Abstract
Developing a Comprehensive Plagiarism Assessment Rubric: Defining “plagiarism” is not simple, and its complexity is too seldom appreciated. This article offers a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric from a four-year study of analyzing students’ plagiarism. From qualitative analyses of 120 students’ paraphrase samples, we identified seven plagiarism dimensions and employed a five-point Likert-scale to rank each dimension’s severity. Then, we enlisted editors, reviewers, and research supervisors to refine the severity of the plagiarism dimensions to articulate a plagiarism spectrum. We produced a Plagiarism Scoring Rubric to categorize 127 plagiarism combinations out of the seven plagiarism dimensions’ composites. Finally, we described how the Plagiarism Scoring Rubric, accompanied by the severity indices, supports instructors in scoring students’ plagiarism and enables students to understand proper crediting of prior work better when citing and paraphrasing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
1. Appendix A: https://figshare.com/s/67c74cb3425e81613083
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702742
2. Appendix B: https://figshare.com/s/a8a16a13e8c04f9da334
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702781
3. Appendix C: https://figshare.com/s/56e2cab50fa3d846c2e3
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702973
4. Appendix D: https://figshare.com/s/35ac0193a3b8b70de44a
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702985
5. Plagiarism Composite Severity Calculation
https://figshare.com/s/e4c80d0884c0cb5b7186
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15052890
6. A Model of Plagiarism based on Corpus Severities and Probabilities
Notes
While our research applies to both students’ and researchers’ textual plagiarism, this paper focuses on student plagiarism because that is the source at which the plagiarism that editors and reviewers encounter ultimately begins.
In linguistic studies, L1 and L2 respectively refer to first and second language learners.
English as a Foreign Language
In this section, Student refers to “student participants” who voluntarily took part in three task cycles and produced writing or paraphrasing corpora. Reviewers, editors, and research supervisors refer to “reviewer participants” who took the survey. “Expert reviewers” refers to those outside the study who provided feedback on the survey without taking the survey to be counted as a data point.
Abbreviations
- L1 and L2:
-
in linguistic studies, L1 and L2 respectively refer to the first and second language learners
- EFL:
-
English as a Foreign Language
References
Ahmed, R., & Abdu, A. K. (2021). Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911245.
Al-Sharah, N., Khoury, O., Abd Hamid, J., Ariffin, I. A., & Tham, J. (2021). Jordanian f EFL learners: What makes a foreign language teacher effective?. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 112–124. https://ejal.info/menuscript/index.php/ejal/article/view/110.
Allen, HW, & Goodspeed, L. (2016). Facilitating foreign language writing development through textual borrowing. http://works.bepress.com/heatherwillisallen/61/.
Amsberry, D. (2009). Deconstructing plagiarism: International students and textual borrowing practices. The Reference Librarian, 51(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763870903362183.
Brückner, M. (2017). Using rubrics to improve teaching performance: a review of recent literature. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 19(4), 293–307.
Budianto, A., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2022). Summaries writing to enhance reading comprehension: Systematic literature review from 2014 to 2021. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 149–161. https://ejal.info/menuscript/index.php/ejal/article/view/175.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. Cambridge University Press, pp 211–230. Cambridge Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.018.
Creswell, J W, & Creswell, J D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Crusan, D. (2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom. University of Michigan Press https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.770334.
Cumming, A, Lai, C, & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002.
Ďurišová, M, Kucharčíková, A, & Tokarčíková, E. (2015). Assessment of higher education teaching outcomes (quality of higher education). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2497–2502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.922.
Fazel, I, & Kowkabi, N. (2014). Students’ source misuse in language classrooms: Sharing experiences. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i1.1168.
Fishman, T. (2009). “we know it when we see it” is not good enough: Toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright.
Fulcher, G. (1987). Tests of oral performance: the need for data-based criteria. ELT Journal, 41(4), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.4.287.
Gebril, A, & Plakans, L. (2016). Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001.
Harwood, N. (2010). Research-based materials to demystify academic citation for postgraduates. In N Harwood (Ed.) English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 301–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harwood, N, & Petrić, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication, 29(1), 55–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311424133.
Heitman, E, & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014.
Henderson, S. (2015). Textual borrowing in an english for academic purposes class: Knowledge. PhD thesis, practices and beliefs. (A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy), University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/5463/HendersonSallyJ2015PhD.pdf?sequence=1isAllowed=y.
Hima, A, & Saputro, T. (2017). Developing scoring rubric: do the students need it?. ELT Echo : The Journal of English Language Teaching in Foreign Language Context, 2(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.24235/eltecho.v2i2.2170.
Hirvela, A, & Du, Q. (2013). “why am i paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005.
Horbach, S, & Halffman, W. (2017). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’, vol 48. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004.
Howard, R M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.2307/378403.
