RATE OF PAPER PLAGIARISM AMONG SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN

RELATION TO ONLINE DISTANCE LEARNING

JED T. DABLIO

In Final Fulfillment of the Research

December 2022

x
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and Rationale

One of the long-standing challenges faced by higher learning institutions is the issue of

plagiarism among students. Its origins are said to be traced to as far as writing has existed (Park

2003). Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition of the word plagiarism, most of the

definitions agree that plagiarism is premised on the wrong use of the words and ideas of others.

This paper adopted a definition by Ellis et al. (2018) who defined plagiarism as the practice of

“presenting someone else’s words and/or ideas as your own without appropriate attribution.”

Plagiarism can be categorized as intentional or unintentional. Intentional plagiarism entails

committing plagiarism with full knowledge of what constitutes plagiarism and how it can be

prevented whereas unintentional plagiarism is committed inadvertently due to lack of knowledge

and skills to avoid it (Mahmood et al. 2011). Plagiarism can take different forms including: “copy

and paste” without quotes and acknowledging the source; patch-writing; providing wrong or

incomplete citation or references; presenting or citing the secondary source as a primary source;

ghost-writing; purloining; and contract cheating (De Jager and Brown 2010; Ellery 2008; Ellis et al.

2018; Park 2003; Trost 2009; Mahmood et al. 2011; Zafarghandi et al. 2012). The forms mentioned

may either be intentionally or unintentionally committed.

For quite a long time, several studies have reported the existence of plagiarism in

institutions of higher learning in Anglo-phone countries such as UK, USA and Australia, and there

is a growing number of the same from Non-Native English speaking countries such as South

American and Asian countries. In Africa, there are also a number of studies that have reported on

the existence of plagiarism in institutions of higher learning. For instance, in South Africa (De Jager

and Brown 2010; Ellery 2008), in Nigeria (Nordling 2018; Agu and Olibie 2009), and in Botswana

(Batane 2010).

1
 Research studies conducted also report some common reasons why students commit

plagiarism which include: students’ laziness, lack of competency in academic writing and ignorance

of plagiarism, flaws in education systems in terms of assessment mode and inconsistencies in

applying rules by academic staff (Batane 2010; De Jager and Brown 2010). From the reasons

mentioned, it is clear that some students commit plagiarism intentionally while others do so

intentionally.

In other way, plagiarism is one of students’ action in answering school tasks. The situation

happens when they feel that the material is difficult or they want to pass the school tasks with high

scores. Nowadays, plagiarism becomes serious problem for the students because it makes them

to be dishonest and they do not believe themselves. Getting good score and pass the school task

become the reason for the majority of the students think instantly that is plagiarized. This

phenomenon often occurs in teaching and learning process. Yet, they never hear some educational

institution that gives serious attention in term how to solve plagiarism particularly in relation to online

distance learning.

Plagiarism is increased year by year. Another reason is because of the development of

technology. Technology makes the students feel lazy to study and answering school task. They

prefer to play online game and use social media such as facebook, twitter, instagram any time.

Finally, they decided to copy and paste the answers before submission of the school tasks, and it

will be easy for the students to access to the internet to find many relevant information. This issue

is global and because of the adversity that everyone is facing now, the pandemic, the school

established this what we called the online distance learning, limited face to face and the tasks are

submitted through online.

While plagiarism is a widespread problem, college instructors tend to overestimate its

frequency (Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). Students also believe plagiarism occurs more often

than it does, to an even greater extent than faculty, and they generally attribute the high rate of

incidents to strangers rather than people they know or themselves (Engler, Landau, & Epstein,

2008).

2
 It is important to understand students’ beliefs about the frequency and nature of incidents

of plagiarism at their schools. Even though students expect faculty to impose consequences for

academic misconduct (Kuther, 2003; Brown, 2012), they also look to other students’ behavior to

determine how far they can push the boundaries of a professor’s course policies (Feldman, 2001;

McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001; Hard et al., 2006; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009). Their opinion

that some unidentified group of students at their school regularly submits work they did not do

themselves can distort students’ understandings of acceptable strategies they should use to

complete assignments. Students who see some forms of plagiarism as less serious than others

and who believe other students plagiarize frequently may become more likely to plagiarize

themselves.

This study was aimed to determine the Rate of Paper Plagiarism Among Senior High

School students of Laguindingan National High School in Relation to Online Distance and explored

how that varied over the full range of types of plagiarism, from using another author’s ideas to

submitting an entire document copied verbatim from another author’s work. It also looked at

whether students believe some types of plagiarism are more serious than others. The

consequences of students’ beliefs that plagiarism is a common practice and how schools should

address that are discussed.

3
1.2. Statement of the problem

The study aimed to determine the rate of plagiarism among the senior high school students

of Laguindingan National High School in relation to online distance learning.

This study conducted to answer the following questions:

1. What is the respondent’s profile in terms of:

1.1 Gender

1.2 Age

1.3 Grade Level

1.4 Attitude toward Plagiarism

2. What is the respondent’s rate of paper plagiarism?

3. Is there a significant relationship between respondents’ rate of plagiarism and their

profile in terms of:

3.1 Gender

3.2 Age

3.3 Grade Level

3.4 Attitude toward Plagiarism

1.3. Objectives of the study

1.3.1. General Objectives

To determine the rate of paper plagiarism among the senior high school students

of Laguindingan National High School in relation to online distance learning, and to present

and share the gathered data.

4
1.3.2. Specific Objectives

Specifically, the research seeks answers and data about the following:

The respondent’s profile in terms of Gender, Grade Level, and Attitude toward Plagiarism.

The respondent’s rate of paper plagiarism.

If there’s a significant relationship between respondents’ rate of plagiarism and their profile

in terms of Gender, Grade, and Attitude toward Plagiarism.

1.3. Significance of the study

The result of the study is highly significant to the following individuals on determining of

paper plagiarism among senior high school students of Laguindingan National High School.

For the teachers, this study will help them in identifying whether their students are copying

answers from the internet with or without citations.

For the parents, this study will inform them to show to their children the value of respecting other

people’s work and words.

