jackson.indd Plagiarism Instruction Online: Assessing Undergraduate Students’ Ability to Avoid Plagiarism Pamela A. Jackson This study assesses undergraduate students’ understanding of plagia- rism through the use of an interactive, Web-based tutorial, Plagiarism: The Crime of Intellectual Kidnapping.The author details the instructional design process used to create this information literacy resource and integrate it into the curriculum. Data from 2,829 student quiz scores are analyzed to assess student learning. The results of this study indicate that students have difficulty grasping concepts related to paraphrasing. A comparative analysis of pre- and posttest results shows that student scores improved an average of 6 percent. ampuses nationwide are in- creasingly aware of plagiarism problems in academic com- munities. Studies conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity point to an increase in plagiarism, with over 75 percent of students admi ing to some cheating.1 High profile cases of pla- giarism in journalism, politics, and other professional fields have brought more media a ention to widespread plagiarism problems from high school students to career professionals.2 On a 2004 episode of Primetime Thursday, students told host Charles Gibson that competition for good grades, coupled with the lack of enforce- ment against cheating, make academic in- tegrity seem unimportant.3 Many college campuses are pushing for higher levels of academic integrity through the creation of new policies and awareness programs. Educators are calling for strengthened teaching methodologies to help students avoid plagiarism. To answer the call, librarians are looking for pedagogical ways to help campuswide initiatives in support of a culture of integrity. To have the most effective impact, plagiarism instruction should be infused throughout students’ everyday academic lives. Librarians continually work with instructors to develop plagiarism-proof assignments and tailor discipline-specific instruction. As will be explored in the literature review, research shows that stu- dents lack a fundamental understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. The library, as a center for teach- ing and learning, is in a unique position to provide wide-scale plagiarism instruction through the use of Web-based informa- tion literacy tutorials, such as Plagiarism: Pamela A. Jackson is Information Literacy Librarian at San Diego State University; e-mail: pjackson@rohan. sdsu.edu. Special thanks to the tutorial development team: Bridget Kowalczyk, Information Literacy Compe- tency Coordinator; Jie (Jessie) Cai, programming; Wan Si Wan, graphics and animation; Andrea Lam, graph- ics; Baotran (Jenny) La, programming; and the King Library Web Team, testing and technical support. 418 http:sdsu.edu Plagiarism Instruction Online 419 The Crime of Intellectual Kidnapping4 at San José State University (SJSU). Libraries recognize the need for inno- vative ways to stimulate student learning in a digital age in which students’ educa- tional expectations revolve around tech- nology.5 Web-based information literacy tutorials allow students to learn important research skills at their own pace, outside traditional class time and classrooms. Web-based instruction affords students the opportunity to learn when it is con- venient for them. Online tutorials may be suited to individual learning styles as they employ text, audio, visual, and hands-on application of knowledge. Web-based tu- torials are one successful way to provide a common foundation of knowledge among students, allowing librarians to make the most of their physical time with students in the classroom during what is usually a one-hour, one-shot library instruction session. Studies show that Web-based tu- torials are at least as effective as in-person library instruction in teaching students information literacy skills.6 This article first details the instructional design process used to create and integrate this Web-based tutorial into the curriculum. The research study investigates students’ understanding of plagiarism, paraphras- ing, and citing sources. The major goals of this study were to assess whether or not the tutorial improved students’ understanding of plagiarism; ascertain which academic colleges or programs are integrating the tutorial into their curriculum; and identify areas in which students need more instruc- tion related to plagiarism and academic integrity. Based on conversations with in- structors and a review of the literature, the working hypothesis for this study was that students’ pos est scores would be higher than their pretest scores but that they would show difficulty grasping concepts related to paraphrasing. Review of the Literature Library’s Role in Plagiarism Instruction Much has been wri en about policing and detecting plagiarism.7 In recent years, more has been wri en to encourage li- brarians, as educators and collaborators, to take on more active roles in plagiarism instruction. Both John Gresham and