20% literature review consists of 2 sections
Section 1 (2000 words)
and
Section 2 (500 words)
Both sections need to pasted into a single document and this document needs to be submitted to turnitin,
Use APA referencing put the reference list for section 1 and 2 AFTER section 2. Since the assignment is being submitted to turnitin the reference list for all sections need to go at the end.
Section 1
critical literature review on the topic of plagiarsm at university , Student are required to make the topic more specific so it is suitable literature review (2,000 words)
Description of the Task:
a review of the literature directly related to the topic of plagiarism at , followed by a critical analysis and discussion of how the literature addresses a particular NARROW research question, do the articles you have reviewed fail to address a major issue (describe the “gap” in the research) .
You need to find 5 journal articles yourself, Use google scholar or EBSCO,
*EBSCO’s find similar results feature is useful because you have to find articles about the same narrow topic
refer to the instructions given in the powerpoint given on week 8 of moodle.
Section 2, A short task to demonstrate you have actually read your literature review (500 words)
description of the task.
a) Read the examples on pages 3-5 of this document where students cheat and give a short description of how SOME students at KOI have the wrong attitude when attempting assignments and this attitude needs to be changed.
b) If someone wanted to change the attitude of the students discussed in part (a) , Would they find the articles you discussed in your literature helpful? Explain why or why not
c) If someone wanted to change the attitude of the students discussed in part (a), Is it possible they would find the new research you propose in your literature review helpful? Explain why or Why not?
Refer to page 2 for the marking guide
and refer to page 3 to 5 for the examples for section 2
Marking Guide: The following rubric will be used and the total mark scaled to a mark out of 20
80%-100% Full understanding of the topic and its importance to the broader context. Evidence of conceptually sophisticated thinking e.g. by inclusion of personal views, connections with other subject areas etc. Arguments supported by evidence and examples.
Student will have consulted a wide range of appropriate sources (journal articles)
. Appropriate referencing in a standard format with minimal errors.
Excellent overall standard of presentation, exhibiting a high standard of English and clarity of expression. Appropriate use of fonts and effects. Rich, flowing text, pleasure to read with minimal errors. Appropriate separation of text into sections/sub-sections.
Summarize all the results effectively for example use original tables and figures to summarize data from multiple sources to support an argument.
70%-79% Student will have demonstrated substantial understanding of the topic area and its place in the broader context. Critical evaluation and arguments supported by evidence and examples with some evidence of independent thinking, for example compare two of the articles, do the articles agree or disagree.
Evidence of consulting a range of appropriate
Sources (journal articles) which are appropriately referenced. No significant errors. High standard of presentation, exhibiting a good standard of English and clarity of expression. Appropriate use of fonts and effects. Writing is accurate
50%-59% Understanding of the topic demonstrated, but with limited evaluation of its importance. Restricted use of evidence and examples. Some errors. At least acceptable standards of English, but with ambiguities and awkward expression. Some attention to layout and formatting. References in text and bibliography correctly cited. Writing mostly accurate, but uninteresting.
Less than 50% Limited understanding of the topic area. Frequent factual or other errors. Inadequate standard of presentation. Poor use of English and inappropriate use of fonts and effects. Writing has frequent ambiguities, errors of expression, verbose or too brief. Insufficient reading around the topic. Referencing contains errors. Almost no attempt to provide a logical structure, or consider layout and formatting. No evidence of independent thought

Ist example of cheating from semester 1 2015
Part of a students assignment on plagiarism from semester 1 2015 is given below, Notice they clearly used an automatic paraphraser to change the words of another students assignment The student denied they use an automatic paraphraser and the student asked for a second change even though they were not entitled to one because it was clear that they did no work they just got another students assignment and used the computer to change the words.
The following paragraph and references were taken from the cheaters essay.
“The both article have diverse subject. The article by (Liao, M.T. & Tseng, C.Y., 2010) characterizes the why understudy do unoriginality. There are different explanations for this like absence of flawlessness in English, absence of comprehension the material, and their arrangement of instruction in back nation. Absence of certainty and deficiency of delivering force prompts duplicate the material. The issue behind the EFL written falsification is the flow looks into are not considering the individual esteem, their social, their fundamental training framework and their present perspectives about study and current style of living.