For the learners, the result will make them become aware of their learning capabilities in terms of

answering school tasks and take actions to develop their own understanding without copying

other’s work.

For the researchers, this study will be used as a background if other related study of the topic will

be soon undertaken.

1.4 Scope and limitations of the study

5
 The scope of this study focused on determining the frequency of students of paper

plagiarism in relation to online distance learning. This was conducted in the public secondary school

of Laguindingan National High School, Misamis Oriental, and it covered senior high school Grades

11 and 12 to participate in the research study.

1.5. Definition of terms

Attitude. It is a feeling or way of thinking that affects a person’s behavior.

Consequence. It refers to something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of

conditions.

Frequency. It refers to the number, proportion, or percentage of items in a particular category in a

set of data.

Gender. It is the characteristics of men and women that are socially constructed.

Online. It is a platform system where information is taken over the internet.

Plagiarism. It is an act of copying other’s work without citations such as documents, ideas, and

many more.

Program. It is a set of giving instructions to perform an action.

Rate. It refers to the number of times something happens or is done during a particular period of

time.

Students. This refers to the respondents of the said study.

6
 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The plagiarism is a problem that is growing bigger. There is mounting evidence that student

cheating in general, and plagiarism in particular, are becoming more common and more

widespread. This evidence is multi-dimensional, coming from many countries, including the USA

investigated by White in 1993, the UK according from the research of Ashworth & Bannister in

1997, Southern Africa according from author Weeks in 2001, and Finland investigated by

Seppanen in 2002, embracing both undergraduate and postgraduate students and including public

and private higher institutions of education, large and small. The emphasis in this paper is on the

causes and consequences of student plagiarism. Whilst the paper also addresses some aspects

of designing appropriate coping strategies for dealing with them, this is very much a secondary

theme here. It is, therefore, not by accident that the focus is primarily on the student perspective

and experience. This is not to deny the important role played by academic staff and the relevance

of particular academic traditions, for example in setting particular types of assignment which might

be easier to plagiarize or where the temptations to plagiarize might be stronger or in privileging the

ability to reproduce existing knowledge above originality in student writing, which merit detailed

treatment elsewhere. The paper is in seven sections, which deal in turn with the meaning and

context of plagiarism, the nature of plagiarism by students, how do students perceive plagiarism,

how big a problem is student plagiarism, why do students cheat and what challenges are posed by

digital plagiarism. The paper rounds off by looking at the need to promote academic integrity

In the literature, almost all studies started with the definition of the plagiarism which is

literally accepted as an intellectual theft, cheating or academic dishonesty: According to Gibaldi in

1999 that plagiarism is defined to use or represents another person’s ideas in your writing without

acknowledging or referencing the author (Gibaldi, 1999); the theft of words and ideas of others

(Park, 2003); academic misconduct (Stern & Havlicek, 1986); thieving thoughts (Whiteneck, 2002);

textual misappropriations (Thomas, 2000); and forgery (Groom, 2000). Furthermore, Janowski

7
(2002) gives a list of operational definitions of the plagiarism; “Buying or downloading a paper from

a research service or a term-paper mill and offering it as your own. Turning in another student’s

work, with or without that student’s knowledge, as your own. Copying any portion of another’s work

without proper acknowledgment. Copying material from a source and supplying proper

documentation, but leaving out quotations marks or failing to indent properly. Paraphrasing ideas

and language from a source without proper documentation.”

If the word “plagiarism” searched on the Google, millions of pages to be found, this may

show how it is a hot topic today. It is obvious that the issue was also very popular in history. Park

(2003) states that “copying from other writers is probably as old as writing itself”. The history of

plagiarism goes back to ancient Romes; they had used the word “plagiarius” in the sense of

kidnapper, seducer, plunderer, and from the word “plagium” had been used as kidnapping, and

from “plaga” snare, net, from “p(e)lag”; flat, spread out 5.500 years ago (Plagiarism, n. d.). As it can

be inferred from the Janowski’s (2002) list of definitions, the concept of plagiarism differs from the

cheating as regards the intention of acting; plagiarism can be happened both deliberately and

inadvertently opposing to the cheating which is a deliberate action (Devlin & Gray, 2007). This

deliberate or inadvertent action is appeared among different education level of students which are

at kindergarten (Olson & Shaw, 2011; Yang, Shaw, Garduno, & Olson, 2014); secondary school

students (Kam, Hue, & Cheung, 2017); undergraduate students (Arhin & Jones, 2009; Ashworth,

Bannister, & Thorne, 1997; Gullifer & Tyson, 2014; Scanlon & Neumann, 2002), and graduate

students (Baty, 2001; Love & Simmons, 1998; Morgan & Thomson, 1997).

Years ago, Paldy (1996) argues this and points as “won’t go away”. It has been almost 21

years since Paldy argued and it has not gone away yet. Rather, it is growing day by day and

problem consists of many types of acts. Well-known originality checking service Turnitin (2015)

conducted a survey with 879 higher and secondary educators around the world to explore and

measure the common and problematic plagiarism events among their students. Therefore, “The

Plagiarism Spectrum” suggests 10 categories of plagiarism named Clone, CTRL-C, Find-Replace,

Remix, Recycle, Hybrid, Mashup, 404 Error, Aggregator, Re-tweet. Among all these categories,

the most frequently observed instances fall in the categories of Clone (9.5 out of 10), Mashup (9.1),

8
and CTRL-C (8.9). These most problematic tags of Turnitin; Clone refers to a submission of other’s

work, steal word by word; Mashup means using a mix of more than one material without proper

citation; and CTRL-C refers to taking significant portion of a work without any change and citation

(Turnitin, 2017). As Turnitin refers, many evidences show that the problem of plagiarism is

expending in scope and increasing in number of cases (Papermasters, 2009; Price, J. & Price, R.,

2005). Broeckelman and Pollock (2006) carried out a project on the attitudes of students and

instructors toward academic dishonesty at Ohio University, and the results show that 84.1% of the

undergraduate students, and 55.2% of the graduate students admitted to behave against academic

honesty rules with several types of behaviors, and various degrees of seriousness during the year

2005.