Hyland, F. (2001). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. ELT Journal, 55(4), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.4.375.
iThenticate.com. (2013). Survey summary: Research ethics: Decoding plagiarism and attribution in research. http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/papers/decoding-plagiarism.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity. John Benjamins Publishing Company https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5.
Jahic, A. (2011). An insight into textual borrowing practices of university-level students in bosnia and herzegovina. Journal of Academic Writing, 1 (1), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v1i1.11.
Janssen, G, Meier, V, & Trace, J. (2015). Building a better rubric: Mixed methods rubric revision. Assessing Writing, 26, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002.
Johns, AM. (1985). Summary protocols of “underprepared” and “adept” university students: replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning, 35(4), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb00358.x.
Johns, A M, & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.3.253.
Kadam, P, & Bhalerao, S. (2010). Sample size calculation. International Journal of Ayurveda Research, 1(1), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7788.59946.
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: a comparison of l1 and l2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006.
Keck, C. (2007). University student textual borrowing strategies. (3273746 ph. PhD thesis, D.), Northern Arizona University, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database, http://search.proquest.com/docview/304754256?accountid=41313.
Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? a grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.193.
Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of l1 and l2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005.
Krosnick, JA, & Presser, S. (2010). Question and Questionnaire Design. In Handbook of Survey Research (2nd Edition). In P. Marsden J. Wright (Eds.) Emerald Group Publishing, pp 263–313. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/2010/2010HandbookofSurveyResearch.pdf.
Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor–implications for academic staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262486.
Li, Y, & Casanave, CP. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002.
Liao, M T, & Tseng, CY. (2010). Students’ behaviors and views of paraphrasing and inappropriate textual borrowing in an efl academic setting. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 187–211.
Lustyantie, N., Suriyati, Y., Isnan, F. N., & Yudha, R. P. (2022). The effect of cognitive style, critical thinking, and digital literature on argumentative writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 22(1), 27–35. https://www.jestp.com/index.php/estp/article/view/1549.
Marzec-Stawiarska, MR. (2019). A search for paraphrasing and plagiarism avoidance strategies in the context of writing from sources in a foreign language pp 115–135. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.31.894.
McInnis, L. (2009). Analyzing english l1 and l2 paraphrasing strategies through concurrent verbal report and stimulated recall protocols (doctoral dissertation). PhD thesis, Canada. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/18105.
Mirahmadizadeh, A, Delam, H, Seif, M, & Bahrami, R. (2018). Designing, constructing, and analyzing likert scale data. Journal of Education and Community Health, 5(3), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.21859/jech.5.3.63.
Moniz, R, Fine, J, & Bliss, L. (2008). The effectiveness of direct-instruction and student-centered teaching methods on students’ functional understanding of plagiarism. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(3), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310802258174.
Nguyen, K. D., & Nguyen, U. H. T. (2021). Common errors in writing of EFL sophomores in a context of the mekong delta. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 46–57. https://ejal.info/menuscript/index.php/ejal/article/view/42.
Nuhfer, E, Cogan, C, Kloock, C, Wood, G, Goodman, A, Zayas Delgado, N, & Wheeler, C. (2016). Using a concept inventory to assess the reasoning component of citizen-level science literacy: Results from a 17,000-student study. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1036,.
Nuhfer, EB. (2001). Table of contents. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 10(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.10059.
Oshima A, & Hogue A. (1999). Writing Academic English. v. 1, Longman. https://books.google.com/books?id=XNGWQgAACAAJ.
Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students–literature and lessons. 28(5)471–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301677.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing, (Vol. 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004.
Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.004.
Pecorari, D, & Petrić, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing, (Vol. 47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000056,.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141.
Petersen, S C, McMahon, J M, McFarlane, H G, Gillen, C M, & Itagaki, H. (2020). Mini-review - teaching writing in the undergraduate neuroscience curriculum: Its importance and best practices. Neuroscience Letters, 737, 135302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2020.135302.
Petrić, B, & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: an exploratory study of a successful l2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002.
Popham, WJ. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educational leadership, 55(2), 72–75.
Rakedzon, T, & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). To make a long story short: A rubric for assessing graduate students’ academic and popular science writing skills. Assessing Writing, 32, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.12.004.
Raposo Rivas, M, & Sarceda Gorgojo, C. (2011). El trabajo en las aulas con perspectiva europea: medios y recursos para el aprendizaje autónomo. [work in the classrooms with european perspective: materials and resources for autonomus learning] http://hdl.handle.net/10347/23144.
Razi, S. (2015). Development of a rubric to assess academic writing incorporating plagiarism detectors. SAGE Open 5(2).
Reddy, Y M, & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment &, Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859.
Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 973–982. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3.973.
Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society, 24 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018388.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303262846.
Shi, L, Fazel, I, & Kowkabi, N. (2018). Paraphrasing to transform knowledge in advanced graduate student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.001.
Solikhah, I. , Tarman, B., Budiharso, T. (2022). Improving argumentative writing through IMRAD to Indonesian EFL learners. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1 ), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911533.
