The Pedagogical Challenge of Cyber-plagiarism Among Future Educators

Warren A. Ramos, Ed. D.

jaucian_cruz@yahoo.com

Our Lady of Fatima University

College of Education

ABSTRACT

Many stakeholders in the education sector have failed to notice the challenges in

assigning paper works among students. With the unlimited access of students in the use

of information and communication technology (ICT), the academic integrity is at stake

if remain unnoticed. Teachers and future educators must be tapped in these many- sided

issues to implement preventive measures in cyber-plagiarism that may cause short term

and long term negative effects to the academic integrity of schools in specific and to the

country in general.

This study employed descriptive survey and correlation design to identify,

differentiate and correlate the fourth year education students’ extent of awareness and

the extent of committing cyber-plagiarism. The participants were 55 fourth year

education students and their 10 teachers in an identified university in the Philippines.

The statistical methods used to analyze the data were weighted mean, t-test of

independence and Spearman’s r coefficient of correlation.

The result of the study discussed that majority of the respondents used Google

as their search engine in the internet when doing paper works. The study also revealed

that the student- respondents were highly aware in the forms of cyber-plagiarism.

Despite of this remarkable extent of awareness, majority of them also admitted that

they committed the different forms of cyber-plagiarism to a moderate extent. In the

survey conducted to the teachers, they revealed that the students have also cyber-

plagiarize very often. The p-value (.142 > α 0.05) for the significant difference in the

extent of cyber-plagiarism behavior as assessed by the students and teachers revealed

that there is no significant difference in the assessment of the respondents with respect

to the observed cyber –plagiarism behaviors of the fourth year education students. The

challenging part of the study was the significant moderate correlation ( r= .554 )

between the extent of awareness and the extent of committing cyber-plagiarism among

students. These were supported by the student-respondents perceived reasons of

committing these acts.

The findings of the study led to the recommendation for the teachers and future

educators to practice and implement proposed preventive strategies in cyber-plagiarism

using the Anti –cyber-plagiarism in Education Strategies (ACES ). School

administrators were also advised to set clear policies and guidelines on academic

integrity specifically on cyber- plagiarism and strictly monitor its implementation.

Keywords: Pedagogical Challenge, Academic Integrity, Cyber-plagiarism, Anti-cyber-plagiarism in

Education Strategies (ACES)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Every educator has a multiplier effect. Whatever he or she does in the classroom

may leave an inerasable mark on the students’ mind. This in time may greatly affect the

students’ awareness, attitudes and action and may be passed on to many people.

Looking into a bigger picture there is an alarming threat for the future front- liners in

education- the students in the College of Education. Education teachers must serve as a

role model in all their actions specifically in writing, submitting and presenting

information. They must possess the highest form of academic integrity in the practice

of teaching profession. In other words, teachers and education students should have the

highest extent of awareness and act of academic integrity at all times.

In today’s generation of teachers-to-be, there is a pedagogical challenge in the use

of information and communication technology (ICT) in submitting paper works. Ethical

uses of digital resources must be addressed to education students in order to equip them

in battling against cyber-plagiarism. According to Jones (2007), cyber-plagiarism is an

act of cutting and pasting material from an electronic source without paraphrasing,

annotating, and submitting the material as his or her own work. It is one form of

criminal act according to Republic Act 10175 which is also known as the Cyber-crime

Law of 2012. Preventing this cyber-plagiarism behaviors requires the faculty and future

educators to recognize that students have myriad of reasons and different chances to

cheat. Different forms and reasons of academic integrity must be addressed to help

teachers redesign the education environment that will minimize the opportunity and

benefits of using ICT to cyber-plagiarize. In fact, statistical and anecdotal evidence

underscores several disturbing trends, indicating that cheating at the college level is not

only occurring more frequently, but the students are using much more sophisticated

methods for them to prepare and submit their paper works.

There is little literature and research developed on academic integrity specifically

on cyber-plagiarism among College of education students. It is a topic that, until now,

has not been explored extensively but needs to be investigated due to its short term and

long term effects in the pedagogy.