Reference
Liao, M. T., & Tseng, C. Y. (2010). Students' Behaviors and Views of Paraphrasing and Inappropriate Textual Borrowing in an EFL Academic Setting.Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 187-211.”

2nd example of cheating from semester 1 2015
The student used a “business” to write the essay for them, many students do not think it is obvious, the student that submitted the essay thought it was good and was surpised they got caught cheating. For example the Huh, S. (2010). was about actual medical doctors accidentally plagiarising journal articles,
The student claimed to do the work themselves and demanded to see the proof that they did not do the work themselves. To convince they student it was clear that they cheated a staff member to ask the student to explain the article Huh, S. (2010) and they could not. The student asked to be able to do the assignment again even though they did no work themselves and tried to make it look like they did.
The following paragraph and references were taken from the cheaters essay.
There are different reasons for plagiarism. The students faced the problems of plagiarism as in most of the cases, it has been observed that they have lack of bookish knowledge and they lacked the proper reasoning power behind doing any kind of research. They also lacked the proper attitudes behind doing any kind of researches (East, 2009).On the other hand, the other researchers like Fuqua et al.(2015), puts forward the fact that there have been constantly occurring the poor academic results by the students and therefore in that case and so it is ultimately leading to the problems of plagiarism. It has also been observed that the students are not confident enough to complete any kind of academic work that has been assigned to them and the competition among the students has been considered as one of the major issue of plagiarism. In many cases, it has been observed that the students have no proper grip over their own knowledge and language and therefore in that case, they fail to paraphrase the materials, which has been written in the content (Huh, 2010).
Reference
East, J. (2009). Judging plagiarism: a problem of morality and convention. High Educ, 59(1), pp.69-83.
Fuqua, Jason, Votteler, Nancy K., and Gerber, Hannah R., (2015). Mitigating Plagiarism With English Language Learners Through Collaborative Writing Programs: A Review of the Literature. STEM Journal, 16(1), pp.153-169.
Huh, S. (2010). Plagiarism. Journal of the Korean Medical Association, 53(12), p.1128.
The reference the student could not explain is
Huh, S. (2010). Plagiarism. Journal of the Korean Medical Association, 53(12), p.1128.
?????? ?? ??? ?? ??, ??, ??? ? ? ??? ????? ??? ???? ? ???? ????. ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ? ?? ??? ?? ? ???? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ????. ????? ? ??? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????. ???‘??? ????, ??, ???, ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ? ??’? ???[1]. ? ??? ?? ???? ??? ? ? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ? ??? ?? ???. ???? KoreaMed? ?? ?? ??? 5.9%? ?????? ?? ??? ??[2]. ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??. ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ? ?? ????. ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???. ? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????. ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ??? ?????. ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ? ?? ??? ??. ? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????. ?? ?? ??? ???? ?, ??? ??? ? ?? ?? ??? ? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???[3]. ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??. ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ?? ? ? ??? ??? ?? ????, ?? ?? ??? ? ??? ??? ??, ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??. ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??. ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ? ??. ?? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??. ???????? ??? ?? KoreaMed Synapse[4]? ???? ??? ??? ? ? ?? ?? ??? ???? Google?? ?? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ????. ?? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ? ? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ? ?? ???.
Abstract
Plagiarism, the use of text and ideas from published works without proper permission or citation, is difficult to detect since the whole text should be searched and compared to literature databases. Nevertheless, this process has become simpler with the advent of web-based technologies and more powerful search tools. Recently, a case of plagiarism was detected in an invited manuscript submitted to the Journal of the Korean Medical Association. In the withdrawn manuscript, there were figures and figure legends copied from other papers with neither permission nor citation. Only the citation is enough to use content, figures, or tables from other papers when the original journal is open access with Creative Commons License. Otherwise, to use such data, it is essential to obtain permission from that paper's journal publisher. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the author will face harsh disciplinary action before the office of research integrity in his or her institute. Also, the paper may be retracted by the editor. This is the first time that Editorial Board has detected plagiarism before publication. Screening for plagiarism and other ethical violations will continue so that we can pursue the status of the representative journal of Korean physicians and develop a positive reputation for Korean science internationally by maintaining the utmost quality and integrity in our publications