Mar- garet Burke advocate for librarians raising awareness of plagiarism and detection services. However, Burke concludes that educating students about plagiarism and how to avoid it should be the primary concentration in universities.8 As a center for learning on campus, it makes sense that libraries be involved in plagiarism awareness and instruction. D. Sco Brandt notes that librarians are in a unique position to understand plagiarism in its broader context and proposes five ways for librarians to get involved, in- cluding defining plagiarism for students and using examples that place plagiarism in context.9 In their article about the library’s role in plagiarism instruction, Nicole J. Auer and Ellen M. Krupar sug- gest that librarians proactively seek new opportunities to discuss the ethical use of information with students.10 Aside from including plagiarism in- struction in what is usually a one-hour, one-shot library instruction session, librar- ians are encouraged to collaborate with instructors on assignments that prevent plagiarism and promote information literacy. Auer and Krupar suggest that “Librarians, as research and informa- tion literacy experts, should help faculty examine their existing or future assign- ments to determine the ease with which students could plagiarize.”11 Janet McNeil Hurlbert, Cathleen R. Savidge, and Geor- gia L. Laudenslager emphasize the need for librarians to work with instructors on creating learner-centered, process-based research assignments that focus on the information sources used and require students to develop higher-level critical thinking and evaluation skills.12 Lynn D. Lampert points out that while information about plagiarism detection is important, librarians and instructors should col- laborate to develop discipline-specific plagiarism instruction to make academic integrity more meaningful to students.13 http:students.13 http:skills.12 http:students.10 420 College & Research Libraries September 2006 Students Lack Understanding of Plagia- rism and Proper Paraphrasing Research on academic integrity provides valuable insight into students’ under- standing of plagiarism. Brandt raises the question, “Can it be possible that students today don’t really understand what pla- giarism is?”14 There is clearly evidence to support the notion that students, in fact, do not understand plagiarism and lack the necessary skills to avoid it. In 1994, Stephen Wilhoit suggested that educators spend more time teach- ing students how to avoid plagiarism. He notes that while some students make a conscious decision to cheat, there are many incidents of accidental plagia- rism.15 Many authors agree that students lack understanding of what constitutes plagiarism, how to properly paraphrase, what needs to be cited, and how to cite sources.16 In their 1996 article, Donald Mc- Cabe and Linda Klebe Trevino show that while plagiarism rates have gone down slightly over time, failing to properly cite a source has gone up.17 Ruth Stubbings and Alan Brine’s survey of undergradu- ate students at Loughborough University concludes that students are aware of the need for citation but are unsure of how to document sources. Furthermore, only 54 percent of the students they studied agreed or strongly agreed that reword- ing a passage without citing the original source is plagiarism.18 Recent plagiarism research strongly concludes that students lack an under- standing of and ability to paraphrase. In 1997, Miguel Roig tested students’ ability to recognize plagiarized text by giving students original and paraphrased passages. Roig notes that students “ap- peared to be confused as to the extent to which original text needs to be modified and about the conditions under which a citation is necessary.”19 In 1999, Roig con- ducted a second study that asked students to read an original passage and write a paraphrase. When the original passage was more complex, either in subject mat- ter or reading level, students were more likely to plagiarize by simply rearranging the passage, leaving more of the author’s original language in their paraphrase.20 A significant relationship between pla- giarism and students’ knowledge of citing sources and proper paraphrasing is evident. In 2004, Julio G. Soto, Sulekha Anand, and Elizabeth McGee studied three biology courses to determine which anti-plagiarism instructional methods work best and concluded: “All students who plagiarized had problems with proper paraphrasing”21 It is not only clear that students lack the ability to paraphrase, but they also have a hierarchical view of academic integrity. In 1997, Peter Ashworth, Philip Bannister, and Pauline Thorne inter- viewed students to be er understand plagiarism from the students’ point of view. Their study shows that while students perceive a clear line between cheating and plagiarism, the latter is viewed as a lesser offense to academic integrity.22 Verity J. Brown and Mark E. Howell’s 2001 study found that students view paraphrasing without a ributing the source a lesser offense than