The intent of the researcher is not to claim that the use of ICT have resulted in

aberrant cyber-plagiarism behaviors. Rather, the investigation of cyber-plagiarism

provides some useful insights on the role of teachers and future educators in helping the

students to practice academic integrity at all times. Clearly, cyber- plagiarism, no

matter the degree of intent to deceive, defeats the purpose of education. If the students

cyber-plagiarize deliberately, they are not educating themselves, and they are wasting

their time on courses meant to improve their skills. If they plagiarize through

carelessness, they are deceiving themselves.

These reasons prompted the researcher to conduct a study on the pedagogical

challenge in cyber-plagiarism among future educators. This study specifically

investigated the extent of awareness and extent of cyber-plagiarism behaviors among

fourth year College of Education students in an identified university in the Philippines.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the pedagogical challenge in cyber- plagiarism

among future educators. This study is intended to answer the following questions:

1. What is the Education students’ most commonly used search engine in the

internet when doing the assigned paper works?

2. What is the Education students’ extent of awareness in cyber-plagiarism in

accomplishing their paper works?

3. What is the Education students’ extent of cyber-plagiarism behaviors in

accomplishing their paper works?

4. What is the Education teachers’ assessment of their students’ extent of cyber-

plagiarism behaviors?

5. Is there a significant difference in the professors’ and students’ assessment of

cyber-plagiarism behaviors?

6. Is there a significant relationship between the education students’ extent of

awareness and their extent of cyber-plagiarism behaviors?

7. What may be the most common reasons why students cyber-plagiarize?

8. How may the findings of the study and the existing literature be utilized in

developing an anti- cyber-plagiarism in education strategies ( ACES )?

2.0 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the theory of Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive

Dissonance ( 1957).The researcher would like to find out if there is really an apparent gap

between the extent of awareness and practice of cyber-plagiarism and this theory will

make the findings of the study justify the rudiments of cyber-plagiarism behaviors.

According to Metim and Camgoz (2011), Festingers’ cognitive dissonance refers to the

psychologically uncomfortable existence of conflicting attitudes and behavior which

pushes a person to try to reduce it to achieve balance. Individuals, according to Festinger,

will seek to resolve the internal inconsistency brought by the conflict between their

attitude and their behavior. Previous findings of Mones (2013) showed that most

respondents had committed plagiarism and at the same time being aware that it is wrong.

In connection to this, Tsang,O and Choy, A. (2006) claimed in their study that there were

no concrete relationships between the awareness and cyber- plagiarism behaviors on the

respondents in their study. This is why part of the utilization of the findings of the study

is the anti- cyber- plagiarism model that will consider other reasons why do students

cheat. These findings call for the need to reinforce academic integrity among future

educators and review the existing policies and guidelines for the prevention of this form

of cybercrime.

2.2 Related Studies

Legal Framework of Cyber- Plagiarism Behaviors in the Philippines

As stated by Pagunsan (2010), the governing law in the Philippines is the

Intellectual Property Code, which took effect on January 1, 1998. This law superseded

Presidential Decree P. D., and other related laws. The subject to copyright protection are

literary and artistic works (section 172) and derivative works ( section 173). In section

184, there are limitations on copyright law. These acts shall not constitute infringement

of copyright; 1) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made

accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or it made strictly for a

charitable or religious institution or society; 2) the making of quotations from a published

work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose,

including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press

summaries: Provided, that the source and name of the author, if appearing on the work,

are mentioned; 3) The reproduction of communication to the public by mass media of

articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures,

addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is

for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source

is clearly indicated. This means that the cyber-plagiarism behaviors cover most of the

copying and pasting of information from the internet without citing the author/s of the

article.

The second baseline of cyber-plagiarism is found in the Republic Act 10175 or

the Cybercrime Law of 2012. According to the Official Gazzette (2012), in SEC. 4. under

Cybercrime Offenses explains the acts that constitute the offense of cybercrime against

the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems. Computer-

related Identity Theft is another form of cybercrime which refers to intentional

acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying

information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right or

permission from the author.

In some universities in the National Capital Region, cases of academic dishonesty

like cyber-plagiarism have to be reviewed under the light of that included in the

Cybercrime Law. Cavanillas (2008) pointed out the “ lack of integrity” categorization is

lacking to include cases of cyber-plagiarism. He suggested that there must be a

distinction between cases in which the student omits citing the source of some of the

information from other articles. In this case, the teacher must inform the students about

handling external sources to avoid plagiarism. Clavanillas also added that whether it is

just a portion or whole part copy pasting, it will still be categorized as having “lack of

integrity”.