Another study investigated the unethical behaviors among undergraduate and graduate

students, showed that problem of plagiarism did not show variation with respect to the education

level (Sheard, Markham, & Dick, 2003). Gullifer and Tyson’s (2014) study concluded that only half

of the 3405 students in an Australian university had read the plagiarism policy and had confusion

apparent about which behavior counted as plagiarism. In their study of faculty members’ view on

student plagiarism, Bruton and Childers (2016) found that if the student violated the plagiarism

rules unintentionally faculty members did not penalize the student that did not coincide with the

ones written in the syllabi about the penalty of plagiarism. Although plagiarism often results in

severe punishment in academic environment as failure from the course or dismissing from the

school (Gibaldi, 1999), the extensive number of writer’s alert that the plagiarism is clearly a growing

problem which is on the rise in universities in recent times (Bowden, 1996; Paldy, 1996; Park, 2003;

Verco & Wise, 2006; Wilhoit, 1994; Wood, 2004). Why this crime committed by many people from

kindergarten to graduate schools is also studied by scholars. Studies found multiple reasons of

plagiarism; for instance, the qualitative research by Love and Simmons (1998) which was designed

in part to determine the factors that affect the graduate students’ behavior in a college of education

associated with cheating and plagiarism, showed that there are two types of the internal and

external factors which are contribute to, and inhibit behaviors. While the internal inhibiting factors

were self-confidence, positive professional ethics, fairness to authors and to others, fear, and guilt;

9
the external inhibiting factors were probability of being caught and need for knowledge in the future.

On the other hand, the internal contributing factors were negative personal attitudes and lack of

proficiency, whereas the external contributing factors are grade, time, and task difficulty. In addition,

the qualitative study done by Devlin and Gray (2007) indicated that the possible reasons of the act

of plagiarism in 56 Australian universities are a wide and “institutional admission criteria; student

understanding of plagiarism; poor academic skills; a range of teaching and learning factors;

personality factors and external pressures”. The inhibiting factors may show difference with respect

to grade level. Although graduate students had other rationales to get admission or success, or

being published in second-language, the studies with undergraduate students showed lack of

understanding the concept of plagiarism, and the consequences of it (Ehrich, Howard, Mu, &

Bokosmaty, 2016).

Furthermore, time constraints and overloaded courses were also other inhibiting factors

leading students to plagiarize. Gururajan and Roberts (2005) conducted a study to explore the

students’ attitudes toward this ethical and moral matter, and found that both tutors and students

have unanimous attitudes towards the justification of plagiarism by workload. Although there is a

growing body of literature focus on the student plagiarism in terms of its definitions, prevalence,

what lead the students to plagiarize, and the consequences, “students have no monopoly on

plagiarism as a form of dishonest behaviour” (Park, 2010). Even teachers, instructors, and authors

of research often plagiarize. Many studies showed that supervisors or other academic staff had

also plagiarized (Bruton & Childers, 2016; Martin, 1986; Witton, 1973). This is a dangerous and

severe problem of academy since this staff is expected to teach what the plagiarism is to students.

The most comprehensive project was conducted by the team of Education Policy Research and

Application Centre of Istanbul’s Bogazici University by examining 470 master’s theses and 130

doctoral dissertations published between 2007 and 2016 in Turkey. The project group announced

that there were “heavy plagiarism” in 34% of the theses; the rate of the plagiarism in the theses of

private universities was 46% whereas the rate of plagiarism 31% in public universities (Hurriyet

Daily News, 2016). The findings of the project were called as scandal by journalists. This is not new

news about the act of plagiarism of our academicians. This of Turkish authors has been also

10
discussed by researchers of other nations in the area of nursing and medical. To illustrate, in her

study Amos (2014) found that Turkey was one of the topped countries with the rate of 61.5%

plagiarism in biomedical literature published in PubMed between 2008 and 2012. While the

situation is so severe with these figures, how much do the researchers devote time and energy to

explore the students and academic staff’s concepts, rationales and consequences of the acts of

plagiarism in Turkey? Within this context, the purpose of this study is to review the most current

published literature on the topic of plagiarism in Turkish context.

Many actions performed by learners in higher education could be considered dishonest.

The Central Connecticut State University in 2004 reports actions such as falsifying data, presenting

another’s words or ideas as one’s own, or cheating on assigned work as being dishonest. According

to Godfrey and Waugh, they describe dishonest practices as copying from previous assignments

or from books, inappropriate student collaboration on assignments, inappropriate assistance from

relatives, inappropriate reference to crib notes, cheating during exams, and lying to faculty when

missing deadlines. According to McCabe & Trevino (1993, 1997, 2002), learner cheating is

becoming a campus norm, institutions of higher education are lacking an honor code and adequate

penalties, and there is little chance that a learner will get “caught” – due in part by lack of faculty

support for academic integrity policies.

McCabe supports these statements based on his involvement with many research studies

on academic integrity. McCabe has studied learner self-reported academic dishonesty involving

2,100 learners surveyed in 1999, faculty self-reported academic dishonesty involving over 1,000

faculty members on 21 campuses in 1999, and the influence of honor codes on academic

dishonesty in 1990, 1995, and 1999 involving over 12,000 learners and 48 campuses (Center for

Academic Integrity, n.d.). As a result of these studies, McCabe reports one-third of the participating

learners admitted to serious test cheating and half admitted to one or more instances of serious

cheating on written assignments. One-third of the faculty reported that they were aware of learner

cheating in their course in the last two years, but did nothing to address it (Center for Academic

Integrity, n.d.). In reference to reported faculty’s cavalier attitude on cheating, McCabe finds, as

suggested by learner reporting, that the engagement of cheating is higher in courses where

11
learners know faculty members are likely to ignore cheating (Center for Academic Integrity, n.d.).