Steneck, NH. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y.
Stockall, N, & Villar Cole, C. (2016). Hidden voices: L2 students’ compensatory writing strategies. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1144586.
Sun, Y C, & Yang, F Y. (2015). Uncovering published authors’ text-borrowing practices: Paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.003.
Taber, KS. (2018). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
Tomaš, Z. (2011). Textual borrowing across academic assignments: Examining undergraduate second language writers’ implementation of writing instruction. (3466635 phd.),. PhD thesis, The University of Utah, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. http://search.proquest.com/docview/885193809?accountid=41313.
Turner, CE, & Upshur, JA. (2002). Rating scales derived from student samples: Effects of the scale maker and the student sample on scale content and student scores. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588360.
Turnitin.com. (2012). White paper: the plagiarism spectrum: instructor insights into the 10 types of plagiarism. https://go.turnitin.com/paper/plagiarism-spectrum.
Uludag, P, Lindberg, R, McDonough, K, & Payant, C. (2019). Exploring l2 writers’ source-text use in an integrated writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46(100670), 100670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100670.
Upshur, JA, & Turner, CE. (1995). Constructing rating scales for second language tests, vol 49. Oxford University Press (OUP) https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.3.
Vieyra, M, Strickland, D, & Timmerman, B. (2013). Patterns in plagiarism and patchwriting in science and engineering graduate students’ research proposals. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v9i1.846.
Vossen, P. H. (2021a). A model of plagiarism based on corpus severities and probabilities. https://figshare.com/s/8455fab321a41e6a4de2.
Vossen, P. H. (2021b). Plagiarism composite severity calculation. https://figshare.com/s/e4c80d0884c0cb5b7186.
Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902912994.
Weigle, S C, & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.004.
van Weijen, D, Rijlaarsdam, G, & van den Bergh, H. (2018). Source use and argumentation behavior in l1 and l2 writing: a within-writer comparison. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1635–1655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9842-9.
Winograd, PN. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404–425. https://doi.org/10.2307/747913.
Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 north-american college websites. System, 31(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00023-X.
Yang, A, Stockwell, S, & McDonnell, L. (2019). Writing in your own voice: an intervention that reduces plagiarism and common writing problems in students’ scientific writing. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 47 (5), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21282.
Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.008.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Edward Nuhfer, who served as an experienced reviewer, provided perceptive comments, and strengthened efforts at paper quality assurance. We would also like to show our gratitude to Dr. Ian Geoffrey Kennedy for sharing his pearls of wisdom with us during the course of this research. We thank Dr. Abdorreza Tahriri and Hamed Delam for their timely insights. We would like to offer our deep appreciation to all the “Student Participants” and “Reviewer Participants,” who so generously took part in this project. We are also immensely grateful to ResearchGate members for answering researchers’ questions and shedding lights on the way of project progress.
Funding
This work was partially supported by Larestan University of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: 1399-69).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Moohebat administered the paraphrasing tasks, extracted the plagiarism dimensions, designed and distributed the plagiarism assessment survey, analyzed the data, calibrated the severity indices for the plagiarism dimensions, produced the plagiarism-scoring rubric, and wrote the research project and the manuscript drafts. Paul designed “Plagiarism Composite Severity Calculation" and "A Model of Plagiarism based on Corpus Severities and Probabilities,” and was a major contributor in designing the plagiarism assessment survey and study concepts and theories. Abdol Hossein designed the quasi-experimental study of assessing student paraphrase and was a major contributor in designing the course-teaching schedule and qualitative scheme of plagiarism. Reza was a major contributor in survey scaling and proofreading the manuscript. Kyle was a major contributor in forming research questions and study concepts, proofread and edited the primary and final drafts, and produced the final report in LaTeX to submit for final publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
For the ethics approval of the task study, “student participants” signed a consent form.
The research ethics committee of Larestan University of Medical Sciences certified the survey study.
Research Ethics Committees Certificate
https://figshare.com/s/cda5f78dcd4f975f4ec2
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16577735
Additional Files
Plagiarism Assessment Survey Data This file contains all of the Plagiarism Assessment Survey Data for this project. https://www.figshare.com/s/b9d9fda7a9aa32b74575https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21302052
Table 6 This file contains the Plagiarism Scoring Rubric. https://www.figshare.com/s/55d05abf1ea2e7d9e078https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21302184
The Project Procedure This file contains the Procedure of Developing the Plagiarism Assessment Rubric. https:///www.figshare.com/s/15482f5a4b4b22f046eahttps://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21302559
Competing interests
The authors declared no competing interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
“Developing a Comprehensive Plagiarism Assessment Rubric” contributes to the advancement of a new approach to plagiarism assessment in higher education and is a candidate for publication in the Education and Information Technologies.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Shoyukhi, M., Vossen, P.H., Ahmadi, A.H. et al. Developing a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric. Educ Inf Technol 28, 5893–5919 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11365-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11365-1