I Have Cheated
I Have Not Cheated
I Have Downloaded an Already Existing Homework from the Internet
I Have Submitted a Revised Homework That Has Been Made Before
Frequency
23
7
4
1
The Fear of Receiving a Low Grade
Taking the Easy Way Out
Not Studying
Rote Learning Based Education System
Wrong Studying Methods
Teachers Not Making Just and Equal Evaluation
Teachers Threathening Students with Grades
Laziness
Teachers Should Not Threathen Students with Grades
Inspection in Exams Should Be Strenghtened
Teachers Should Get the Students to Like the Course
Cheating Cannot Be Prevented
Students Should Be Given Seminars to Prevent Cheating
Teachers Should Renew Themselves and Not Ask the Same Questions
Every Year
There Should Be More Different Types of Exams
Punishment for Cheating Should Be Heavier
Students Should Make Necessary Preparations for Exams on Time
8
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
2
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
2
2
1
327
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
3.2. Findings related to the quantitative data
Table 2 shows the arithmetic mean and standard deviation points of opinions related to
sub dimensions of academic dishonesty tendencies of students that participated in the
research. Average of points of opinions related to sub dimensions of academic
dishonesty tendencies of students that participated are respectively
dishonesty
x= .
for cheating
x= .
±.
, homework and project dishonesty
±.
x= .
and research reporting dishonesty
±.
x= .
reference
, tendency
±.
. It has
been confirmed that reference dishonesty, homework project dishonesty and tendency
for cheating are at medium level and research reporting dishonesty is at a lower level.
Table 2: Average mean and standard deviation points of opinions
of the students related to sub dimensions of the scale
Dimensions
X
S
Point Line
Tendency for cheating
2.74
.976
3
Homework project dishonesty
2.95
.696
2
Research reporting dishonesty
2.56
.863
4
Reference dishonesty
3.05
.752
1
Mann-Whitney U Test results of students opinions regarding the sub dimensions of
their academic dishonesty tendencies are given in Table 3 according to their genders. A
statistically significant difference between students opinions according to their genders
on the dimensions of Cheating (U=5390, p>.05), Homework project dishonesty (U=5652,
p>.05), Research reporting dishonesty (U=5329.5, p>.05) and Reference dishonesty
(U=4921.5, p>.05) was not detected.
Points for female and male students opinions on the sub dimension of the scale
regarding their academic dishonesty tendency evaluation are calculated as following;
for reference dishonesty female x= .
homework project dishonesty
tendency
Female x= .
± .
± .
dimension and male x= .
Female x= .
, male x= .
± .
±.
, male x= .
±.
,
± ,
,
cheating
, research reporting dishonesty
(Female x=2.46±.809, male x=2.62± .888).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
328
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
Table 3: Mann-Whitney U Test points and standart deviation values for students
opinions regarding the sub dimensions of their academic dishonesty tendencies
Dimensions
Cheating and tendency
Gender
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Homework project dishonesty
Research reporting dishonesty
N X s Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
U
P Difference
72 2.69 .878
115.0
9090.0
5930.0 .753
148 2.77 1.02
117.9
18171.0
72 2.95 .604
114.1
8674.0
5652.0 .917
148 2.95 .741
113.1
16977.0
4921.5 .217
72 2.46 .809
103.2
7847.5
Male 148 2.62 .888
Female 72 3.01 .663
Male 148 3.07 .794
Reference dishonesty
114.3
109.5
112.4
16462.5
8104.5
16648.5
5329.5 .744
-
N=220, P*<0.05
Table 4 shows the Kruskall-Wallis analysis results for academic dishonesty tendencies
of students participated in the study according to their departments. According to
student participants departments with Kruskall Wallis analysis results performed
between their Cheating tendency [X2(2)=1.08, p>.05], Homework project dishonesty
[X2(2)=4.41, p>.05], Research reporting dishonesty [X2(2)=0.18, p>.05) and Reference
dishonesty [X2(2)=2.35, p>.05] dimensions, a statistically significant difference was not
detected.
Points regarding the opinions of students for the sub dimensions according to
their departments are calculated as following
x= .
±.
,
Coaching
dishonesty
x= .
±.
x= .
±.
,
Teaching
Sports management x= .
,
cheating tendency
±.
x= .
±.
, Teaching x= .
±.
,
homework
, Coaching x= .
research reporting dishonesty
Coaching x= .
± .
Sports management
±.
project
, Teaching
Sports management x= .
