Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [LIU Libraries]On: 21 April 2014, At: 14:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Student Plagiarism in Universities:What are we Doing About it?John Walker aa Massey UniversityPublished online: 01 Nov 2006.
To cite this article: John Walker (1998) Student Plagiarism in Universities: What arewe Doing About it?, Higher Education Research & Development, 17:1, 89-106, DOI:10.1080/0729436980170105
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436980170105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1998 89
Student Plagiarism in Universities:What are we Doing About it?JOHN WALKERMassey University
ABSTRACT Student plagiarism subverts the system of course evaluation, debasesqualifications and offends against academic integrity. Research findings from the U.S.A.and the U.K. indicate the widespread nature of student plagiarism in universities. Oppor-tunities for plagiarism among university students appear to be on the increase but there isevidence to suggest that official policies, procedures and responses on the part of someuniversities and academic staff may be inconsistent and inequitable. Universities need to bemore proactive in: developing strategies to raise student awareness of the unacceptability ofstudent plagiarism; developing and enforcing policies aimed at controlling student plagia-rism; and setting up programmes to promote academic integrity. A continuum consisting ofseven plagiarism behaviours linked to a suggested set of procedures and penalties can be usedby academic staff to classify instances of plagiarism and deal with individual cases in afairer, more consistent manner.
Introduction
Student Plagiarism as a Cheating Behaviour
The word plagiarism enjoys a quaint etymology. From the Latin plagiarus meaningkidnapper, it is an apt metaphor for the academic offence of the theft of anotherscholar's work and its representation as one's own. However, the quaintness of theword contrasts with the general disapproval with which the concept may be viewedby teachers and academics having to deal with plagiarised work submitted bystudents. Within the tertiary environment, student plagiarism is generally regarded,as a form of academic misconduct—or, to put it more bluntly, cheating—which,along with cheating on tests and examinations, in the words of Harp and Taietz(1996), represents, "a form of deviancy ... resulting from an acceptance of theinstitutionalised goals but not the institutionalised means" (cited in Ferrell &Daniel, 1995).
At its most fundamental level, student plagiarism usually takes the form ofunacknowledged copying of material from a source text. This form of plagiarism hasa number of variants, such as acknowledging a source and pretending to paraphrasebut in fact quoting directly or paraphrasing from a source without acknowledging it(Wilhoit, 1994). Copying material from a fellow student, having a term paper "ghostwritten" and "self plagiarism" or "recycling" (i.e., submitting an assignment twice
0729-4360/98/010089-18 © 1998 HERDSA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
90 J. Walker
for two different courses) may also be regarded as forms of student plagiarism(Hawley, 1984; Wilhoit, 1994).
Student plagiarism should be taken seriously by institutions as it not only subvertsthe entire system of course evaluation (Hawley, 1984), casts doubt on the validity ofqualifications and disadvantages students who do not choose to plagiarise; it alsooffends against academic integrity and undermines the traditions of scholarly studyand research. In the words of Booth, Colomb and Williams (1995), plagiarism isreprehensible because it offends against the ethical demands placed on the re-searcher as a member of, "a community of shared understanding and interest"(pp. 256-257). The authors go on to state:
By not acknowledging a source, the plagiarist steals some of the littlereward that an academic community has to offer, the enhanced respect thata researcher spends a lifetime trying to earn. The plagiarist steals from hiscommunity of classmates by making the quality of their work seem worseby comparison and then perhaps steals again by taking on of the few goodgrades reserved to reward those who do good work . . . . Most important,plagiarism, like theft among friends, shreds the fabric of the community(p. 257).
Most university and college lecturers, if approached on the subject of studentplagiarism, will admit to at least passing acquaintance with it in one of its severalforms and may offer anecdotal evidence as an indication of its frequency onuniversity campuses. While some lecturers might accept that certain types ofplagiarism result from student ignorance of academic convention, others—especiallythose confronted on a regular basis with sustained and extensive plagiarism—mightperceive its nature as rather less innocent.