Forms of Cyber-plagiarism in Accomplishing Assigned Paper Works

From the definition of cyber-plagiarism as stated by Eysenbach (2000), it is a case

where someone or group of people, intentionally taking information, phrases or thoughts

from the World Wide Web ( WWW) and using it in a scholarly article without attributing

the origin. There are only few schools who have established specific forms of cyber-

plagiarism. This is one of the reasons why the researcher conducted this study.

Referring to the legal framework of cyber-plagiarism, teachers need to consider

that their students’ use of content without paraphrasing or without proper attribution often

represent cyber-plagiarism.

Consequences of Cyber-plagiarism Behaviors in the Pedagogy

One of the reasons why students commit cyber-plagiarism is that they are not aware of

the consequences of this act when proven guilty. As stated by Bilbao et. al. (2012) in

Republic Act 7836 which is an act to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the

practice of teaching in the Philippines and prescribing a licensure examination for

teachers, Section 23.the teachers’ certificate of registration may be revoked upon a)

conviction for any criminal offense by a court of competent jurisdiction; and b) immoral,

unprofessional or dishonorable act. For a licensed teacher who committed cyber-

plagiarism which is a dishonorable act, license may be revoked if found guilty by the

authorities.

Reasons Why Students Cyber- plagiarize in Accomplishing Assigned Course Work

Pupovac, V., Bilic-Zulle, L.,Petrovecki, M. (2008) mentioned in their findings

that students are generally aware that plagiarism is a form of dishonest behavior but they

still commit it. One of the cited reasons by the students is because of the tight deadline or

too much work to do and not enough time.

As stated by Forgas, Negre and Mut ( 2010) in their research findings, the internet has

become the students’ main source of plagiarism of academic essays. Most of the students

exploit the benefits of Information and Communication Technology ( ICT ) and commit

cyber-plagiarism because of the easily accessible information from it. Students also

believe that cyber-plagiarism act will not be detected by their professors (Pupovac, V.,

Bilic-Zulle, L.,Petrovecki, M.,2008). Aside from this, it was also revealed that there is a

substantial prevalence of self-plagiarism and peer-to-peer plagiarism when elaborating

essays.

Prevention of Cyber- plagiarism in Schools

From the different literature reviewed by the researcher, there is now a wide

array options available to educators to deter students from committing cyber-plagiarism.

First, students must be taught of the importance of honesty and professional work

(Petrovecki, 2001). Aside from this, Pupovac et al.( 2008 ) added that students must have

active involvement in the different forms of scientific and academic integrity, including

plagiarism. Their awareness should be raised regarding the unacceptability of cyber-

plagiarism behavior. As stated by Conradson, Stacey and Ramos (2004), teachers may

employ the application of commercial, technology- based tools to detect cyber-

plagiarized paper –works, establishment of academic policies on cyber-plagiarism and

the re-evaluation and redesigning of traditional methods of assessing students learning

outcome. Forgas, Negre and Mut ( 2010) suggested that the effects of the environment on

the students’ attitude, values and behaviors must be addressed in order to remedy the

situation.

2.3 Research Simulacrum

Students’ Extent of Awareness in Cyber-plagiarism

Students’ Extent of Cyber-plagiarism Behaviors (self- assessment )

Students’ Extent of Cyber- Plagiarism Behaviors(as assessed by teachers )

Ho 1 Ho2

Anti- Cyber-plagiarism in Education Strategies ( ACES )

3.0 RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Research Design

The researcher used the descriptive- correlation design in this study to determine

the relationship existing between fourth year education students’ extent of awareness on

forms of cyber-plagiarism and extent of cyber plagiarism behavior in preparing and

submitting paper works. The responses of students and teachers were also correlated for

significant difference in their assessment of cyber- plagiarism behaviors of the fourth

year education students.

3.2 Research Setting

The study was conducted in one of the autonomous university located in Quezon

City Philippines. The population of this study were all the fourth year students (N= 71)

in the College of Education based on the data given by the Office of the Registrar. Out of

71 respondents, 55 were present during the gathering of data because some fourth year

students are in their respective school assignment in the field study course.