,
reference dishonesty
±.795,
Sports
management x=3.07±.710, Coaching x=2.95±.814, Teaching x=3.15±.703).
Table 4: Kruskall-Wallis test results and standard deviation values for academic
dishonesty tendencies of students according to their departments
Dimensions
Cheating tendency
Homework project dishonesty
Research reporting dishonesty
Reference dishonesty
Department
Sports Management
Coaching
Teaching
Sports Management
Coaching
Teaching
Sports Management
Coaching
Teaching
Sports Management
Coaching
Teaching
N
61
74
85
61
74
85
61
74
85
61
74
85
X/5 s Mean Rank
2.82 .981
121.6
2.64 .934
110.2
2.76 1.01
117.3
2.96 .730
113.6
2.85 .752
101.2
3.03 .615
122.7
2.57 .795
112.3
2.57 .929
108.4
2.56 .867
108.2
3.07 .710
112
2.95 .814
101.5
3.15 .703
116.6
df X2
P
Difference
2 1.08 .582
-
2 4.41 .110
-
2 0.18 .914
-
2 2.35 .308
-
N=220, P*<0.05
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
329
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
Table 5 shows the Kruskall Wallis analysis results for academic dishonesty tendencies
of students participated in the study according to their class years. According to student
participants current class years, a statistically significant difference between their
Cheating tendency [X2(3)=.651, p>.05], Homework project dishonesty [X2(3)=.418, p>.05]
was not detected.
‚ statistically significant difference was detected between the students Research
reporting dishonesty dimensions [X2(2)=0.38, p<.05] with Kruskall Wallis analysis
results according to their class years. According to the Mann-Whitney test results
performed in order to find the group that causes the difference, a statistically significant
difference between 2nd year students and 1st, 3rd, 4th year students was detected. When
the mean rank on these opinions are taken into consideration, it is seen that 1st Year
students (x=2.66), 3rd Year students (x=2.67) and 4th Year students (x=2.65) have more
tendency on Research reporting dishonesty when compared to 2nd Year students
(x=2.31).
A statistically significant difference was detected between the students
Reference dishonesty dimensions [X2(2)=.009, p<.05] with Kruskall Wallis analysis
results according to their class years. According to the Mann-Whitney test results
performed in order to find the group that causes the difference, a statistically significant
difference between 2nd year students and 3rd, 4th year students was detected. When the
mean rank on these opinions are taken into consideration, it is seen that 3 rd Year
students (x=3.20) and 4th Year students (x=3.20) have more tendency on Reference
dishonesty when compared to 2nd Year students (x=2.80).
Points regarding the opinions of students for the sub dimensions according to
their class years are calculated as following cheating tendency
2nd year x=2.63±.955, 3rd year x=2.84±.900, 4th year x= .
dishonesty
x= .
±.
st
± .
st
year x=2,73±,970,
, homework project
year x=2.99±.685, 2nd year x=2.85±.644, 3rd year x=3.00± .770, 4th year
, research reporting dishonesty
3rd year x=2.67±.854, 4th year x= .
±.
st
year x=2.66±.963, 2nd year x=2.31±.809,
, reference dishonesty dimension
st
year
x=3.06±.828, 2nd year x=2.80±.690, 3rd year x=3.20±.683, 4th year x=3.20±.712). Although a
significant difference was not detected between the opinions on cheating tendency
according to class years, the cheating tendency seems to increase as class year increases
(Table 5).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
330
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
Table 5: Kruskall Wallis Analysis results of student opinions according to their class years
Dimensions
Cheating tendency
Homework project dishonesty
Research reporting tendency
Reference tendency
Class
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
N
53
58
39
70
53
58
39
70
53
58
39
70
53
58
39
70
X
2.73
2.63
2.84
2.78
2.99
2.85
3.00
2.98
2.66
2.31
2.67
2.65
3.06
2.80
3.20
3.20
s
.970
.955
.900
1.05
.685
.644
.770
.717
.963
.809
.854
.804
.828
.690
.683
.712
Mean Rank SD X2
P
Difference
115.33
3 1.63 .651
108.15
123.31
120.58
114.16
3 2.83 .418
101.78
121.37
117.33
114.84
3 8.40 .038* 2< 1, 3, 4
89.65
119.52
117.94
107.14
3 11.6 .009*
2< 3, 4
89.80
127.50
122.60
N=220, P*<0.05
4. Results and Discussion
According to the results obtained in the study; it has been concluded that more than
half of the students cheated. This result coincides with ‛ozdoğan and 5zt(rk s
Eraslan s
and Lin and Wen s
,
results. It can be said that cheating is
common among university students Ye<ilyaprak,
. In accordance with the results;
students reference dishonesty, homework project dishonesty and cheating tendency
are at medium level, whereas their research reporting dishonesty is at a lower level.
