Cited by 39Academic integrity and plagiarismTeaching and Learning ProgrammingSoftware Engineering Research

Collaboration Versus Cheating: Reducing Code Plagiarism in an Online MS Computer Science Program

Open access
Mason, Tony, Gavrilovska, Ada, Joyner, David A.·2019·Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Abstract

We outline how we detected programming plagiarism in an introductory online course for a master's of science in computer science program, how we achieved a statistically significant reduction in programming plagiarism by combining a clear explanation of university and class policy on academic honesty reinforced with a short but formal assessment, and how we evaluated plagiarism rates before and after implementing our policy and assessment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3287324.3287443

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Highlighting institutional plagiarism policies and highlighting academic good practice has been associated with reduced plagiarism in CS courses.

    “In such cases, highlighting institutional plagiarism policies and highlighting academic good practice has been associated with reduced plagiarism in CS courses [32,34].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [14][14] Cesur Dagli. 2017. Relationships of first principles of instruction and student mastery: A MOOC on how to recognize plagiarism . Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University. -
  2. [47][47] Dana Sheahen and David Joyner. 2016. TAPS: A MOSS Extension for Detecting Software Plagiarism at Scale. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale . ACM, 285-288. -
  3. [52][52] Sami W Tabsh, Hany A El-Kadi, and A Abdelfatah. 2015. Past and present engineering studentsâĂŹ views on academic dishonesty at a middle-eastern university. International Journal of Engineering Education 31, 5 (2015), 13341342. -
  4. [57][57] Youdan Zhang. 2013. Benefiting from MOOC. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology . Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 1372-1377.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mason, T., Gavrilovska, A., & Joyner, D. A.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-02-22
Pages
1004-1010
OpenAlex
W2915744527
Cited by
39
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.69
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
academic dishonesty, academic integrity, plagiarism detection, online programming courses, introductory computer science, assessment design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review