Opportunities for student plagiarism may be escalating in some sectors of thetertiary system for a number of reasons: through a shift in emphasis from traditionaltests and examinations to continuous forms of assessment such as essays, reportsand term papers; through encouragement of student collaboration on assignments;and through the increasing use of word processing and electronic media in the areaof research and study.
Given that student plagiarism does exist, what is its extent and what, if anything,are tertiary institutions doing about it? This article looks at some recent literatureon student plagiarism; reports on an informal study which surveyed a small sampleof business studies lecturers at a New Zealand university in order to find out theirperceptions of, and experiences with, student plagiarism; and offers a numberof recommendations for institutions and academic staff on dealing with studentplagiarism.
Literature on Student Plagiarism
There is an extensive body of U.S. literature on the subject of student cheating ingeneral. Cheating is regarded as encompassing behaviours such as copying fromanother student during an exam; using illicit notes or "cribs" during tests; arranging
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 91
to receive answers by signal in a test; copying someone else's term paper or writinga term paper for another student (Graham, Monday, O'Brien & Steffen, 1994).
What is the Extent of Student Cheating and Plagiarism?
Cheating is perceived as a major problem on North American campuses (Kerkvliet,1994; Ferrell & Daniel, 1995; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995) and, whilst acknowledgingthat cheating is wrong, most students admit that they have cheated at least onceduring high school or college (Livosky & Tauber, 1994). In a 1994 study spanning10 years, Diekhoff, Labeff, Clark, Williams, Francis and Haines (1996) found thatsome 61% of university students admitted involvement in cheating, up 7% since1984. Kibler's (1992) study found that 67% of students admitted cheating at collegeand Burton and Near (1995) reported that some 70% of university studentssurveyed admitted having observed cheating behaviour during the previous year.
The vast majority of papers mentioning student plagiarism deal with the subjectin a North American context and generally view it as only one of (or a group ofvariations on) a catalogue of known student cheating behaviours. Any doubts aboutthe existence or frequency of student plagiarism at U.S. tertiary institutions arequickly dispelled by a glance at the findings from these studies.
Hawley (1984), for example, surveyed 425 undergraduates on plagiarism: 14.6%of respondents admitted to handing in a term paper written by a fellow student;15.1% reported allowing a friend to submit their paper as the friend's own; 37.9%said that they might write a term paper for a friend; and 26.1% admitted to"recycling" a paper.
Graham et al. (1994) surveyed some 500 college students and found that 90% ofstudents admitted they had, "engaged in some form of cheating at least once"(p. 259). Of these, 13.7% admitted to copying another student's assignment; 53.6%admitted to "recycling"; and 63.1% admitted to allowing a fellow student to copyhomework.
Brown (1995) reviewed studies on cheating between 1980 and 1993 and foundthat the incidence of self-reported cheating among tertiary students varied from 15to 91%. In his own survey of some 200 business students, 80% reported frequentparticipation in a cheating behaviour and 19% admitted to having plagiarised.
Outside North America, there appears to have been very little research on theissue of cheating—not to mention student plagiarism—at universities. However,Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes and Armstead (1996) estimate that figures for U.K.undergraduate involvement in cheating are, "not markedly different" (p. 229) fromthose of U.S. students, that is, more than 50%.
Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) surveyed 20 academic staff and 240students in the science and psychology departments of two U.K. universities onacademic staff and student perceptions of the seriousness and the frequency of 22cheating behaviours, including several versions of plagiarism. The authors foundthat students appeared to regard coursework-related offences like plagiarism asrather less serious than academic staff did and commented that this seemed to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
92 J. Walker
indicate that academic staff were not clearly communicating to students theunacceptability of behaviours involving plagiarism.
The study found that:
• 54% of students admitted to plagiarising from a text;• 72% of students admitted to allowing their coursework to be copied;• 66% admitted to paraphrasing without acknowledgement;• 64% admitted to copying another student's work.
Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) concluded that these results had seriousimplications, particularly in view of the fact that the students' perceptions of thefrequency of such behaviours was consistently higher than that of the academic staff.
Clearly cheating may occur in U.K. universities more frequently than staffseem to be aware of and is not viewed as seriously by students as it is bystaff. These results suggest that staff may well be at the very least somewhatnaive about the extent and nature of cheating (p. 170).
While most university lecturers would regard these figures as concerning enough inthemselves, questions might be asked about the validity of data based on theself-reporting technique for activities such as academic dishonesty. As Newstead etal. (1996) comment, "a paradox of [such] research is that it asks students to behonest about their own dishonesty" (p. 240). While it is possible that some studentsmight be inclined to inflate their estimate of their own cheating, the opposite mayseem more logical. Scheers and Dayton (cited in Brown, 1995) estimated thatbetween 39 and 83% of respondents to such surveys actually under-reported theirparticipation in cheating behaviours. If there is such an under-reporting factor instudent responses to questions of cheating, it may well be that cheating estimatesfrom such surveys err on the side of caution. In other words, cheating—and, morespecifically, student plagiarism—may be far more widespread than these surveysseem to indicate.
Why do Students Plagiarise?
Studies by Kibler (1993, 1994); Livosky and Tauber (1994); Graham et al. (1994);Davis and Ludvigson (1995); Brown (1995); and Newstead et al. (1996) have putforward reasons for student cheating, including inadequately developed beliefsystems; pressure to obtain higher grades; lack of time to study; laziness; andprocrastination.
Fewer studies specifically target a rationale for plagiarism among students.Hawley (1984) felt that much plagiarism, "may come more from simple ignorancethan deceit" (p. 38). However, academic staff may be encouraging plagiarism bywhat Hawley referred to as the, "here's the assignment, see you in three months"syndrome, which could create, "an alienating environment in which students may bemore prone to plagiarise" (p. 38).
Aaron and Georgia's (1994) survey of university administrators confirmed that aperception on the part of students of unfairness in tests or grading practices could
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 93
lead to plagiarism and found that almost half of respondents agreed with Hawley(1984) that, "a lack of clear understanding about what constitutes plagiarism" wasa primary factor in its commitment (p. 89).
Wilhoit (1994) identified poor time-management and pressure to achieve highgrades as major reasons why students plagiarise but also saw laziness as a factor.However, he likewise acknowledged that plagiarism can result from, "honest con-fusion over the standards of academic discourse and proper citation" (p. 161) as wellas, "incorrect" high school instruction which actively encouraged students to copyassignments verbatim from other sources without penalty. Wilhoit also pointed outthat students may plagiarise as a result of the increasing use of collaborative teamwork in the production of assignments, since such an environment was likely tocreate confusion in students' minds as to the difference between "acceptablecollaboration" and plagiarism (p. 62).
A study by Roig and DeTomasso (1995) identified strong links between studentplagiarism and academic procrastination while the study by Newstead et al. (1996)found that "to help a friend" was the most frequent reason given for abettingplagiarism by allowing a fellow student to copy one's assignment.
At one end of the spectrum, then, students may commit plagiarism out ofignorance of academic writing norms and conventions. At the other end, there ispressure to commit deliberate acts of plagiarism in order to: inflate grades; to helpa friend; deflect the result of a lack of time to study, of laziness or of procrastination.An environment of collaborative learning may provide a further incentive to becomeinvolved in plagiarism while peer pressure; perceived unfairness of assessmentpractices; or alienation from the course or lecturer may provide additionalexplanations.
Cultural Diversity and Plagiarism
In recent years, universities in Australia and New Zealand have embarked onprogrammes to recruit students from other countries, and the student bodies of anumber of universities are now characterised by sizeable populations of overseasstudents, often of Asian origin. While such students may become involved inplagiarism for the same reasons as local students, conflicting cultural values may alsohave a role to play.