Similarly in Lin and Wen s study, academic dishonesty including cheating during
exams, copying homework, plagiarism and document falsification is common.
‚ significant difference between students opinions on their academic dishonesty
tendency according to their departments of study was not detected. This result
coincides with the results obtained from G(m(<g(l et al. s
study. G(m(<g(l et
al. (2013) has detected that academic dishonesty tendency levels of college of physical
education and sports students differ according to their departments.
A significant difference between students opinions on their academic dishonesty
tendency according to their genders was not detected. Similarly, there are studies that
show there are no differences between students academic dishonesty tendency
opinions in terms of their genders Whitley et al.,
Ünl( and Eroğlu,
Dozier,
2014; Garcíaa and Herreraa, 2013; Hu and Lei, 2015). On the other hand, there are
studies in the literature showing that male students cheat and plagiarise more than
female students (Lin and Wen,
‚kdağ and G(ne<,
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
Selwyn,
.
331
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
It was detected in the study that first, third and fourth year students have more
research reporting dishonesty tendency than second year students. Third and fourth
year students have more reference dishonesty tendency than second year students.
‚lthough a statistically significant difference between opinions on Cheating tendency
according to class years was not detected, it was concluded mathematically that as class
year increases, cheating tendency increases accordingly. It can be said that as class year
increases, reference dishonesty and cheating tendency increases with it in the study.
Similarly in G(m(<g(l et al. s study
, it was seen that academic dishonesty
tendency of students differ among college of physical education and sports students. In
‚kdağ and G(ne< s study
, it was detected that cheating tendency decreases as
class year increases, contrary to the study results.
According to student views, the main reasons behind cheating and plagiarism
are the fear of receiving low grades, taking the easy way out and not studying, route
based learning education system, wrong methods of studying and teachers not making
just and equal assessments. There are studies showing similar results Yazıcı et al.
Uzun et al.,
‛ozdoğan and 5zt(rk,
. In order to prevent cheating and
plagiarism which became the current issue in the education system, instructors must
not threaten students with grades, inspection in exams must be strengthened and
instructors must get the students to like their courses.
References
1. ‚kdağ M, G(ne< H,
. Kopya Çekme Davranı<ları ve Kopya Çekmeye İli<kin
Tutumlar. [Cheating Behaviors And Attitudes Toward Cheating]. Kuram ve
Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi,
2. ‚ydın İ.
. Yönetsel, Mesleki Ve 5rg(tsel Etik [Managerial, Professional and
Organizational Ethics]
3. Breen L,
330-334.
. ‛askı . Pegem ‚kademi, ‚nkara.
Maassen M. 2005. Reducing the incidence of plagiarism in an
undergraduate course: the role of education. Issues in Educational Research, 15:
Available online at http://www.iier.org.au/iier15/breen.html
4. Selçuk Z.
. ‛ir Eğitim ve Rehberlik Sorunu Okullarda Kopya Çekme. [A
problem of education and guidance: copying in schools.] Eğitim Yönetimi.
397-418.
5. ‛ozdoğan ‚.E, 5zt(rk, Ç.
teacher
. 5ğretmen adayları neden kopya çeker? Why do
candidates cheat?] Elementary Education Online, 7(1): 141-149.
http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
332
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
6. Chapman K.J, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L. 2004. Academic Integrity In The
Business School Environment: I'll Get By With A Little Help From My Friends.
Journal of Marketing Education, 26: 236-249.
7. Demiray, K. 1988. Temel Türkçe Sözlük. [Basic Turkish Dictionary İstanbul
İnkılap Kitapevi.
8. Dozier S.A. 2014. A Study Of Academic Dishonesty Among At-risk Adult Online
High School Learners. PhD Thesis. Minneapolis: Capella University.
9. Eminoğlu E, Nartg(n Z.
. Üniversite 5ğrencilerinin ‚kademik Sahtekarlık
Eğilimlerinin 5lç(lmesine Yönelik ‛ir ölçek geli<tirme Çalı<ması.
A scale
development study to measure academic dishonesty tendency of university
students]. International Journal of Human Sciences (JHS). 6 (1): 215-233.