quoting directly from a source without proper citation. In fact, they found that only half of the respondents thought it “ab- solutely necessary” to cite paraphrased passages.23 Studies such as these may indicate that students’ understanding of intellectual property is based on the actual words but not ideas of another author. Some authors argue that writing methods typically considered plagia- rism, such as piecing together sentences from original passages, are a necessary step for students to learn how to write and engage with scholarly literature.24 Nevertheless, most scholars agree on the importance of academic integrity and teaching students to avoid plagia- rism. McCabe and Trevino stress that: “…creating a culture of academic integ- rity takes years to achieve and demands the commitment of all members of the campus community.”25 Thus, the process http:literature.24 http:passages.23 http:integrity.22 http:paraphrase.20 http:plagiarism.18 http:sources.16 Plagiarism Instruction Online 421 by which librarians involve themselves in academic integrity instruction takes diligent planning. There is no single strategy for librarians and instructors to deter or eliminate plagiarism; however, as C. Brian Smith keenly points out, it is important for librarians to collaborate with campus instructors and admin- istrators to create an overall culture of integrity that deters plagiarism.26 Background In spring 2003, SJSU computer science instructors asked the author, formerly the computer science librarian at SJSU, to help instruct their students about plagiarism. Instructors Debra Caires-Mullens and June Sheldon stated: “Last spring [2003], in or- der to address the issue of plagiarism, we submi ed course assignments to turnitin. com and were astounded to discover that between sixty-three to seventy-five percent of our students plagiarized.”27 Plagiarism detection services, such as Turnitin.com, Eve2, and Gla Plagiarism Services use specialized technology to compare student papers with information found on the Internet as well as databases of previously submi ed papers and provide instructors with reports suggesting how much of a paper is original work and how much, if any, is plagiarized.28 Approximately 150 students complete this required upper- division technical writing course every semester. Each semester, the librarian taught a 75-minute information literacy instruction session during regular class time. For many students, finding, evaluat- ing, and incorporating advanced scientific research articles into their scholarly work is new.29 The librarian sought an innova- tive pedagogical approach to include plagiarism instruction without adversely affecting time for other important informa- tion literacy concepts critical to students’ academic success in the course. Instructional Design: Assessing Curricular Needs Computer science technical writing instructors and the librarian collabo- rated on an instructional plan to teach computer science majors more about plagiarism, paraphrasing, and citing sources. The instructors and librarian wanted students to have a basic under- standing of what constitutes plagiarism, what types of information need to be cited, and how to paraphrase. Con- cern about accidental plagiarism took precedent over the concern of students consciously cheating. This collaboration resulted in the creation of an interactive, Web-based information literacy tutorial about plagiarism. Although initially cre- ated for computer science students, the tutorial quickly gained popularity at all academic levels and in various depart- ments campuswide. Designing the Tutorial Plagiarism: The Crime of Intellectual Kidnap- ping30 teaches the basics of plagiarism, paraphrasing, and citing sources. In- cluded are definitions of plagiarism with examples, links to detailed information about SJSU’s Academic Integrity Policy, and an introduction to plagiarism detec- tion services. Students are introduced to various citation styles and given examples of how to convert database and catalog citations into the two most commonly used styles on campus, MLA and APA. The most beneficial aspect of the tutorial is its paraphrasing examples. Students are asked to read original and paraphrased passages to determine if plagiarism has occurred. To engage stu- dents from various academic disciplines, the passages draw on examples from the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. The instructional portion of the tutorial explains whether or not the paraphrase is plagiarized and why. Development Team A six-person team within the San José State University Academic Services Department of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library developed the tutorial. In consultation with computer science http:plagiarized.28 http:Turnitin.com http:plagiarism.26 422 College & Research Libraries September 2006 technical writing instructors, the team’s librarian, with a master’s degree in Eng- lish and rhetoric and writing teaching experience herself, cra ed the tutorial content and