Cordeiro (1995), for example, reported on the rash of cases of blatant cheatingand plagiarism among a group of culturally homogeneous overseas graduatestudents newly recruited by a U.S. business school. The students made little attemptto conceal their behaviour and argued that since their own cultural norms notonly tolerated such behaviour but actually required it in the tradition of assistinga friend in need, it should likewise be tolerated by the business school. Theschool authorities, however, disagreed. Cordeiro supported the school's stance,maintaining that:
... all educational institutions must operate within their own ethical en-vironment, uniformly applied to all their constituents. Violating its ethical
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
94 J. Walker
standards would ultimately destroy the business school by rendering allforms of recognised achievement (grades, rankings, degrees) meaningless(p. 29).
While differing cultural values might provide one explanation for cheating andbehaviours involving plagiarism among overseas students at Western universities,the students' response to the burdens of living and studying in their new hostenvironment might provide another.
A number of studies (Samuelowicz, 1987; Burns, 1991; Barker, Child, Gallois,Jones & Callan, 1991; Baker, 1993, Quintrell & Westwood, 1994; Kennedy, 1995)have looked at the stresses and difficulties experienced by overseas students atWestern universities. In, for example, Burns' study of mainly Asian students atAustralian universities, the respondents, who had been used to a home learningenvironment of "reproductive learning", commented on having to cope with thetype of "analytic understanding" (p. 71) expected of them by their Australianlecturers. From having everything provided for them by their teachers, they werenow expected not only to do their own reading, make their own notes and contributeto class discussions, but also to think. (Burns referred to this phenomenon as "studyshock".) In addition, low levels of English language proficiency which slowed theirrate of study, plus the need to take on part-time work, meant that students wereunder immense pressure to complete assignments on time. The same study revealedconsiderable pressure on overseas students from their families back home to succeedand a fear of the "excessive loss of face" (p. 70) which was likely to eventuate if theydid not.
It is not surprising, therefore, that students in this predicament might resort tocheating behaviours such as plagiarism simply to survive in an alien cultural andacademic environment.
Academic Staff Responses to Plagiarism
If we accept the fact that there is adequate anecdotal and research-based evidence,from both academic staff and the student body, of the actual existence of studentplagiarism in the U.K. and the U.S. colleges and universities, the question arises, asto what are academic staff doing about it. It is likely that many institutions will havepolicies on plagiarism which include penalties and procedures for dealing with it.How aware are academic staff of these policies and what steps do they take whenthey detect student plagiarism?
Aaron and Georgia (1994) surveyed student and academic administrators in 175colleges, across some 40 U.S. states on their perceptions of student academicdishonesty. The responses indicated that most academic staff members either ignore(61.9%) or are ignorant of (40.9%) procedural guidelines for dealing with academicdishonesty. The authors concluded that, while there is a consensus that studentacademic dishonesty is a serious problem, it is not being adequately addressed by theinstitutions.
Kibler (1994) obtained data from 191 U.S. colleges and universities on their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 95
current practices related to academic dishonesty. The study found that only one-quarter of the responding institutions had honour codes covering academic dishon-esty. Fewer than half provided training for academic staff in dealing with academicdishonesty and, while almost 90% provided support for academic staff confrontedwith academic dishonesty, only 35% had a member of academic staff responsible forthe prevention or control of academic dishonesty. Among Kibler's conclusions:policies governing academic dishonesty are generally reactive in nature; and there isinsufficient communication with, and involvement of, academic staff in enforcingacademic honesty.
Graham et al. (1994) found that while 78.8% of academic staff had caught astudent cheating, only 9% had taken disciplinary action against that student. Theauthors also found that academic staff did not have stringent policies againstcheating and, while they agreed that cheating was a serious problem, there was littleconsensus on what to do about it. The authors concluded that institutions need toprovide clear definitions of what cheating actually is, since students are less likely tocheat if the cost of being caught is high; penalties have to be clear and theconsequences communicated to students; academic staff need to be more proactiveto prevent and detect cheating. These findings broadly concurred with those ofFranklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995).