McCabe & Treveno (2002) argue that Academic honor codes effectively reduce cheating. Surveys

administered by McCabe demonstrate a positive impact of honor codes and learner involvement

on academic dishonesty. Serious test cheating on campuses with honor codes is typically 1/3 to

1/2 lower than the level on campuses that do not have honor codes. The level of serious cheating

on written assignments is 1/4 to 1/3 lower (Center for Academic Integrity, n.d.).

Researchers believe that the act of plagiarism is growing in higher education (Anderson,

2001; Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne, 1997; Braumoeller, & Gaines, 2001; Bushweller, 1999;

Center for Academic Integrity, 2001; Fain & Bates, 2002; Groark, Oblinger, & Choa, 2001). The

advent of the Internet has made a wealth of information available for learners to research for writing

papers (Weinstein & Dobkin, 2002). Some learners are using the availability of information via the

Internet to improve the quality of their work; however, others are using it to simply “cut and paste”

information into the paper. Because there is such a range of information that is relatively easy to

access, learners can easily plagiarize the work of others. McKenzie (1999) reports on teachers

complaining that new technology is making it easier for learners to plagiarize. Under the “new

plagiarism,” as McKenzie refers to plagiarism using technology, learners are now able to access

and save numerous documents with little reading, effort, or originality as opposed to the huge

amount of time it took for learners to move words from an encyclopaedia to white paper and

changing a few words in an effort to avoid plagiarism.

International Studies:

A study by Scouller et al. (2008) which collected data from 135 first year pharmacy students

at the University of Sydney investigated students’ skills in referencing and citation. The study

revealed that although the majority of students rated themselves to be good at referencing and

citation, an analysis of their written papers showed failure to cite in-text and write a reference list

12
properly. The study concluded that students overestimated their level of ethical and legal academic

writing abilities. The danger with students overrating their academic writing is that they may not

appreciate deficiencies in their academic writing abilities, and consequently, they may continue to

commit plagiarism unintentionally. Poor understanding of plagiarism on the part of students put

them at a higher risk of plagiarising (Leask 2006; Mahmood et al. 2011; Orim et al. 2013; Riasati

and Rahimi 2013; Zafarghandi et al., 2012).

Similar findings are reported by other studies which also established poor understanding

of plagiarism among students. For instance, a study by Ramzan et al. (2012) found that

postgraduate students had a poor understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and as a result, the

majority of students admitted that they had plagiarised before. These results suggest that students

plagiarised unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge of what constitutes plagiarism.

In view of the several research findings mentioned earlier, it is plausible to accept that

plagiarism does exist in higher education but what differs is the level and depth of prevalence. In

that regard, the higher education stakeholders’ focus should be on how to prevent or minimise

plagiarism.

Ellery (2008) and De Jager and Brown (2010) have reported a low prevalence of plagiarism

in South African universities. However, De Jager and Brown (2010) argue that the low prevalence

of plagiarism in South Africa was attributed to under-reporting of plagiarism cases to authorities as

established by their study, implying that measuring plagiarism in terms of numbers may sometimes

give a false picture.

Park (2003) observed that determining a true picture of the rate of plagiarism poses two

challenges: cases of plagiarism are rarely detected and reported; and methods for studying

plagiarism might be faulty. Several other authors have measured plagiarism using different

methods to determine rates of plagiarism such as subjecting written work to text-matching software

(Ledwith and Rísquez 2008; Sheridan et al., 2005), checking disciplinary records (De Jager and

Brown, 2010), and self-reporting (Ryan et al., 2009; McCabe 2005; Scouller et al., 2008;

Zafaghandi et al., 2012). The present study used a similar approach to that of McCabe (2005) who

13
collected data from both postgraduate students and academics, but the present study went further

and collected additional data by conducting follow-up interviews with academics.

In Iran, Zafarghandi et al. (2012) reported high rates of plagiarism among Masters’ students

in Iranian universities. Zafarghandi et al. (2012) found that the common forms of plagiarism

committed by students included paraphrasing without acknowledging sources, omitting quotation

marks in directs quotes, patch-writing, and presenting secondary citation as if the original source

had been consulted. Similar forms of plagiarism have also been reported in other studies (De Jager

and Brown 2010; Leask 2006; Agu and Olibie 2009; Ryan et al. 2009; Trost 2009). The study by

Zafaghandi et al. (2012) further revealed that the least prevalent forms of plagiarism among

Masters’ students in Iranian Universities included ghost writing and purloining.

Some studies have dwelled on investigating the reasons students commit plagiarism. For

instance, a study by Zafaghandi et al. (2012) concluded that the majority of students committed

plagiarism unintentionally because of poor knowledge of plagiarism by students. According to the

literature, students commit plagiarism because of various reasons including pressure to meet

deadlines; lack of knowledge among students of what constitutes plagiarism; lack of good academic

writing skills; convenience (Internet makes “copy and paste” easy); the high cost of studying;

pressure from family; too much academic work; pressure to score high grades; laziness; poor

design of assignments by lecturers; and inconsistencies in application of penalties to plagiarists

(Batane 2010; De Jager and Brown 2010; Idiegbeyan-Ose et al., 2016; Kwong et al., 2010; Park

2003; Riasati and Rahimi 2013; Ryan et al., 2009).

Some of the ways suggested by Devlin (2006) to curb plagiarism include: the need by

universities to set clear definitions of what constitutes plagiarism and the corresponding penalties

applied to each plagiarism offence, and putting in place a formal policy on how plagiarism should

be handled by all university stakeholders including lecturers, students and administrators.

Nonetheless, having the policy and publicising plagiarism through university websites and the

students' handbook is not a guarantee that students understand and avoid committing it (Ryan et

al., 2009). There is also a need to have dedicated classes aimed at teaching student’s rules and

standards of academic writing. Other researchers such as Roberts (2008), have suggested that

14
lecturers can play a greater role in dealing with plagiarism by designing assignments that require

students to apply high level writing skills rather than “copying and pasting” thereby making it very

difficult for them to plagiarize.

A consensus has been reached in the literature that educating students on good academic

writing skills and raising awareness on the negative effects of plagiarism are the best strategies to

deal with plagiarism (Leask 2006; Macdonald and Carroll 2006; Pecorari 2010; Walker 2010).