wrote the pre- and pos ests. The department’s Information Literacy Competency Coordinator oversaw the programming and graphics team. Two student programmers pursuing master’s degrees in Software Engineering and Computer Science were responsible for HTML, PHP, SQL, Javascript, and back- end quiz databases and queries. Two stu- dent graphic artists pursuing bachelor’s degrees in Fine Arts with emphases in Graphic Design and Animation/Illustra- tion were responsible for the artwork, Macromedia Flash animations, and overall look of the tutorial using Adobe Photoshop CS and Illustrator. Timeline and Technology In spring 2003, the author surveyed available online plagiarism resources and found that, while there were many valuable text-based Web sites that tackled the topic of plagiarism, interactive digital learning resources that measure student learning were almost nonexistent. The author found one Web site that included an interactive true/false self-assessment quiz about plagiarism.31 However, an original pretest was written to match student learning outcomes to the instruc- tion and to enable comparison of students’ pre- and pos est scores. Programmers transferred the ba- sic HTML tutorial into PHP-enabled Web pages and created the registration page and back-end quiz database using MySQL. Meanwhile, the graphic artists began illustrating, creating an icon, and giving the tutorial its overall aesthetic look. A er testing the tutorial in various Web browsers and versions for techno- logical glitches and ADA compliance, the tutorial was launched in fall 2003. An animated Flash version of the tu- torial, launched in summer 2004, helped capture the students’ attention and reinforced important tutorial concepts. Students chose to complete the animated version or non-Flash version depend- ing on their preferred learning style, disabilities requirements, and technical constraints such as processor and Internet connectivity bandwidth speeds. Open Publication License In response to the growing number of requests from other institutions, SJSU made the tutorial available for download and adaptation via an Open Publication License in fall 2004. To help set a stan- dard for Web-based information literacy resource sharing, the Open Publication Li- cense is based on those of other libraries, such as TILT and UC Santa Cruz’s Net- Trail.32 While creating a file for download may seem like a relatively easy process, there are many factors to be considered, such as which files and formats to make available, how to collect and record data on who downloads the tutorial, and writ- ing a technical instruction manual for other institutions to successfully adapt and use the tutorial. Integrating the Tutorial into the Curriculum Librarians continually work to infuse information literacy into campuswide curricula. The fact that Web-based infor- mation literacy tutorials assess student learning and enhance instruction with- out taking time away from instructors’ or librarians’ in-person class time is an important point to consider when asking educators to incorporate the tutorial into their departmental curriculum or indi- vidual courses. The tutorial is a mandatory require- ment for all computer science majors en- rolled in the technical writing course—a course required for graduation. While initially created to address the needs of computer science majors, the tutorial quickly gained popularity among instruc- tors in various departments and has been integrated into numerous courses across the curriculum. Additionally, in fall 2004, the library began working with first-time http:Trail.32 http:plagiarism.31 Plagiarism Instruction Online 423 freshman Metropolitan University Schol- ars Experience (M.U.S.E.) instructors cam- puswide to include this tutorial, among other library tutorials, as a mandatory class assignment. Assessment of Student Learning: Quizzes and Queries The tutorial includes a pretest, assess- ing what students already know, and a graded quiz at the end, testing students’ understanding of plagiarism and their ability to avoid it. Students registered to take the tutorial, and quiz scores were automatically e-mailed to them upon completion. Basic demographic data such as name, class level, and course for which they were taking the tutorial was collected. Assessment results were stored in a local MySQL database located on the library’s Apache server. Quiz questions assessed students’ basic understanding of plagiarism, pen- alties if caught, and what needs to be cited. More important, the quiz assessed students’ ability to recognize and avoid plagiarism in paraphrases. Students were given an original passage and a paraphrase. They decided what, if any- thing, was wrong with the paraphrase. As will become apparent in the analysis of quiz data, students had the most difficulty with paraphrasing questions. To help students gain even more para- phrasing experience, they were given an original passage and asked to para- phrase it themselves. Credit was given for attempting an answer. Although the