Lack of enforcement is also illustrated in Burton and Near's (1995) study of over500 university students which found that when cheating was reported by students toinstructors, in some 70% of cases no action was taken.
If we apply these findings and conclusions specifically to student plagiarism, itappears that more could be done to define plagiarism for students and encourageacademic staff to be proactive about preventing it; to communicate policies onplagiarism to academic staff and students as well as to train academic staff in howto deal with student plagiarism.
Given that these findings are largely based on U.S. or U.K. studies, severalquestions therefore arise: What is the current status of student plagiarism in NewZealand universities? How familiar are academic staff with the policies of theirinstitutions on student plagiarism? What is the extent of academic staff experiencewith student plagiarism? What action do academic staff take when they detect a caseof student plagiarism and how consistent are these actions with both the institutionalpolicy and the actions of colleagues within the same department? It is thesequestions that this study sets out to address.
An Informal Survey
In order to obtain an impression of academic staff awareness of, experience with,and attitudes towards, student plagiarism, an informal survey was carried out withinone department of the Faculty of Business Studies of a New Zealand university.Brief questionnaires containing 10 questions were distributed to all academic staff inthe department (n = 49). The questionnaires contained a number of dichotomousquestions plus questions requiring open-ended responses. Twenty-one usableresponses were obtained, corresponding to a 43% response rate.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
96 J. Walker
Academic staff were asked, firstly, about their knowledge of the institution'spolicies on student plagiarism. Responses appeared to indicate some confusionamongst the respondents concerning university, faculty and departmental policies.Almost one-quarter of the respondents admitted that they were not familiar with theuniversity's policy on plagiarism. About two-thirds of the respondents said there wasa faculty policy on plagiarism (there is) and about one-quarter of the respondentsadmitted they did not know about the faculty policy. While one-third of respondentssaid there was no departmental policy on plagiarism, almost half of those surveyedsaid there was. Actually, the department in question has no published departmentalpolicy on plagiarism.
As far as the content of the institutional policies on student plagiarism is con-cerned, 16 respondents stated that they were conversant with the university policyon student plagiarism (the rest admitted ignorance), but, when asked to specify thepolicy, only 4 respondents were able to give an accurate rendering of specific policycontent. Most responses were generalised or simply inaccurate. For example, themost popular penalty for plagiarism cited by the respondents as constituting part ofofficial policy was expulsion from the university. In fact, expulsion is not part of thepublished policy on plagiarism of this particular university and there is no mentionof it in the relevant statutes. Taken together, these findings seem to indicateconsiderable lack of awareness on the part of the academic staff of the content oftheir own institution's policies on student plagiarism and corroborate some of thefindings from the literature.
Academic staff were then asked about their perceptions of the prevalence ofstudent plagiarism and whether it was a problem or not for the course they taught.Only 8 respondents felt that plagiarism was on the increase, while 6 did not know.Thirteen respondents said plagiarism was not a problem for their particular course.At the same time, however, 9 academic staff said they suspected plagiarism but feltpowerless to prove it. On the other hand, 17 respondents (81%) said they make apoint of warning their students about plagiarism. When asked about their exposureto student plagiarism the majority of respondents—18—said they had detected atleast one case of student plagiarism while in that particular department.
Identifying, tracking down, and proving student plagiarism, can be a time-consuming and frustrating process. One of the problems in dealing with studentplagiarism, according to Hawley (1984), is that any single offence is located on, "acontinuum of behaviours, ranging from sloppy paraphrasing to intentional copyingof someone else's work verbatim without acknowledging the source" (p. 35). Thistends to create problems for lecturers in assessing how to deal with a particularoffence. How serious is the offence and what should the penalty be? Academic staffwere asked to describe cases of student plagiarism they had been involved in andwhat action was subsequently taken.
