Chinese College English Teachers’ Perceptions of Plagiarism Among Chinese College EFL Learners: The Impacts of English-medium Academic Training
Title
Chinese College English Teachers Perceptions of Plagiarism Among Chinese College EFL Learners: The Impacts of English-medium Academic Training
Chinese College English Teachers Perceptions of Plagiarism Among Chinese College EFL Learners: The Impacts of English-medium Academic Training
Keywords: plagiarism, academic literacy, Chinese college EFL learners, Chinese college English teachers
Authors
Jun Lei
Xi an Polytechnic University,
China
Jun Lei
Xi an Polytechnic University,
China
Bio Data
Jun Lei received his postgraduate diploma in English language teaching at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He is currently a lecturer at Xi an Polytechnic University in China. His main research interests include academic literacies and writing instruction.
Abstract
The bulk of research into Chinese students problem with plagiarism in both the Anglophone and Chinese contexts has given much attention to the culture/education versus language debate, and the development versus morality debate. This study explored the views of two groups of Chinese college English teachers in those regards, one with an experience of English-medium academic training (the PGDELT trainee teachers, n = 29) and the other without (the EFL in-service teachers, n = 30). All participants completed a questionnaire with a few being interviewed. The results indicated that (a) the EFL in-service teachers tended to see Chinese college EFL learners plagiarism more as a linguistic problem, whereas the PGDELT trainee teachers tended to see it more as a cultural/educational problem; and (b) the EFL in-service teachers seemed to take a moral perspective as indicated by their penalty-oriented approach to the learners plagiarism, whereas the PGDELT trainee teachers appeared to take a more developmental perspective as shown by their pedagogy-oriented approach to the learners plagiarism. However, while there seems to be strong evidence for the differences between the two groups in their perceptions regarding the culture/education versus language debate, there is only limited evidence for their different perceptions concerning the development versus morality debate. Moreover, the two groups were also found to differ to some extent in their perceptions concerning the causes of, remedial approaches, and punitive reactions to student plagiarism. Finally, the implications of this study are discussed and recommendations for future research presented.
The bulk of research into Chinese students problem with plagiarism in both the Anglophone and Chinese contexts has given much attention to the culture/education versus language debate, and the development versus morality debate. This study explored the views of two groups of Chinese college English teachers in those regards, one with an experience of English-medium academic training (the PGDELT trainee teachers, n = 29) and the other without (the EFL in-service teachers, n = 30). All participants completed a questionnaire with a few being interviewed. The results indicated that (a) the EFL in-service teachers tended to see Chinese college EFL learners plagiarism more as a linguistic problem, whereas the PGDELT trainee teachers tended to see it more as a cultural/educational problem; and (b) the EFL in-service teachers seemed to take a moral perspective as indicated by their penalty-oriented approach to the learners plagiarism, whereas the PGDELT trainee teachers appeared to take a more developmental perspective as shown by their pedagogy-oriented approach to the learners plagiarism. However, while there seems to be strong evidence for the differences between the two groups in their perceptions regarding the culture/education versus language debate, there is only limited evidence for their different perceptions concerning the development versus morality debate. Moreover, the two groups were also found to differ to some extent in their perceptions concerning the causes of, remedial approaches, and punitive reactions to student plagiarism. Finally, the implications of this study are discussed and recommendations for future research presented.
[private]
See pages: 4-27
[/private]Category: Monthly Editions, Volume 43