3.3 Research Instrument

The researcher made use of a self-constructed questionnaire validated by a

lawyer, a dean of the College of Education, a coordinator of Education, a grammarian

and an statistician. Comments and suggestions given by the experts were collated and

integrated into survey format prior to its pilot study and for reliability test. The first part

of the survey was the profile of the College of Education fourth year students which

includes the search engine they commonly used in doing paper works. The second part of

the questionnaire was the students’ extent of awareness in cyber –plagiarism. The third

part of the survey was the extent of cyber- plagiarism behaviors of the students as

assessed by themselves and by their professors in education. The revised version of the

instrument underwent pilot study to 20 fourth year students in different campus of the

University which was randomly selected. The researcher used the Cronbach’s alpha since

the survey used Likert scale. Reliability analysis revealed that the research tool have

higher over-all reliability value (alpha=.89) compared to the cut-off value (alpha= .80).

3.4 Ethical Considerations

Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the different sectors including

the President of the university through the administrative dean of the campus, the

research director and the respondents of the study which includes the students and

teachers in the College of Education.

During the conduct of the study, the respondents were given free will to answer

the survey tool on their awareness and cyber-plagiarism behaviors. Aside from this, the

researcher guaranteed to the respondents that the information would not be made

available to anyone who has not directly involved in the study.

3.5 Gathering of Data

A written informed consent was furnished and provided to the research locale and

to the respondents. The researcher personally gathers the data since the student-

respondents are his students. The student- respondents as well as the teachers were

informed about the purpose of the study before the questionnaires were distributed. The

survey tools were retrieved after which these were tabulated and subjected for statistical

analysis.

3.6 Statistical Treatment

The statistical techniques used for in depth analysis and interpretation of data

were frequency and percentage and weighted mean, t-test and Spearman’s r correlation of

coefficient. The sum of the weighted mean of the respondents was based on the range

from the Likert scale used.

_______________________________________ Range Verbal Interpretation Symbol

_______________________________________5.00- 4.50 Very High Extent VHE

4.49-3.50 High Extent HE

3.49- 2.50 Moderate Extent ME

2.49-1.50 Low Extent LE

1.49-0 Very Low Extent VLE

_____________________________________________________

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Most Commonly Used Search Engine

Table 1 presents the most common search engine of the student-respondents in doing their

paper works. Majority of the students use google as their reference for their paper works. The

findings will help the teachers and future educators to verify if there are traces of plagiarism in

the paper works submitted by students. Even though google can be used to detect plagiarized

paper works, Conradson, Stacey and Ramos (2004) stressed in their studies that

technology-based tools for detecting plagiarized school work have evolved. Some

schools deploy services of TurnItIn.com, InteriGuard, WorkCheck Software, and Essay

Verification Engine ( Eve 2.2).

4.2 Extent of Awareness in the Acts of Cyber-plagiarism

Table 2 presents the fourth year education students extent of awareness in the

different acts of cyber-plagiarism. As observed, there was indeed a high extent of

awareness in the grand mean which is 3.71 indicating that majority of the respondents are

knowledgeable and understand these acts. Despite of these findings, Tsang (2005)

stressed that continual efforts to educate the students about cyber-plagiarism are desirable

in upholding academic integrity.

Table 2 Summary of the Respondent's Extent of Awareness in Cyber-plagiarism

Indicators               Mean Verbal Interpretation

1.      Claiming submitting another’s paper work or creation as own work. 4.22 High Extent 2.      Combines partially or the entire cited sources with copied passages without citation. 3.90 High Extent3.      Contains significant portions of text from a single source without changing the ideas. 3.90 High Extent4.      Mixes copied material from two or more sources. 4.04 High Extent5.      Paraphrases the ideas from multiple sources and tried to make them fit together. 3.90 High Extent6.      Annotated the source/s but the information is inaccurate about sources. 3.24 Moderate Extent7.      Includes proper citation to sources but all the contents were copy pasted. 3.70 High Extent8 Buying or purchasing paper from the internet and claim it as your own work. 3.22 Moderate Extent9. Copy and pasting pictures without stating the author. 3.60 High Extent10. Uploading or using parts or the entire content of the video from the internet 3.20 Moderate Extent and claiming it as your own.          GrandMean     3.71 High Extent5.00-4.50-Very High Extent,4.49-3.50-High Extent, 3.49-2.50- Moderate Extent, 2.49-1.50-Low Extent, 1.49-0.50- Very Low Ext