Fourteen academic staff recounted their experiences with student plagiarism.These included:
• assignments which were up to 95% copied verbatim from texts;• submission by pairs of students of identical assignments;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 97
• submission of an assignment which had been copied by a student from a researchpaper written by a colleague of the academic staff member;
• handwriting in an assignment identified as belonging to another student;• substantial portions of one student's assignment copied from a flatmate's.
It is interesting to compare the actions taken in dealing with the instances ofplagiarism reported by the survey respondents. Although no two cases from amongthose reported appear to be exactly the same, from the respondents' accounts it waspossible to establish three broad categories of plagiarism types experienced:
Type 1: two or more students submitting identical assignments]Type 2: students copying substantially from books/journals;Type 3: students copying from other students/academic staff with (not always clear
from responses) or without their knowledge.
For these three plagiarism types, actions taken by staff/the department were asoutlined in Table 1. For Plagiarism Type 1, it is notable that, of the five actions, fourcontained the same basic element, that is, the students concerned received nomarks. However, if we compare the actions within the other two types, it can be seenthat there are substantial differences in the official responses to what appear to havebeen similar offences. For instance, in the Plagiarism Type 3 group, a student whocopied the assignment of a flatmate who had previously done the paper (presumablywith the friend's knowledge?) had to withdraw from the course. For the (perhapseven more serious?) offence involving a student plagiarising an academic staff
TABLE 1. Student plagiarism type compared with actions taken by academic staff
Type 1 Actions Two students submit identical assignment
1. Assignment returned unmarked2. Zero for assignment and stern warning3. Students told no marks would be awarded4. Chance to resubmit, no marks awarded for assignment5. Students given opportunity to resubmit
Type 2 Actions Substantial (75-90%) portions of assignment copied from text
1. Referred to HoD, student allowed to resubmit but no marks2. Disciplinary committee heard case and students resubmitted3. Student given pass mark and a warning4. Referred to HoD, students resubmit, but receive only 50%
Type 3 Actions Student copies from fellow student, academic staff member and so forth with(?) and without their knowledge
1. (with?) Student asked to withdraw from course2. (with?) Student given zero marks3. (without) HoD advised and incident recorded
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
98 J. Walker
member's research paper—clearly without his/her knowledge—the Head of Depart-ment (HoD) was advised and the student's offence was simply recorded. Theseexamples imply not only serious anomalies in the way that academic staff dealt withthe cases of student plagiarism, but also point to inequitable treatment of thestudents concerned.
There also appear to be inconsistencies regarding procedures that were used whendealing with these cases of plagiarism. While the faculty policy directs that cases ofsuspected plagiarism be immediately referred to the HoD for investigation, it wasclear from the survey responses that this seldom occurs in practice—only 4 respon-dents out of the 14 had ever taken this course of action. On the other hand, theuniversity statutes make no mention of HoD involvement and refer, instead, to theinvolvement of academic board and the university council. Amid such inconsistency,academic staff could not be blamed for confusion about the correct procedure totake in the event of a case of student plagiarism.
A number of survey participants volunteered comments to accompany theirresponses. One academic staff member perceived student plagiarism as havingreached "epidemic proportions" in the university. Another told of a graduatingstudent who had freely admitted that she had plagiarised consistently and exten-sively over a period of 3 years to complete a BBS degree. Another comment putperceived widespread student plagiarism down to the increasing use of group workand team approaches to problem-solving which have become popular forms ofassignment in business degrees mirroring, as they do, best practice in the "real"world of business. It was pointed out that the only way to prevent plagiarism was toreverse the trend of recent years and put more emphasis on tests and examinationsthan on assignments and term papers. Yet other comments pointed to the difficultyof identifying plagiarism in the "grey area" where the valid use of sources ends andcopying begins. Also referred to was the particular difficulty of dealing with studentsfrom other cultures who may—as already discussed—regard plagiarism to be aperfectly acceptable form of academic endeavour.