Some studies have shown that students continue to commit plagiarism after undergoing such

training or classes. For instance, Batane (2010) found that students continued to plagiarise even

after being taught about plagiarism and good academic writing. According to Batane (2010),

students admitted to have intentionally plagiarised. In that regard, the university applied various

punitive measures to plagiarists including withdrawing the student from the university; suspending

the student from the university; withholding the student’s degree certificate; subjecting the student

to academic probation; giving the student a fail grade in the plagiarised course; revoking an already

awarded degree from the student upon establishing that the student committed a serious academic

offence (Batane, 2010). Macdonald and Carroll (2006) suggest the need for a university to

consistently define what constitutes plagiarism and to articulate how each form is handled in terms

of the depth and the corresponding sanction. Use of text-matching software such as Turnitin is also

proving to be helpful in detecting academic work suspected to have been plagiarised.

Local Study:

Plagiarism is a big issue and should be addressed by the University, according to DEAL

professor Jessie Barrot. He stated that the fact that academic dishonesty, be it intentional or not,

is the most common offense committed by DLSU students is quite alarming; the statistics also tell

us that there is an urgent need to address this issue.

15
 Barrot believes that the lack of note-taking skills such as summarizing and paraphrasing

are the root causes of plagiarism. “In some instances, students feel that when they have

paraphrased or summarized a particular text, that would be enough. They feel that they don’t have

to cite the text anymore,” he furthers.

Atty. Christopher Cruz, Director of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), shares Barrot’s

view that students may plagiarize unintentionally due to unfamiliarity with certain rules in citation.

“Sometimes, they omit certain citations; there might be no intention to plagiarize because of

ignorance of the rules,” he says. He acknowledges, however, the fact that some students will

deliberately plagiarize due to the advances in technology, and will resort to “cut and paste”.

University Research Coordination Office (URCO) Director Madelene Sta. Maria

enumerates various reasons why students consider plagiarism such as citing the presence of a

high competition for grades, the impersonal relationship between students and professors, the

perception that peers engage in academically dishonest acts, and the lack of drive with school

work(https://thelasallian.com/2013/07/10/understanding-student-plagiarism/).

16
 3. THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Theoretical Framework

The social cognitive learning theory developed by Albert Bandura in 1963 underpins this

study. The theory explains how behaviour is learned, unlearned and regulated through the

interaction of cognitive and environmental or social factors. In the cognitive learning theory,

cognitive factors are reciprocal causation, modelling, self-efficacy and self-regulation. Reciprocal

causation explains how three variables interact with each other to influence human learning and

long-term development (Ormrod, 2012).

Modeling explains how behaviour is learned through observation/imitating others such as

a teacher demonstrating behaviour and learner imitating (Ormrod 2012). Schunk (2008) reports of

a study where students’ self-efficacy to perform a particular task increased after observing fellow

students succeed in performing a similar task. Self-efficacy is the belief and confidence in one’s

own capabilities which influences one to engage in certain behaviour (Ormrod 2012).

Environmental or social factors of the cognitive learning theory include reinforcement and

punishment (Ormrod, 2012). Self-regulation explains how learners develop a sense of appropriate

and inappropriate behaviour through direct and vicarious reinforcement and punishments.

Reinforcement is “a form of incentive motivation operating through outcome expectations rather

than automatic strengtheners of responses” (Bandura, 1999). Punishment is used to weaken

undesirable behaviour (Bandura 1999), which may also be viewed as the opposite of reinforcement.

17
3.2 Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Respondent’s Profile

- Gender

- Age Paper Plagiarism

- Attitude toward Plagiarism

18
 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1. Research design

The researcher utilized the quantitative research design to determine the rate of paper

plagiarism among senior high school students in relation to online distance learning. Using the

method, it will give the researcher an idea to identify and explain an established theory, and can

be used to describe and analyze the data thoroughly. Using the random sampling, the researcher

determined the rate of plagiarism among senior high school students of Laguindingan National

High School in relation to Online Distance Learning. The survey questionnaires were given to the

teacher and randomly distributed to the respondents both Grades 11 and 12 and their responses

were gathered. In this study, the researcher specifically aimed to measure the respondent’s profile

in terms of their gender, age, grade level and attitude toward plagiarism, the respondent’s rate of

paper plagiarism and the significant relationship between respondent’s profile and rate plagiarism.

4.2. Subjects of the study

In this study, the researcher conducted the survey to the Senior High School Students of

Laguindingan National High School both Grades 11 and 12. Fifty (50) students were selected

randomly from Grade 11 and the other fifty (50) students from Grade 12 randomly as the

respondents of the study, a total of one hundred (100). The respondents were obliged to answer

the survey questionnaire and gathered afterwards.

19
4.3. Sampling procedure

The researcher wrote a letter and asked permission to the Principal of the school to allow

the researcher to conduct the study about the rate of paper plagiarism among Senior High School

Students of Laguindingan National High School in relation to Online Distance Learning. The study

was conducted amidst the pandemic situation, the researcher followed the IATF protocol of COVID-

19 such as wearing face mask, do proper hand sanitation, and practice the social distancing 2

meters away, do foot bath, and temperature check before entering the perimeter.

The researcher used random sampling procedure to determine the respondents, the Senior

High School Students both Grades 11 and 12 in Laguindingan National High School of

Laguindingan, Misamis Oriental. Afterwards, the researcher asked permission from the adviser of

a particular strand to have the researcher distribute the questionnaire by the time they returned

their modules, then retrieve it. After doing the retrieval, finalizing and organizing of the data was

followed and data analysis and the mean, percentage and frequency was used in tabulating the

data or result. With the process being followed, the selecting distributing, retrieving, organizing and

data analyzing the concept development followed.

Random selection of Senior High School Students both Grades 11 and

Distribution and Retrieval of Survey Questionnaires

Organizing of data

Data Analysis
• Sloven
Method

Concept Development

Figure 4.3.1 Flowchart of the methods used in the study.

20
Figure 4.3.2 Map showing the location of Laguindingan National High School, Laguindingan,

Misamis Oriental.