computer cannot actually grade the paraphrases, answers provided instruc- tors with data for teachable moments to help build on the instructional needs of an individual class. The original multiple-choice question quiz lacked adherence to strong test- writing standards. Most librarians have not had much training in instructional design or student assessment methods such as writing tests. Librarians devel- oping multiple-choice assessment tools should carefully consider the research on test development and seek out the support of campus units, such as cen- ters for teaching and learning, faculty development, or testing offices. Tips for writing strong multiple-choice questions include: writing the stem in the form of a complete statement or question with enough information, ensuring that distracters (wrong answers) are clearly incorrect but not glib or too easy, and limiting the use of negatives unless absolutely necessary.33 Table 1 lists a representative sample of how the old test questions were rewri en to adhere to stronger multiple-choice test-writing standards. Protecting the integrity of student assessment in the online environment is a growing concern. To reduce students’ ability to share answers as the tutorial is integrated into the campuswide cur- TABLE 1 Comparison of Old and New Multiple-Choice Test Questions Old Question New Question You do NOT need to cite: Which of the following needs to be cited? It is acceptable to copy various forms of multimedia, such as charts, graphs, photo- graphs, videos, audio files if: When is it acceptable to use multimedia, such as charts, graphs, photographs, videos, or audio files in your paper or class presen- tation? Acceptable paraphrasing is: Which of the following best describes ac- ceptable paraphrasing? Direct quotes and paraphrases are used best: Which of the following is the best reason to use direct quotes and paraphrases? http:necessary.33 424 College & Research Libraries September 2006 TABLE 2 Number of Students and Mean Post- test Score by Level (N = 2,829) Student Level No. of Students Mean Score % Upper division 964 81.6 Lower division 467 80.9 First-time freshman 178 79.5 Other, not identified 1,220 81.5 riculum, the tutorial team is working on a database of rotating quiz questions that will, at a minimum, triple the number of quiz questions available in a pool. The database will randomly select questions, ensuring that each student receives a slightly different quiz. Query reports displayed quiz data by course, individual student, and semester. They included overall scores, class aver- age scores per question, and students’ answers per question. Query reports were shared with instructors to give insight into their students’ understand- ing of academic integrity and to ease the burden of grading. The most important benefit of query reports was their ability to influence change in classroom instruc- tion. Both librarians and instructors were able to view a specific course’s tutorial scores to determine which concepts stu- dents understood and which may need further explanation and instruction to reinforce student learning and retention of information. Analysis of Student Quiz Results During the 2004–2005 academic year (August of 2004 to May of 2005), 3,224 individuals registered for the tutorial. Data from 2,829 students is included in this analysis. A total of 395 scores were not included in this study for the follow- ing reasons: individual registered just to test the system, student registered but did not record a score (o en happens when students drop a course before completing the tutorial), or student did not complete both the pre- and pos ests. Additionally, scores are not included from the very small handful of graduate students who completed the tutorial. Most students completed the tutorial as part of a class assignment. Of the 2,829 students included in this study, 964 were registered in upper-division courses, 467 in lower-division courses, 178 in first-time freshman seminars, and 1,220 either did not identify or were not registered as part of a course. Three hundred and forty-four students completed the tutorial for a course in the Applied Arts & Sciences, 217 in Arts & Humanities, 59 in Business, 212 in Edu- cation, 6 in Engineering, 408 in Sciences, 363 in Social Sciences, and 1,220 either did not identify or were not registered as part of a course. It is interesting to note that few students registered for the tuto- rial in conjunction with Business courses, and even fewer students registered in conjunction with Engineering courses. Librarians’ commitment to outreach and instructors’ willingness to include this in- formation literacy resource as part of their plagiarism instruction may help reach a more diverse group of students. The average overall posttest score, including paraphrasing portions, was 80.9 percent. A slight difference can be TABLE 3 Number of Students by College (N = 2,829) College No. of Students Applied Arts & Sciences 344 Arts & Humanities 217 Business 59 Education 212 Engineering 