Plagiarism detection is an increasingly important issue in educational environments. This article employs two alternative metrics in the identification of program similarity. The first is the Halstead metric drawn from the discipline of software science. The second is an ad hoc metric drawn from program grading experience, and identified by means of factor analysis. The ad hoc metric proves to be more useful in identical-task environments. Possible explanations for, as well as some larger implications of, this result are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EcoU., A Theory of Semiotics, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1976.
2.
NorrickN., Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory, John Benjamins B. V., Amsterdam, Belgium, 1981.
3.
LongoG., Quantitative-Qualitative Measure of Information, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1972.
4.
ShannonC.WeaverW., The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1963.
5.
WinogradT., Language as a Cognitive Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading Massachusetts, 1983.
6.
MarcusS., Contextual Ambiguities in Natural and Artificial Languages, Vol. 1, Communication and Cognition, Blandijnberg, Belgium, 1981.
7.
MarcusS., Contextual Ambiguities in Natural and Artificial Languages, Vol. 2, Communication and Cognition, Blandijnberg, Belgium, 1983.
8.
HenryS.KafuraD., Software Structure Metrics Based on Information Flow, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SL-7:5, pp. 510–518, 1981.
9.
HalsteadM., A Theoretical Relationship Between Mental Work and Machine Language Programming, Computer Science Department Internal Report CSD-TR 67, Purdue University, February, 1972.
HalsteadM., An Experimental Determination of the “Purity” of a Trivial Algorithm, ACM-SIGME: Performance Evaluation Review, 2:1, pp. 10–15, 1973.
12.
HalsteadM., Software Physics: Basic Principles, RJ 1582, IBM, Yorktown Heights, New York, 1975.
13.
HalsteadM., Using the Methodology of Natural Science to Understand Software, Computer Science Department Internal Report CSD-TR 190, Purdue University, 1976.
14.
HalsteadM., Elements of Software Science, Elsevier/North Holland, New York, New York, 1977.
15.
BulutN., “Invariant Properties in Algorithms,” Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, 1973.
16.
BulutN.HalsteadM., Impurities Found in Algorithm Implementations, SIGPLAN Notices, pp. 9–12, March, 1974.
17.
BulutN.HalsteadM.BayerR., Experimental Validation of a Structured Property of FORTRAN Algorithms, Computer Science Department Internal Report CSD-TR 115, Purdue University, April, 1974.
18.
CornellL.HalsteadM., Predicting the Number of Bugs Expected in a Program Module, Computer Science Department Internal Report CSD-TR 205, Purdue University, October, 1976.
19.
ElshoffH., Measuring Commercial PL/1 Programs Using Halstead's Criteria, SIGPLAN Notices, May, 1976.
20.
GordonR.HalsteadM., An Experiment Comparing FORTRAN Programming Time with the Software Physics Hypothesis, Proceedings of the AFIPS National Computer Conference, 45, AFIPS Press, Montvale, New Jersey, pp. 935–937, 1976.
21.
LoveL.BowmanA., An Independent Test of the Theory of Software Physics, SIGPLAN Notices, pp. 42–49, 1976.
22.
HenryS.KafuraD., The Evaluation of Software Systems' Structure Using Quantitative Software Metrics, Software: Practice and Experience (to appear).
23.
KafuraD.HenryS., Software Quality Metrics Based on Interconnectivity, The Journal of Systems and Software, 2, pp. 121–131, 1982.
24.
McCabeT., A Complexity Measure, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2:4, 1976.
25.
ThayerT.LiplowM.NelsonE., Software Reliability, North Holland, New York, New York, 1978.
26.
HenryS.KafuraD.HarrisK., On the Relationships Among Three Software Metrics, Performance Evaluation Review, 10:1, pp. 81–88, 1981.
27.
YinB.WinchesterJ., The Establishment and Use of Measures to Evaluate the Quality of Software Designs, Proceedings of the ACM Software Quality and Assurance Workshop, 3, pp. 45–52, 1978.
28.
ChannonR., “On a Measure of Program Structure,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, November, 1974.
29.
SchusterD., On the Specification and Quantification of Software Performance Objectives, Proceedings of the ACM 1977 Annual Computing Conference, pp. 181–189, 1977.
30.
SallachD., Artificial Language and Knowledge-Based Systems: Negentropic Representation as a Design Criterion, Proceedings of the 1983 Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 842–858, 1983.
31.
FitzsimmonsA.LoveT., A Review and Evaluation of Software Science, Computing Surveys, 10:1, pp. 3–18, 1978.
32.
ShawM.JonesA.KneuvenP.McDermottJ.MillerP.NotkinD., Cheating Policy in a Computer Science Department, SIGSCE Bulletin, 12:2, pp. 72–76, 1980.
33.
DonaldsonJ.LancasterA.SposatoP., A Plagiarism Detection System, SIGSCE Bulletin, 13:1, pp. 21–25, 1981.
34.
GrierS., A Tool that Detects Plagiarism in Pascal Programs, SIGSCE Bulletin, 13:1, pp. 15–20, 1981.
35.
OttensteinK., An Algorithmic Approach to the Detection and Prevention of Plagiarism, SIGSCE Bulletin, 8:4, pp. 30–41, 1976.
36.
OttensteinK., A Program to Count Operators and Operands for ANSI-FORTRAN Modules, Computer Science Department Internal Report CSD-TR 196, Purdue University, June, 1976.
37.
BerghelH.DalyC., A Comparison of Three Approaches Toward Teaching Computer Literacy, Proceedings of the IEEE ED COMPCON-83, pp. 1–7, 1983.
38.
BerghelH.DalyC.LavelleD., Computer Literacy—The Effects of Teaching Method on Student Performance by Gender, Proceedings of the IEEE ED COMPCON-84, pp. 9–15, 1984.
39.
BerghelH., Computer Literacy Programs: The Effects of the Large-Class Setting on Student Performance, Collegiate Microcomputer, (to appear).
40.
HanushekE.JacksonJ., Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, Academic Press, New York, New York, 1977.
41.
SoongN., A Program Stability Measure, Proceedings of the ACM 1977 Annual Computing Conference, pp. 163–173, 1977.