10. Eraslan ‚.
. Matematik 5ğretmeni ‚dayları ve Kopya Hiç Çekmedim
Desem yalan Olur!. [Prospective Mathematics Teachers and Cheating: It is a Lie
If I Say I Have Never Cheated!]. [Education and Science] 36 (160): 52-64.
11. Eret E, Gökmenoğlu T.
. Plagiarism In Higher Education ‚ Case Study With
Prospective Academicians. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2 (2): 33033307
12. Garcíaa A.M, Aviles-Herreraa M.J 2013. Effects Of Academic Dishonesty On
Dimensions Of Spiritual Well-being And Satisfaction: A Comparative Study Of
Secondary School And University Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 39 (3): 349-363.
13. Giluk T.L, Postlethwaite B.E. 2014. Big Five Personality and Academic
Dishonesty: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality and Individual Differences, 72
(2015), 59 67.
14. G(m(<g(l O, Üst(n Ü.D, I<ık U, Demirel D.H.
. Evaluation Of Academic
Dishonesty Level Of Students Studying At School Of Physical Education And
Sports. Spormetre, 11 (2): 131-138.
15. Hu G, Lei J.
. Chinese University Students Perceptions of Plagiarism, Ethics
& Behavior, 25(3): 233-255, doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.923313
16. Lau G.K., Yuen H.K.A, Park J. 2013. Toward an Analytical Model of Ethical
Decision Making in Plagiarism, Ethics & Behavior, 23(5); 360-377, doi:
10.1080/10508422.2013.787360
17. Lin C-H S, Wen L-Y.M. 2007. Academic dishonesty in higher education
a
nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54:85 97. doi:10.1007/s10734006-9047-z
18. McCabe D. L, Trevino K.L, Butterfield D.K. 2001. Cheating in Academic
Institutions: A Decade of Research, Ethics & Behavior, 11:3, 219-232,
doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
333
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
19. Semerci Ç. 2004. Attitudes and Ideas Towards Cheating of Medicine Faculty
Students. Fırat University Journals of Health Sciences.
20. Selwyn N.
. Not necessarily a bad thing
-146.
a study of online plagiarism
amongst undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education. 33(5):465 479 doi:10.1080/02602930701563104
21. Semerci Ç, Sağlam Z.
. Attitudes and Ideas Towards Cheating of Policeman
Candidates In Exams. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 15(2): 163-177.
22. Sims R.L. 1993. The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical
Business
Journal
Practices.
of
Education
for
Business,
68(4):207-211.
doi:10.1080/08832323.1993.10117614.
23. Sisti A.D. 2007. How Do High School Students Justify Internet Plagiarism?,
Ethics & Behavior, 17(3): 215-231, doi:10.1080/10508420701519163
24. Ural ‚, Kılıç İ.
. ‛ilimsel ‚ra<tırma S(reci ve SPSS ile Veri ‚nalizi.
Geni<letilmi< . ‛askı. ‚nkara Detay Yayıncılık.
25. Uzun, E., Karaku<, T., Kur<un, E., & Karaaslan, H.
‚<ırma İntihal
. 5ğrenci Göz(yle
Neden ve Çöz(m 5nerileri. ‚kademik ‛ili<im Konferansı
Bildirileri. Kütahya.
26. Ünl( H, Eroğlu C.
. Prospective Physical Education Teachers ‚ttitudes
Towards Cheating Spormetre, 10 (3): 101-106.
27. Yardley, J, Rodríguez D.M, Bates S.C., Johnathan N. 2009. True Confessions?:
Alumni's Retrospective Reports on Undergraduate Cheating Behaviors, Ethics &
Behavior, 19(1): 1-14, doi:10.1080/10508420802487096
28. Yazıcı ‚, Yazıcı S, Erdem M.S. 2011. Faculty and student perceptions on college
cheating:
evidence
from
Turkey.
Educational
Studies.
37:
221 231.
doi:10.1080/03055698.2010.506321
29. Ye<ilyaprak ‛.
. Üniversitelilerin Çoğu Kopyacı. Cumhuriyet ‛ilim Teknik
Dergisi. 507: 2.
30. Whitley E.B, Nelson B.A, Jones J.C. 1999. Gender Differences in Cheating
Attitudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior: A Meta-Analysis, Sex Roles, 41
(9/10): 657-675.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
334
Oğuz 5zbek, Senem Çeyiz
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' OPINIONS ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 8 │ 2017
335