6 Science 408 Social Science 363 Other, unidentified 1,220 Note: College may not correlate to students’ major. Plagiarism Instruction Online 425 seen between student levels. The average pos est scores by level were 81.6 percent for students registered in upper-division courses, 80.9 percent for lower-division, 79.5 percent for first-time freshmen, and 81.5 percent for other students not asso- ciated with a course (see table 2). While more research is needed, initial study suggests that incoming freshmen have an understanding of plagiarism that rivals some graduating seniors. No significant differences were seen in pos est scores by college. Students scored in the 90th percentile for questions defining plagiarism, the penalties, and what is included in a cita- tion. They had slightly more trouble and scored in the 80th percentile for questions defining paraphrasing, determining when to use direct quotes, and identify- ing what type of information needs to be cited. When asked to describe acceptable paraphrasing, students identified it as merely rewriting the original passage rather than synthesizing the original pas- sage and writing it in their own words. Students did not see using direct quotes or paraphrases as a means to validate and support their ideas. Rather, they viewed using the work of others as a means to communicate their ideas be er than they think they can. This may indicate that students do not yet see themselves as scholars and critical thinkers. Addition- ally, students did not believe they needed to cite a talk or presentation given by a friend. Students displayed a complete lack of ability in the practical application of paraphrasing. They could not read an original passage and identify what was wrong with a paraphrase. Only 29 per- cent of the students in this study were able to identify what was wrong with a plagiarized paraphrase. They scored, on average, 33.5 percent when the problem was that a portion of the paraphrase was a direct quote and needed to be in quotation marks, and they scored only 24.4 percent when the paraphrased passage followed the original source too closely. TABLE 4 Comparison of Pre- and Posttest Scores (N = 2,829) Mean Pretest Score 85.6 percent Mean Posttest Score 91.6 percent Difference from Pretest to Posttest +6 percent Note: Posttest score does not include paraphrasing portions. The posttest included three open- ended questions that asked students to read an original passage of no more than three sentences and write a paraphrase. Most students did provide a citation for their paraphrase; however, in general, the paraphrases followed the original passage too closely. Students o en used exact lan- guage from the original passage without using quotation marks, rearranged the sentence structure of the original passage, or simply replaced certain words to make it their own. Students frequently overused direct quotes in places where they seem- ingly had li le impact, perhaps as a tactic to avoid plagiarism. Furthermore, many students failed to digest and paraphrase the entire original passage, leaving out meaning that was critical to the original author’s intent. Comparison of pre- and pos est results assessed students’ general understanding of plagiarism and citing sources, but not their ability to recognize plagiarism in paraphrases. The pretest did not include questions that assessed students’ abilities to recognize plagiarism in paraphrases. Thus, pos est questions requiring stu- dents to identify what was wrong with a paraphrase were removed from this por- tion of the analysis. The average overall pretest score was 85.6 percent. The average pos est score, minus questions assessing students’ ability to identify paraphras- ing flaws, was 91.6 percent, showing an improvement in students’ basic under- standing of plagiarism. First-time fresh- men scored 90.9 percent, upper-division scored 93 percent, lower-division scored 426 College & Research Libraries September 2006 91.9 percent, and students not registered as part of a course scored 90.7 percent. Thus, on average, students’ understanding of plagiarism and citing sources improved 6 percent from pre- to pos est. Discussion and Conclusion Results of this study make it clear that students need more instruction and prac- tice with proper paraphrasing. They lack the ability to read an original passage and identify what is wrong with a paraphrase. Students do not grasp the concept that paraphrasing involves synthesizing the original passage and writing it in their own words. Some instructors have opted to go through the tutorial with their students during a regular class session. These instructors concentrate more time on the paraphrasing examples and use the open-ended paraphrasing quiz ques- tions as in-class assignments. Further investigation is needed to determine the effectiveness of this method; however, the collaboration between instructors and the library in developing instruc- tional resources for use in the classroom is noteworthy. This tutorial focuses primarily on