4.3 Extent of Students’ Cyber-plagiarism Behaviors

The data above implies that majority of the fourth year education

students cyber-plagiarize very often. The three highest means from table 3

coincides to the findings of Tsang (2005) that majority of the students admitted frequent

commission of cyber-plagiarism specifically in obtaining essay on the internet. In

connection to the Table 1, the student- respondents were highly aware of cyber-

plagiarism but they still do it much often. Cavanillas (2008) stressed that these cases of

plagiarism have to be examined under the light of Cybercrime Law in general and the

Institutional manual in specific. Aside from these, the student’s manual in some

universities does not state the distinction between cases when they negligently omits

citing the source of some of the information included in their works.

Table 3 Summary of the Respondent's Extent of Cyber-plagiarism Behaviors

Indicators               Mean Verbal Interpretation

1.      Claiming submitting another’s paper work or creation as own work. 3.04 Often 2.      Combines partially or the entire cited sources with copied passages without citation. 3.4 Often3.      Contains significant portions of text from a single source without changing the ideas. 3.58 Frequently4.      Mixes copied material from two or more sources. 3.69 Frequently5.      Paraphrases the ideas from multiple sources and tried to make them fit together. 3.98 Frequently6.      Annotated the source/s but the information is inaccurate about sources. 2.98 Often7.      Includes proper citation to sources but all the contents were copy pasted. 3.4 Often8 Buying or purchasing paper from the internet and claim it as your own work. 2.51 Often9. Copy and pasting pictures without stating the author. 3.33 Often10. Uploading and using parts or the entire content of the video from the internet 2.65 Often and claiming it as your own.          GrandMean     3.26 Often5.00-4.50-Always,4.49-3.50-Frequently, 3.49-2.50- Often, 2.49-1.50-Sometimes, 1.49-0.50- Never

4.4 Extent of Students’ Cyber-plagiarism Behaviors According to the Education

Teachers

In order to avoid the subjectivity of the findings, the researcher also conducted

the survey to the teachers of the respondents. The Education teachers revealed that based

on their observation and checked paper works of students, students cyber-plagiarize often

times. In this case, most of the teachers opined that the teacher has no authority to

directly impose deduction of grades due to misbehavior of students or as a form of

disciplinary measures as stated in the Batas Pambansa 232. This opinion was supported

by Cavanillas (2008) in his findings that the teacher has no legal hold or direct control of

students particularly in making deductions in grades. On the contrary, Cavanillas also

clarified that the teacher can include the rule as part of the rubrics in checking the paper

works of students.

4.6 Significant Difference in the Respondents Assessment of Students’ Extent of Cyber-

plagiarism Behaviors

Table 6 presents the significant difference in the extent of cyber-plagiarism behaviors

of education students as assessed by the students themselves and their teachers. As shown on the

table, the computed t- value of 1.745 is lesser than the tabulated t-value of 2.120 and concludes

that there is no significant difference in their assessed cyber-plagiarism behaviors of fourth year

education students. With the results presented, it implies that the students response to the survey

have high reliability. In other words, teachers should find methods to deter cyber-plagiarism and

other forms of academic dishonesty. If these acts will be tolerated, it will lead to a greater damage

when they became part of the scientific and academic study. Keep in mind that plagiarized data

are misleading and allow the perpetrator to gain undeserved benefit ( Pupovac, et al., 2008 )

Table 6Significant Difference in the Respondent's Extent of Cyber-plagiarism Behaviors of the Student

   Computed Critical df p-value   Decision Conclusion

    Value value            

Students and Teachers 1.745 2.120 16 0.142 Accept There is no

Observed Ratings HoSignificantDifference

Note: The amount of difference is significant at alpha 0.01 level. (sig. 2-tailed)      

4.7 Significant Relationship in the Student- Respondents’ Extent of Awareness and

Extent of Committing Cyber-plagiarism

Table 4 presents the significant relationship between the fourth year education

students’ extent of awareness in cyber-plagiarism and extent of committing it. As

reflected in the table below, the Spearman’s r Correlation Coefficient is equivalent

to .554 and interpreted as having positive moderate correlation. Thus, it may not

guarantee that high extent of awareness would lead to low or no cyber- plagiarism act on

the part of the students. These alarming findings should be given emphasis in the

pedagogical process. In the European study conducted by Pupovac et. al. (2008), students

are generally aware that plagiarism is a form of dishonest behavior but they still commit

it. In these case, there is a big need to review the reasons why students cyber-plagiarize in

order to give light on how these challenges can be solved or if not be prevented.