The study was conducted at Laguindingan National High School of Laguindingan, 9019,

Misamis Oriental. The school is located in Zone 3, Poblacion, Laguindingan, Misamis Oriental.

21
4.4. Instrument

The student survey asked respondents about their views and experiences regarding paper

plagiarism in relation to online distance learning. The researcher prepared a rating scale

questionnaires to be used in gathering data and information to the respondents in Laguindingan

National High School. The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part of the questionnaire

focuses on measuring attitudes of the students toward plagiarism. The students were asked to rate

the following questions as not strongly agree, not agree, agree, or strongly agree. The questions

they are going to rate are:

1. Sometimes I feel tempted to plagiarize.

2. I know what plagiarism is.

3. Plagiarism is as bad as stealing an exam.

4. Using others’ work with their permission is ok.

5. Plagiarism is ok if the professor gives you too much work.

6. Punishment for plagiarism should be light.

7. Downloaded papers and using as one’s own should mean expulsion from university.

8. Plagiarism is against my ethical values.

9. Plagiarism involves taking others’ words, not property, so it is no big deal.

10. You cannot plagiarize yourself.

11. If I lend a paper to a student to look at who plagiarizes, I should not be punished also.

12. Plagiarists should receive a special grade for cheating, which would deter them.

` The second part of the questionnaire focuses on determining the students’ rate of plagiarism,

where the respondents were given an essay. The question: Why do you think plagiarism is such a

serious offense up to this generation? They were asked to submit their papers, and then the

answers were checked using the software detection such as grammarly or Turnitin.com. It

automatically determined the students’ rate of plagiarism and reveal if they are really plagiarizing.

The acceptable rate of plagiarism is: 0 to 25% matched, 26 to 50% matched, 51 to 75% matched

and 76 to 100% matched.

22
4.5. Data analysis

This research method uses a sloven method because it allows the researchers to sample the
N
population with a desired degree of accuracy. Sloven’s formula is written as n= , where n is
(1+Ne2)
the number of sample, N is the total population, and e is the error tolerance or the margin error. Since it

is an educational study, the researchers view 10% as the margin error with the confidence level of 90%.

23
 5. RESULTS

Table 1: No. of respondents according to its profile.

GRADE 12 MALE FEMALE TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 34 0 34

EIM B 34 0 34

GAS 6 6 12

HUMSS 20 20 40

TVL A 29 8 37

TVL B 30 5 35

TOTAL 153 39 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 1, there are 153 Male and 39 Female with the

total population of 192 respondents in the Grade 12 level.

Table 2: No. of respondents who answered that their teacher enters their

class regularly.

GRADE 12 YES NO TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 32 2 34

EIM B 27 7 34

GAS 11 1 12

24
 HUMSS 40 0 40

TVL A 34 3 37

TVL B 31 4 35

TOTAL 175 17 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 2, there are 175(91.14%) out of 192respondents

who answered Yes that their teacher enters their class regularly, while 17(8.85%) out of

192respondents who answered No.

Table 2.1: Frequency of teachers entering class in a week.

GRADE 12 ALWAYS SOMETIMES SELDOM ONCE TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 20 12 0 0 32

EIM B 22 4 1 0 27

GAS 10 1 0 0 11

HUMSS 31 9 0 0 40

TVL A 28 6 0 0 34

TVL B 22 9 0 0 31

TOTAL 133 41 1 0 175

Interpretation: As shown in table 2.1, there are 133(76%) out of 175 respondents

have answered Always on the frequency of teachers entering class in a week, while

41(23.42%)haveansweredSometimes, 1(0.57%) have answered Seldom, and none of

Once.

25
 Table 3: No. of respondents who answered the teacher’s personality that

affects student performance.

GRADE 12 YES NO TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 30 4 34

EIM B 31 3 34

GAS 12 0 12

HUMSS 37 3 40

TVL A 33 4 37

TVL B 31 4 35

TOTAL 174 18 192

Interpretation: In table 3, there are 174(90.62%) out of 192 respondents have

answered Yesthat the personality of the teacher affects the student performance, while

there are 18(9.7%) out of 192 respondents answered No.

Table 3.1: Data distribution of the effects of the teacher’s personality to the

respondent’s performance.

GRADE STUDEN TO HAVE NOT STUDE RECEIVIN TOTA

12 T GOOD ATTENDIN NT G POOR L

SECTIO LEARNE PERFORMAN G TO WOULD GRADES

NS D TO BE CE DISCUSSI BE

FOCUSE ON BORED

EIM A 6 7 2 11 4 30

26
 EIM B 11 8 4 5 3 31

GAS 6 2 2 2 0 12

HUMSS 8 10 7 6 6 37

TVL A 9 6 6 6 6 33

TVL B 12 3 5 3 8 31

TOTAL 52 36 26 33 27 174

Interpretation: As shown in table 3.1, 52(29.88%) out of 174 respondents have

answered that the most effective of the teacher’s personality that affects student

performance is the student learned to be focused, 36(20.68%) respondents answered

that the student will have a good performance, 33(17.18%) respondents answered that

the student would be bored, 27(15.51%) respondents answered that the student will

receive poor grades, and the least effective is not attending to discussion having

26(14.94%) out of 192 respondents.

Table 4: No. of respondents who have been influenced by their teacher.

GRADE 12 YES NO TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 34 0 34

EIM B 31 3 34

GAS 12 0 12

HUMSS 36 4 40

TVL A 35 2 37

TVL B 29 6 35

27
 TOTAL 177 15 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 4, there are 177(92.18%) out of 192 respondents have

answered

Yes that they have been influenced by their teacher, while 15(7.81%) out of 192

respondents have answered No.

Table 4.1: No. of respondents who answered what way does their teacher shows.

GRADE 12 GOOD BAD TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 34 0 34

EIM B 25 6 34

GAS 12 0 12

HUMSS 36 0 36

TVL A 34 1 35

TVL B 26 3 29

TOTAL 167 10 177

Interpretation: As shown in table 4.1, there are 167(94.35%) out of 177 respondents have

answered Good, while 10(5.64%) out of 192 respondents have answered Bad.

