One Page Response For This Discussion Post Must Be APA Three

One Page Response For This Discussion Post Must Be APA Three Schola

A Brief Statement that Summarizes the Literature I Have Reviewed to Date Researchers have found that approximately half of all undergraduate college students have committed some form of plagiarism (Blum, 2011). However, this number may be inaccurate because some students may not admit to plagiarism and because it does not take into account all ways in which students can plagiarize (Colella-Sandercock, 2015). A relatively new way for students to plagiarize is to use paraphrasing websites (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017).

These are free websites where students can copy information from a source onto the website, and the website will then rewrite the information for students free of charge (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). Although these websites are called paraphrasing websites , they do not actually paraphrase information. Instead, they replace words found in the original text with synonyms (Kannangara, 2017). This is also known as patchworking, which is considered a form of plagiarism (Howard, 1992). Sometimes, the patchworking done by these paraphrasing websites makes the new passage to sound unintelligible (Kannangara, 2017).

Despite this, it has been suggested that students might use paraphrasing websites because they believe their papers will go undetected by plagiarism detection software (Kannangara, 2017; Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). However, more research is needed to support this claim (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). There might be other reasons why students use these websites (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). Academic locus of control is one theory that explains why some students choose to commit other forms of plagiarism (Bretag et al., 2014; Pino & Smith, 2003; Power, 2009). Academic locus of control refers to whether students take personal responsibility, or blame others for their academic successes or failures (Pino & Smith, 2003).

Researchers have found that students with high internal locus of control, which means that they take personal responsibility for their academic successes and failures, are less likely to plagiarize than students with high external locus of control, which means that students believe that someone else besides them is to blame for academic successes and failures (Power, 2009). However, past research findings on academic locus of control should not be generalized to students who use paraphrasing websites, because researchers did not measure this type of plagiarism in their studies (Pino & Smith, 2003; Power, 2009).

Paper For Above instruction

The existing literature on plagiarism among college students highlights a concerning prevalence of dishonest academic practices, with estimates suggesting that nearly 50% of students have engaged in some form of plagiarism (Blum, 2011). Nonetheless, these figures might underrepresent the actual extent due to students' reluctance to admit such behaviors and the limitations of detection tools. Crucially, a burgeoning form of plagiarism involves the use of paraphrasing websites, which have gained popularity due to their ease of use and perceived ability to evade plagiarism detection software (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). These tools often do not genuinely paraphrase but instead replace words with synonyms, a practice known as patchworking, which constitutes a form of plagiarism (Howard, 1992; Kannangara, 2017). The problems with this approach extend beyond academic integrity, as the resulting content can be unintelligible and superficial, thus failing to foster meaningful learning and critical thinking skills.

Research suggests that students may turn to these paraphrasing websites because of a belief that such methods are less likely to be caught by software (Kannangara, 2017). However, there is limited empirical evidence to confirm this assumption, and further investigation is needed to understand whether these tools genuinely provide an untraceable shortcut to plagiarism (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). Factors influencing why students engage in various forms of academic dishonesty include personality traits, cultural attitudes, and psychological factors such as locus of control (Bretag et al., 2014; Pino & Smith, 2003). The concept of academic locus of control involves students' perceptions of responsibility for their academic outcomes—those with an internal locus tend to accept personal responsibility, whereas those with an external locus shift blame to external circumstances or other people (Pino & Smith, 2003; Power, 2009). Studies indicate that students with high internal locus are less prone to plagiarism because they value honesty and personal effort, whereas those with external locus may justify dishonest acts as external circumstances or perceived unfairness (Power, 2009).

Most investigations have concentrated on the technical and behavioral aspects of plagiarism, such as detection methods and the quality of paraphrasing tools. Nonetheless, a significant gap remains in understanding the motivational and psychological drivers behind the use of paraphrasing websites, particularly among psychological students who are required to develop strong paraphrasing skills (Gullifer & Tyson, 2010; Owens & White, 2013). There is also a need to examine the role of locus of control specifically in students who use these online tools, as current research does not address whether students' perceptions of responsibility influence their choice to use paraphrasing websites. The limitations of current studies include reliance on self-reported data, which may be biased, and small sample sizes that restrict generalizability (Colella-Sandercock, 2017; Walker, 2010). Moreover, the potential underreporting of plagiarism due to social desirability bias complicates efforts to accurately assess its prevalence (Blum, 2011). Therefore, more comprehensive, qualitative research exploring students' perceptions and motivations is necessary to fully understand this evolving phenomenon.

References

• Blum, S. D. (2011). My word!: Plagiarism and college culture. Cornell University Press.
• Colella-Sandercock, J. A. (2017). Self-reporting in plagiarism research: How honest is this approach? Journal of Research Practice, 12(2).
• Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students' perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463-478.
• Howard, R. M. (1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 113-124.
• Kannangara, D. N. (2017). Quality, ethics, and plagiarism issues in documents generated using word spinning software. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practices, 7(1), 24-32.
• Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2003). College students and academic dishonesty. College Student Journal, 37(4), 529-535.
• Power, L. (2009). University students’ perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 643-658.
• Rogerson, A. M., & McCarthy, G. (2017). Using internet-based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), 1-15.
• Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41-54.
• Warn, J. (2006). Plagiarism software: No magic bullet! Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 195-209.