Table 4 Significant Relationship of the Respondent's Extent of Cyber-plagiarism Awareness and Behaviors

   Computed Critical df Degree of   Decision Conclusion

    Value value   relationship      Awareness and PositiveAct of 0.554 0.352 55 Moderate Reject There is a

Cyber- Plagiarism Correlation HoSignificantRelationship

Note: The amount of difference is significant at alpha 0.01 level. (sig. 2-tailed)      

4.8 Reasons of Committing Cyber-plagiarism

Table 5 explicates the top 10 reasons why students cyber-plagiarize. The least rank stated

that the students cheat in their paper works because they look for the easiest and fastest way to

accomplish their task. The highest rank goes to the lack of students’ understanding of the purpose

and importance of accomplishing the paper works in the attainment of their degree.

Table 5 Top 10 Reasons Why Students Cyber-plagirize               

1.      Students look for the easy way out of completing the paper work

2.      Insufficient amount of time was given to finish the task

3.      Students poor time management

4.      Lack of knowledge about what is allowed and what is not allowed by the teacher.

5.      The assigned task or paper work is very difficult to accomplish.

6.      The student is lazy.

7.      The students want to pass the course at any price.

8 There is no clear criterion in grading the paper work.9. The students lack knowledge in writing scientific and technical papers.10. The student did not understand the purpose of the task or paper works.

               

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were made.

5.1 Google is the most commonly used search engine by the students in making paper

works.

5.2 The fourth year education students have high extent of awareness in the cyber-

plagiarism behaviors.

5.3 Majority of the fourth year education students committed cyber-plagiarism more

often in making and submitting their paper works.

5.4 Teachers also observed that most of the students commit cyber-plagiarism very often

in their submitted paper works.

5.5 There were ten most common reasons why students in commit cyber-plagiarism.

Some of their reasons are; a) they cyber – plagiarize in their paper works because

they look for the easiest and fastest way to accomplish their task; and b) the lack of

students’ understanding of the purpose and importance of accomplishing the paper

works in the attainment of their degree.

5.6 There is a moderate correlation between the students’ extent of awareness and

committing cyber-plagiarism in preparing and submitting paper works.

5.7 There is no significant difference in students and teachers assessment of the cyber-

plagiarism behaviors of fourth year education students.

5.8 The following strategies were formulated and collated by the researcher in order to

help schools specifically Teacher Education Institutions to take proactive role in the

pedagogical challenges of cyber-plagiarism based on the cited literature and the

findings of the study.

Anti-cyber-plagiarism in Education Strategies ( ACES )

5.8.1 Self- Preventive Techniques for Students

a) Be aware of the rules and regulations on cyber-plagiarism and other

academic integrity concerns based on the students handbook.

b) Learn the expected outcome of doing the paper works.

c) Know and understand the criteria and rubrics in assessing your work.

d) Understand the instructions and guidelines in accomplishing the paper

works.

e) Learn how to paraphrase passages and quotation.

f) Cite the references correctly.

5.8.2 For Teachers

a) Distribute worksheets and discuss about plagiarism, consequences, right

behavior and self- preventive techniques.

b) For the students’ awareness strategy, make them understand the

relevance, expected outcomes, rules, guidelines, and criteria for grading

the assigned paper works. In other words, make the assignment or project

clear on the part of the students.

c) For the early detection of cyber-plagiarism, look for the common clues;

know where the resources are; make an initial search in the google; and

use a plagiarism detector software.

d) Give the students ample time to finish the assigned paper works.

Teachers can provide a Ghantt Chart to monitor the progress of the paper

works.