Table 4.1.1: No.of respondents who answered what they do when influenced in a

good way.

28
 GRADE 12 FOND OF WILLING TO PARTICIPATE TOTAL

SECTIONS SCHOOLING LISTEN IN IN ACTIVITIES

EVERY

ACTIVITIES

EIM A 5 21 8 34

EIM B 0 13 12 25

GAS 1 9 2 12

HUMSS 2 27 7 36

TVL A 1 22 11 34

TVL B 1 17 11 29

TOTAL 10 109 51 170

Interpretation: As shown in table 4.1.1, there are 109(64.11%) out of 170 respondents

have answered willing to listen in activities, 51(30%) respondents have answered

participate in activities, and 10(5.88%) out of 192 respondents have answered fond of

schooling.

Table 5: No. of respondents who likes listening teacher’s discussion when in good

mood.

GRADE 12 YES NO TOTAL

SECTIONS

EIM A 33 1 34

EIM B 32 2 34

GAS 12 0 12

HUMSS 40 0 40

29
 TVL A 37 0 37

TVL B 35 0 35

TOTAL 189 3 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 5, there are 189(98.43%) out of 192 respondents have

answered Yes, while there are 3(1.56%) out of 192 respondents have answered No.

Table 5.1: No. of respondents who have answered what their teacher shows

during discussion.

GRADE 12 HE/SHE CAN HE/SHE CAN HE/SHE TOTAL

SECTIONS TEACH THE EXPLAIN IT LIKES TO

LESSON CLEARLY DISCUSS

WELL

EIM A 10 21 2 33

EIM B 12 18 2 32

GAS 3 9 0 12

HUMSS 19 19 2 40

TVL A 8 26 3 37

TVL B 12 17 6 35

TOTAL 64 110 15 189

Interpretation: As shown in table 5.1, 110(58.20%) out of 189 respondents have

answered that the teacher can explain it clearly, 64(33.86%) respondents have

answered that the teacher can teach the lesson well, and 15(7.93%) have answered

30
that the teacher likes to discuss.

Table 6. Factors of a teacher that the respondents prefer to teach them.

GRADE 12 A. AGE TOTAL

SECTIONS

YOUNG AGE MIDDLE AGE OLD AGE

EIM A 2 28 4 34

EIM B 15 18 1 34

GAS 3 7 2 12

HUMSS 2 38 0 40

TVL A 0 34 3 37

TVL B 17 17 1 35

TOTAL 39 142 11 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 6 letter a, there are 142(73.95%) out of 192 respondents

answered middle age, 39(20.31%) have answered young age, and 11(5.72%) have

answered old age.

GRADE 12 A. STATUS TOTAL

SECTIONS

SINGLE MARRIED

EIM A 29 5 34

EIM B 20 14 34

GAS 11 1 12

31
 HUMSS 34 6 40

TVL A 29 8 37

TVL B 25 10 35

TOTAL 148 44 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 6 letter b, there are 148(77.08%) out of 192 respondents

have answered single, while 44(22.91%) have answered married.

GRADE 12 A. GENDER TOTAL

SECTIONS

MALE FEMALE

EIM A 15 19 34

EIM B 20 14 34

GAS 7 5 12

HUMSS 15 25 40

TVL A 11 26 37

TVL B 8 27 35

TOTAL 76 116 192

Interpretation: As shown in table 6 letter c, there are 116(60.41%) out of 192 respondents

have answered female and 76(39.58%) have answered male.

32
 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the study, findings and the conclusion arrived based

on the findings regarding the study entitled the “Rate of Paper Plagiarism among Senior High

School Students of Laguindingan National High School in relation to Online Distance Learning.

Summary

This study aimed at identifying the Rate of Plagiarism among Senior High School Students

of Laguindingan National High School in relation to Online Distance Learning. This study is sought

to answer the following: (1) What is the respondent’s profile in terms of: (a) Gender; (b) Age; (c)

Grade Level; and (d) Attitudes toward plagiarism; (2) The respondent’s rate of paper plagiarism;

and (3) The significant relationship between respondents’ rate of plagiarism and their profile in

terms of their gender, age, grade level, and attitude toward plagiarism.

The results are computed using the Mean, Percentage and correlation analysis using

Pearson Correlation Coefficient.

Wherein fifty (50) students are selected randomly from Grade 11 and Grade 12 a total of

100 respondents to ensure unbiased study.

33
Summary of the Findings:

Based on the analyzed data, the following are the salient findings.

1. Out of 100 respondents, 32 or 31.00 percent are male and 69 or 69 percent of the

respondents are female. This implies that majority of the respondents of the study are

female.

2. Out of 100 respondents, 16 or 16 percent of them are 17 years old, 34 or 34 percent

are 18 years old, 42 or 42 percent are 19 years old and 8 or 8 percent are 20 years

old.

3. There are total of 100 respondents of the study. It shows that 50 or 50 percent of the

respondents are grade 11 and the other 50 or 50 percent of the respondents are grade

12. This ensures unbiased study through random selection from senior high school

students both Grade 11 and Grade 12.

4. The students’ attitudes toward plagiarism reveals that the respondents agreed in the

statement “I know what plagiarism is" with weighted of 3.03, “Plagiarism is as bad as

stealing an exam” with weighted mean of 2.68, “Using others’ work with their

permission is ok” with weighted mean of 2.68, “Downloaded papers and using as one’s

own should mean expulsion from university” with weighted mean of 2.56, “Plagiarism

is against my ethical values” with weighted mean of 2.69, and “You cannot plagiarize

yourself” with weighted mean of 2.60. While the respondents disagreed in the

statement that Plagiarists should receive a special grade for cheating, which would

deter them with weighted mean of 2.27, “If I lend a paper to a student to look at who

plagiarizes, I should not be punished also” with a mean of 2.39, “Plagiarism is ok if the

professor gives you too much work” with weighted mean of 2.34, “Sometimes I feel

tempted to plagiarize” with weighted mean of 2.28, ‘Punishment of plagiarism should

be light” with weighted mean of 2.46, and “Plagiarism involves taking other’s words,

not property, so it is no big deal” with weighted mean of 2.41. As an overall result of

the students’ attitudes toward plagiarism, the researcher found out that respondents

have answered agreed with weighted mean of 2.53.