pla- giarism, paraphrasing, and citing sources. Ethics instruction is lacking. As Rolf Norgaard states: “plagiarism becomes an opportunity to discuss broader intel- lectual, social, and ethical issues—issues that national information-literacy stan- dards and guidelines themselves seek to broach.”34 It is important for students to understand how plagiarism fits into the broader context of academic integrity and ethics. Real-world examples that explain intellectual property and copyright are under development and will be added to the tutorial. The use of educational technologies may not be the solution to every instruc- tional problem; however, Web-based in- formation literacy tutorials can make sig- nificant contributions to student learning. When completed prior to the in-person information literacy session, librarians can use student quiz data to guide what they teach. Because Web-based tutori- als are done outside regular class time and space, they lend themselves to the successful incorporation of information literacy into curricula. While tutorials are by no means pre- sented as stand-alone cures to the overall problem of teaching students academic integrity, they do provide a foundation on which a campus can build a solid instruc- tional program about plagiarism. Plagia- rism instruction needs to be introduced, reinforced, and integrated throughout the college experience to ensure graduation of ethical students. Web-based tutorials introduce concepts, assess student learn- ing, provide educators with data about students’ understanding of academic integrity, and give instructors an opportu- nity to reinforce important concepts in the classroom. A tutorial such as Plagiarism: The Crime of Intellectual Kidnapping is but one building block toward graduating students with a solid code of ethics and academic integrity. Notes 1. “Center for Academic Integrity, “CAI Research,” Center for Academic Integrity. Available online at h p://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp [Accessed March 27, 2005]; Donald McCabe, “Cheating: Why Students Do It and How We Can Help Them Stop,” American Educator 25, no. 4 (2001): 38–43. 2. Brian Hansen, “Combating Plagiarism,” CQ Researcher 13, no. 32 (2003): 773–96. 3. Charles Gibson (Anchor), “A Primetime Investigation: Caught Cheating,” Primetime Thurs- day (Television Broadcast), ABC Television Network, April 29, 2004. 4. Pamela A. Jackson et al., Plagiarism: The Crime of Intellectual Kidnapping, (San José: San José State University Library, 2003). Available online at h p://tutorials.sjlibrary.org/plagiarism/index. htm. 5. Joan K. Lippinco , “Net Generation Students and Libraries,” in Educating the Net Generation, eds. Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger (Boulder, Colo.: Educause, 2005). Available online at Plagiarism Instruction Online 427 h p://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/. [Accessed April 1, 2005]; Kate Manuel, “Teaching Information Literacy to Generation Y,” Journal of Library Administration 36, no. ½ (2002): 195–217. 6. James Nichols, Barbara Scaffer, and Karen Shockey, “Changing the Face of Instruction: Is Online or In-class More Effective?,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 5 (2003): 378–88; Wil- liam A. Orme, “A Study of the Residual Impact of the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial on the Information-Seeking Ability of First Year College Students,” College & Research Libraries 65, no. 3 (2004): 205–15. 7. Zorana Ercegovac and John V. Richardson Jr., “Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A Literature Review,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 4 (2004): 306–9. 8. Margaret Burke, “Deterring Plagiarism: A New Role for Librarians,” Library Philosophy and Practice 6, no. 2 (2004): 1–9; John Gresham, “Cyber-Plagiarism: Technological and Cultural Background and Suggested Responses,” Catholic Library World 73, no. 1 (2002): 16–19. 9. D. Sco Brandt, “Copyright’s (Not So) Li le Cousin, Plagiarism,” Computers in Libraries 22, no. 5 (2002): 39–41. 10. Nicole J. Auer and Ellen M. Krupar, “Mouse Click Plagiarism: The Role of Technology in Plagiarism and the Librarian’s Role in Combating It,” Library Trends 49, no. 3 (2001): 424. 11. Ibid., 425. 12. Janet McNeil Hurlbert, Cathleen R. Savidge, and Georgia R. Laudenslager, “Process-Based Assignments: How Promoting Information Literacy Prevents Plagiarism,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 10, no. 1 (2003): 39–51. 13. Lynn D. Lampert, “Integrating Discipline-Based Anti-Plagiarism Instruction into the Information Literacy Curriculum,” Reference Services Review 32, no. 4 (2004): 347–55. 14. Brandt, “Copyright’s (Not So) Li le Cousin, Plagiarism,” 40. 15. Stephen Wilhoit, “Helping Students Avoid Plagiarism,” College Teaching 42, no. 4 (1994): 161–64. 