5.8.3 For the Administrators and Educational Leaders

a) formulate specific rules and sanctions on cyber-plagiarism instead of

using the general term academic honesty and integrity.

b) encourage the teachers to provide use the syllabus for the explanation

expected outcome, properly use of the rubrics and explaining cyber-

plagiarism in the similar context.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results, findings and conclusions, the following recommendations were

formulated:

6.1 To the respondents, they have to be responsible to learn the rules and regulations

set by the university specifically in terms of academic integrity. Since learning is a

two-way process, they have to cooperate with the teacher by asking questions and

clarifying information about the assigned paper works.

6.2 To the teachers, they must consider the learners as the center of the curriculum,

not a subject matter. Assigning paper works must be based on their capacity, interest

and understanding. Also inform students what is allowed and what is not allowed in

their paper works by providing them clear objectives, criteria and picture of the

expected output.

6.3 To the administrators and educational leaders, that may establish standards and

explicit rules to prevent the challenges of cyber-plagiarism and other acts of

plagiarism.

6.4 To the educational institutions, that they seriously and consistently uphold the

aims of developing students and future educators who are well adept in making and

presenting paper works with utmost academic integrity.

6.5 To the future researchers, that they may conduct the same study to the different

programs in other research environment to be able to give recommendations that may

promote strategies to combat cyber-plagiarism in schools.

References

Bilbao,P.,Corpuz, B. Llagas, A., Salandanan, G. (2012). The Teaching Profession.

Lorimar Publishing, Inc. 2nd Ed., Quezon City, Philippines.

Conradson, Stacey and Ramos (2004). Computers, Internet and Cheating among

Secondary School Students: Some Implications for Educators. Practical

assessment , Research and Evaluation,9 (9).ISSN 1531-7714

Downie, N. and Heath, R., Basic Statistical Methods. (1984), Harper and Row,

Publishers, Inc. New York. 5th Ed.

Duka, C. (2008). The Law and the Teaching Profession in the Philippines.C & E

Publishing, Inc., Quezon City, Philippines.

Eysenbach, G. (2000). Report of a case of cyber-plagiarism – and reflections on detecting

and preventing academic misconduct Using the Internet. University of

Heisenberg, Department of Clinical Social Medicine, Germany

Forgas, Negre and Mut ( 2010). Academic plagiarism prevalence among Spanish

Undergraduate Students: An Exploratory Analysis. Biochemia Medica 2010; 20

(3): 301-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2010.038

Harris, R. ( 2012) Anti- plagiarism Strategies for Research Papers. www.virtual.salt.com

Jones, O. , Reid, J. ,Barlett, R. (2008). “Cyber Cheating in an Information Technology

Age” .Digithum. No. 10. UOC. .< http://www.uoc.edu/

digithum/10/dt/eng/pupovac_bilic-zulle_petrovecki.pdf>ISSN 1575-2275

Lagrada, H.,Ramos, W., Faustino, M., Segovia, J. (2011) Our Lady of Fatima University

Graduate School Student Handbook, Valenzuela City, Philippines

Metin, Irem, Camgoz, Selin ( 2011).The Advances in the History of Cognitive Dissonance Theory, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No. 6 Turkey. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._6;_June_2011/14.pdf

Mones, Rodessa D. (2013 ) College Students’ Information Exposure, Knowledge and Attitude Towards Plagiarism, and their Practices in Using Print and Online

Reference Materials. http://devcompage.com/?p=3742.Visayas State Central University

Pagunsan, S. (2010). The Law and Advertising. Revised ed. C & E Publishing, Inc.

Quezon City, Philippines.

Pupovac, V., Bilic-Zulle, L.,Petrovecki, M. (2008) “ On Academic Plagiarism in Europe.

An Analytical Approach Based on Four Studies”.Digithum. No. 10.UOC.<

http://www.uoc.edu/digithum/10/dt/eng/pupovac_bilic-

zulle_petrovecki.pdf>ISSN 1575-2275

Official Gazzette. (2012).An Act Defining Cybercrime, providing for the prevention,

investigation, suppression and the Imposition of Penalties Therefore and for Other

purposes. http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/

Sunga, F. (2010). Q.A. On Governance for Basic Education and Regulations Governing

Public Schools. 1st Edition.

Tsang,O and Choy, A. (2005) A Survey on Awareness and Attitudes Towards Plagiarism

Among Computer Science Freshmen.

Roberts, T.(2008). Students Plagiarism in an Online World: Problems and Solutions, New York. Information Science Reference.