34
 5. Using the plagiarism detection software, the researcher found that none of them are in

0 to 25 percent matched which is an acceptable rate of plagiarism. 12 or 12 percent

out of 100 respondents are in 26 to 50 percent matched, while 50 or 50 percent are in

51 to 75 percent matched, and 38 or 38.00 percent are in 76 to 100 percent matched.

Conclusion

This study has found out that students have a conceptual understanding of what constitutes

plagiarism, in terms of its definition and forms. All students regard plagiarism as a very serious

academic offence. Avoiding plagiarism is important. It is significant to properly concede to the

contributions and information made by other people. Therefore, it is very vital for students to

understand what plagiarism means and the consequences of plagiarizing.

With the significant findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn.

1. The findings from this study indicate that most of the students have known what

plagiarism is and that they are aware that plagiarism is against their ethical values. The

students in this study also agreed that plagiarism is as bad as stealing an exam,

downloaded papers and using as one’s own should mean expulsion from university

and using others’ work with their permission is ok which are very common issues and

still relevant nowadays.

2. It reveals that 50 percent or 50 out of 100 are in 51 to 75 percent matched which is an

acceptable rate of plagiarism. This process was done through the use of plagiarism

checker or plagiarism detection software (such as turnitin and grammarly) and it shows

that students are committing plagiarism and they cannot deny that they are doing this

action.

3. Analysis revealed no significant relationship between respondents’ rate of plagiarism

and their profile in terms of Gender, Age, Grade Level, and Attitudes on Rate of

35
plagiarism. Taking everything into account, this study concludes that demographic

profile is not significantly related to rate of plagiarism.

36
 7. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the implications and recommendations of the study.

Implications of the Study

The findings of this study have contributed to the understanding that plagiarism is against

the ethical values of the students. With plagiarism detection software so readily available and in

use, plagiarists are being caught at an alarming rate. Hence accused of plagiarism, a person will

most likely always be regarded with suspicion. Gomez et al. (2013) argued that the implication of

plagiarism occurrence is seemingly regarded as ethical dishonesty, and lack of respect for other

people’s work. When there is plagiarism, the academic ethics of hard work, individual effort and

recognition of the work of others have failed which leads to a cheating culture. Plagiarizing seriously

damages the student reputation. Thus, plagiarism can result in legal actions, fines, penalties, and

other consequences.

Common implications include: 1. Academic Repercussions. Teachers typically have little

tolerance for plagiarism because they want students to learn and earn their grades fairly and

honestly. If students are caught plagiarizing, academic sanctions can include a lower grade, failing

the course or dismissal from an academic major. An incident of plagiarism can also diminish their

chances of a good reference from the teacher for a scholarship application, study abroad program,

graduate school, internship or graduate assistantship. Their degree can be revoked if it is later

discovered that they plagiarized a capstone project, thesis or dissertation; 2. Disciplinary Sanctions.

Plagiarism is grounds for disciplinary probation, suspension or permanent expulsion from school.

37
An academic misconduct notation can be placed on their transcript that may be seen by other

colleges and universities, so they may not be able to transfer as an undergrad or get into law school,

medical school or any graduate school. No refunds of tuition or fees are issued when a student is

dismissed for academic dishonesty. If the learner is an international student, dismissal from school

can result in deportation and embarrassment to his/her family; 3. Career Implications. When

applying for jobs, especially in law enforcement or the federal government or enlisting in military

service, it is important to have a clean disciplinary history. A plagiarism charge in college could

bring into question their ethics, integrity and suitability for a profession. In a competitive job market,

potential employers consider letters of references from instructors to help them sort through

applications. Plagiarism could cost them references from instructors attesting to their character and

scholarship and; 4. Personal Toll. Plagiarism keeps them from learning, which is the reason they

are in college. Cheating gives them an unfair advantage over other students who are doing their

own work. Being punished for plagiarism can damage their reputation and undermine an

instructor's trust and confidence in them. Peers may lose respect and chose not to work with on

group projects. Even if they are not caught, their self-esteem can be impacted knowing that they

didn't deserve the grade they received.

Recommendations of the Study

Plagiarism is regarded as a relevant problem in relation to online distance teaching and

learning systems as a result of modern technologies. Modern technologies make it easier for

students to copy and paste from any online sources. Managing these challenges requires

understanding from all stakeholders on the implications and consequences of plagiarism. Here are

some of the recommendations derived from the study:

38
1. Give students examples of how and when they should credit the work of others in their

writing. This way, they will have concrete cases to which they can refer when questions

arise. They would also create original assignments; the more unusual an assignment

(e.g., taking a different perspective on a problem, question, or reading), the less likely

students will be able to find something (from the internet or their peers) to submit as

their own work. In addition, an assignment that has multiple parts may reduce the

likelihood of plagiarism.

2. The students must be required a rough draft. Adding milestone to written assignment

where students must submit preliminary drafts of their work discourages them from the

prospects of plagiarizing. It also helps them spread a larger writing task over a long

period of time, so students are not likely to be in the situation where they are solely

tempted to take the easy way out of the assignment.

3. The students should submit electronic copies of their drafts to Turnitin.com or

grammarly. Plagiarism detection software (turnitin and grammarly) can provide

valuable information to students on drafts to view their “originality reports” where they

see how much of the paper is actually written in their own words, and then revise

accordingly. With electronic copies of students’ written work, it is easier for instructors

to detect plagiarism using one of several software packages.

4. The students must be encouraged to use the writing center to have their work reviewed

prior to submission, peer review each other’s work and provide opportunities during

class time for such activities, and submit sections throughout the semester as they

may be less tempted to plagiarize with shorter assignments. And for shorter

assignments, have the student submit the references along with the assignment as

long as it properly cited.

39