MASALAH PLAGIARISME DAN AMALAN PENGGUNAAN TURNITIN DALAM KALANGAN PELAJAR SISWAZAH UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA
Abstract
Plagiarisme dalam kalangan pelajar-pelajar siswazah dikaji dari sudut domain pembelajaran dan tingkah laku mereka semasa menggunakan perisian Turnitin. Kajian kes telah digunakan dengan menemu bual 40 orang pelajar siswazah dari pelbagai fakulti di Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Temu bual yang dijalankan menggunakan protokol tidak berstruktur namun bersandarkan kepada domain-domain pembelajaran iaitu kognitif, psikomotor dan afektif. Dapatan kajian mendapati penulisan akademik yang asli memerlukan kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi, pengetahuan yang jelas tentang maksud plagiarisme dan kesedaran integriti akademik dalam kalangan pelajar. Seterusnya, kajian ini mencadangkan agar pembinaan modul pengajaran berkaitan penulisan akademik dibina menggunakan panduan daripada dapatan yang diperoleh iaitu keterangan tingkah laku pelajar bagi setiap domain pembelajaran sebagai pentaksiran guru dan pentaksiran kendiri yang boleh digunakan oleh pelajar untuk meningkatkan kemahiran penulisan mereka.
Kata kunci: plagiarisme, Turnitin, pengajaran dan pembelajaran, kemahiran berfikir kritis.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ayşegül, K. (2015). Evaluation of the thesis based on critical thinking skill in terms of critical writing criteria. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(3), 1043–1060.
Batane, T. (2010). Turning to Turnitin to Fight Plagiarism among University Students. Educational Technology and Society, 13(2), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.13.2.1
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A. (2015). Impact of writing proficiency and writing center participation on academic performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(4), 382–394. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2014-0067
Bikić, N., Maričić, S. M., & Pikula, M. (2016). The effects of differentiation of content in problem-solving in learning geometry in secondary school. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(11), 2783–2795. http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02304a
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Michigan: Longmans.
Brabazon, T. (2015). TURNITIN? TURNITOFF: The Deskilling of Information Literacy. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(3) (July), p13–32. http://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.55005
Brown, V. (2011). The Ethics of Turnitin from a Faculty ’ s Perspective, 4 (3) p29.
Buckley, E., & Cowap, L. (2013). An evaluation of the use of Turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a formative feedback tool from an educator’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 562–570. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12054
Butcher, C., Davies, C., & Highton, M. (2006). Designing Learning: From Module Outline to Effective Teaching. London and New York: Routledge.
Garcia-Perez, A., & Ayres, R. (2012). Modelling research: a collaborative approach to helping PhD students develop higher-level research skills. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(3), 297–306. http://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.684672
Gómez-espinosa, M., Francisco, V., & Moreno-ger, P. (2016). The Impact of Activity Design in Internet Plagiarism in Higher Education. Comunicar, 24(48), p39–47. http://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-04
Graham-Matheson, L., & Starr, S. (2013). Is it cheating or learning the craft of writing? Using Turnitin to help students avoid plagiarism. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1063519), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.17218
Johari, F., Alias, M., Rahman, A. A., & Ibrahim, M. F. (2015). The Usage of “Turnitin” as an Innovative Educational Tool: Inculcating Critical Thinking in Integrating Naqli and Aqli for Subject of Malaysian Economy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 821–827. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.186
Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to Learning. Berkshire.
Klimova, B. F. (2013). Developing Thinking Skills in the Course of Academic Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 508–511. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.229
Kostka, I., & Maliborska, V. (2016). Using Turnitin to Provide Feedback on L2 Writers ’ Texts, 20(2), 1–23.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. SAGE Publications.
Mustapha, R., Hussein, Z., & Siraj, S. (2016). Ketidakjujuran Akademik dalam Kalangan Mahasiswa Muslim di Malaysia: Analisis Perbandingan Tahun 2014-2015. Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 4(1), 41–56.
Özbek, E. A. (2016). Plagiarism Detection Services For Formative Feedback and Assessment : Example of Turnitin. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in The World, 6(3), 64–72.
Penketh, C., & Beaumont, C. (2014). “Turnitin said it wasn”t happy’: can the regulatory discourse of plagiarism detection operate as a change artefact for writing development?. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 51(1), 95–104. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796721
Razi, S. (2016). Are Review Skills and Academic Writing Skills Related? An Exploratory Analysis via Multi Source Feedback Tools. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(1), 117–128.
Richards, S. (2015). Academic Integrity , Plagiarism , and Mercenary Authorship in Online Learning Environments. In Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 575–579).
Scheg, A. G. (2013). The Impact of Turnitin to the Student-Teacher Relationship. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 2(1), 29–38. Retrieved from http://ittc-web.astate.edu/ojs
Sharon, S. (2012). Do Students Turn Over Their Rights When They Turn Their Papers? A Case Study of TURNITIN.Com. Touro Law Review, 26(1), 207. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1396725%5Cnhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1396725
Shaw, R.-S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58(1), 111–120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.013
Talib, N., Yassin, S. F. M., & Nasir, M. K. M. (2016). Mengkaji pentaksiran pengaturcaraan komputer berdasarkan penyelesaian masalah kreatif menggunakan pendekatan “ grounded theory ”. Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural Sciences, 5(1), 25–38. Retrieved from http://www.akademiabaru.com/doc/ARSBSV5_N1_P25_38.pdf
Thonney, T., & Montgomery, J. C. (2015). The Relationship between cumulative credits and student learning outcomes: A cross-sectional assessment. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 70-87. http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i1.12954
Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E. C., & Isaksen, S. G. (2008). Understanding individual problem-solving style: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 390–401. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.007
Tsingos-lucas, C., Bosnic-anticevich, S., Schneider, C. R., & Smith, L. (2017). Using Reflective Writing as a Predictor of Academic Success in Different Assessment Formats. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2017;, 81(1), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8118
Turnitin, L. (2016). Turnitin. Retrieved November 27, 2016, from http://turnitin.com/
Varelas, A., Wolfe, K. S. ., & Ialongo, E. (2015). Building a Better Student Developing Critical Thinking and Writing in the Community College from Freshman Semester to Graduation. Community College Enterprise, 21(2), 76–92. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=111987560&site=ehost-live
Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.
Zalnur, M. (2012). Plagiarisme Di Kalangan Mahasiswa Dalam Membuat Tugas-Tugas Perkuliahan Pada Fakultas Tarbiyah Iain Imam Bonjol Padang. AL-Ta Lim, 19(1), 55. http://doi.org/10.15548/jt.v19i1.6
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Index