16. Robert A. Harris, The Plagiarism Handbook: Strategies for Preventing, Detecting, and Dealing With Plagiarism (Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing, 2001); Gresham, “Cyber-Plagiarism,” 16–19; Susannah Feldman, Virginia Anderson, and Luz Mangurian, “Teaching Effective Science Writing: Refining Students’ Writing Skills Within the Towson Transition Course,” Journal of College Science Teaching 30, no. 7 (2001): 446–49. 17. Donald McCabe and Linda Klebe Trevino, “What We Know About Cheating in College: Longitudinal Trends and Recent Developments,” Change 28 (1996): 29–33. 18. Ruth Stubbings and Alan Brine, “Plagiarism and the Role of the Library,” Library & Infor- mation Update 2, no. 12 (2003): 42–4. 19. Miguel Roig, “Can Undergraduate Students Determine Whether Text Has Been Plagia- rized?” The Psychological Record 47 (1997): 117. 20. Miguel Roig, “When College Students’ A empt at Paraphrasing Become Instances of Potential Plagiarism,” Psychological Record 84, no. 3 (1999): 973–82. 21. Julio G. Soto, Sulekha Anand, and Elizabeth McGee, “Plagiarism Avoidance: An Empirical Study Examining Teaching Strategies,” Journal of College Science Teaching 33, no. 7 (2004): 6. 22. Peter Ashworth, Philip Bannister, and Pauline Thorne, “Guilty in Whose Eyes? University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating and Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment,” Studies in Higher Education 22, no. 2 (1997): 187–203. 23. Verity J. Brown and Mark E. Howell, “The Efficacy of Policy Statements on Plagiarism: Do They Change Students’ Views?” Research in Higher Education 42, no. 1 (2001): 103–18. 24. Stuart Hannabuss, “Contested Texts: Issues of Plagiarism,” Library Management 22, no. 6/7 (2001): 311–18; Rebecca Moore Howard, “Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty,” College English 57, no. 7 (1995): 788–806. 25. Donald McCabe and Linda Klebe Trevino, “Honesty and Honor Codes,” Academe 88 (2002): 41. 26. C. Brian Smith, “Fighting Cyberplagiarism,” Library Journal NetConnect (2003): 22–23. 27. Pamela A. Jackson, “Plagiarism Tutorial Meeting the Challenge,” Books & Bytes 2, no. 2 (2004): 6. Available online at h p://www.sjlibrary.org/about/sjsu/Spring2004.pdf. [Accessed March 27, 2005 ] 28. Renoir Gaither, Plagiarism Detection Services, University of Michigan, Shapiro Under- graduate Library. Available online at h p://www.lib.umich.edu/acadintegrity/instructors/viola- tions/detection.htm. [Accessed October 10, 2005]. 29. Pamela A. Jackson, “The Scientific Research Process,” in Empowering Students II: Teaching Information Literacy Concepts with Hands-on and Minds-on Activities, eds. Carol Anne Germain and Deborah Bernnard, 65–68 (Pi sburgh, Penn.: Library Instruction Publications, 2004). 30. Pamela A. Jackson et al., Plagiarism: The Crime of Intellectual Kidnapping. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 31. Karen E. Hamilton, The Plagiarism Self-Assessment (George Brown College, city?). Available 428 College & Research Libraries September 2006 online at h p://www.gbrownc.on.ca/saffairs/stusucc/plagiarism/selfassessment.html. [Accessed March 27, 2005]. 32. The Regents of the University of California, NetTrail Open Publication License Agreement, (University of California at Santa Cruz). Available online at h p://ne rail.ucsc.edu/admin/about. html [Accessed 27 March 2005]; University of Texas System Digital Library, TILT Open Publication License, (University of Texas at Austin). Available online at h p://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/yourtilt/ agreement.html [Accessed March 27, 2005]. 33. Colleen McKenna and Joanna Bull, “Designing Effective Objective Test Questions: An Introductory Workshop,” (workshop, Computer Assisted Assessment Centre, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK, June 17, 1999). Available online at h p://caacentre.lboro.ac.uk/dl- docs/otghdout.pdf. [Accessed March 27, 2005]. Thomas M. Haladyna, Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items, 3rd ed. (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004). 34. Rolf Norgaard, “Writing Information Literacy in the Classroom: Pedagogical Enactments and Implications,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 43, no. 3 (2004): 223. 70,000 Publishing Sources. 3.2 Million Book Titles. We’re Connected. Are You? IT’S EASY TO BE CONNECTED WHEN YOU’RE AN EMERY-PRATT CUSTOMER. VISIT OUR WEBSITE TO SEARCH FOR BOOKS, PLACE ORDERS, AND MUCH MORE. www.emery-pratt.com At Emery-Pratt, we work extra hard to be closely connected to more than 70,000 publishing sources, allowing you to have access to millions of new book titles. And thanks to our close relationship with these sources, we learn about the hottest upcoming books long before they’re released. As a result, we can make sure you and your customer get all the books you want…right when you want them. Would you like to be connected? It’s easy. Just call us at 1.800.248.3887. We’d love to help you anyway we can. Or go online at emery-pratt.com 5882 1966 West M-21, Owosso, MI 48867-1397 Phone (toll-free) 1.800.248.3887 Fax (toll-free) 1.800.523.6379 E-mail: mail@emery-pratt.com Book Distributors since 1873 T H E N I C E S T P E O P L E I N T H E B O O K B U S I N E S S