Conclusions and Recommendations
General Conclusions
Findings from the informal survey described in this article appear to confirm thatstudent plagiarism is fairly commonplace within the faculty in question. There wasalso apparent lack of awareness on the part of academic staff of institutional policieson student plagiarism, anomalies in those policies, and inconsistencies in the waythat academic staff appear to be responding to cases of student plagiarism. Thesefindings appeared to substantiate some of the experiences reported in the literature.Since the survey was of a very rudimentary nature, and the population surveyedrelatively small, it would be hasty to argue for the general applicability of anyfindings. However, taken together with the overseas literature on the subject, thereis some support for the belief that these problems may also be common to otheruniversities in New Zealand. Further research in this area would go some way
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 99
towards confirming the generalisability of these findings. Whatever the case, it isclearly the duty of university management and academic staff to develop strategiesaimed not only at dealing consistently and fairly with student plagiarism but also atpreventing its occurrence in the first place.
Institutional Policies on Student Plagiarism
Some academic staff appear not to be fully aware of what institutional policies existregarding student plagiarism; what the main elements of these policies are or whatthe official penalties are. As a result, academic staff may be dealing with cases ofplagiarism in a random, haphazard manner. Universities have to ensure lecturer-awareness of policies on plagiarism and the penalties laid down for it. Only then canacademic staff talk to students about the issue with some credibility and respond tocases of plagiarism in a manner that is consistent both with official policy and withactions taken in other departments and faculties. Improved communication andinterchange of information among lecturers and departments on the issue of plagia-rism would also promote awareness and improve quality of response. Each depart-ment, for example, could have a member of academic staff responsible forco-ordinating plagiarism-awareness activities.
It may be that, owing to the nature of course content and forms of assessment,some departments or faculties have developed their own policies in respect ofplagiarism. University administrators have a responsibility to inform themselves ofany such policies and to reassure themselves that the policies, and any relatedprocedures, are consistent with the overall institutional policy and that no anomaliesexist, either in the written policy statements or the actions taken by lecturers incarrying them out. Such actions would be aimed at ensuring a fair and consistentresponse to the problem of student plagiarism throughout the institution.
There are, however, also legal reasons for taking such action. In an environmentwhere students are having to take more responsibility for financing their tertiarystudy, there is a corresponding tendency for them to become litigious. In severalrecent cases, New Zealand student "consumers" have taken legal action against, orhave won refunds and compensation from, tertiary institutions ("Graduates sue ...",1996) on the basis that the institutions had breached consumer guaranteeslegislation by selling a substandard "product". Tertiary institutions are thereforebecoming more aware of the need to take precautions to protect themselves againstthe likelihood of student-initiated law suits and it would be sensible to ensure thatsuch protection extends to the area of academic dishonesty. As Kibler (1994)reminds us, "Having legally sound policies is an essential element in any studentdisciplinary system" (p. 100). Confusion over plagiarism policies or disparitiesbetween policies and academic staff responses could result in legal action for redresson the part of the student. It would, therefore, be a wise move on the part ofuniversity management to review such policies and procedures as presented inofficial publications and as implemented by academic staff to ensure legality as wellas consistency.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
100 J. Walker
Student Awareness of Plagiarism
Administrators and academic staff may not be doing enough to identify andimplement measures to limit student plagiarism (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead,1995). Institutional action on student plagiarism is generally of a reactive nature andis not nearly proactive enough in attempting to prevent or reduce it (Kibler, 1994).One of the first steps towards preventing plagiarism lies in raising awareness as to itsnature and its significance.
As previously argued, some forms of plagiarism may merely stem from lack ofawareness of academic conventions or simple carelessness on the part of the student.There may be a similar lack of awareness about the significance of the offence andlikely penalties. Although a large number of respondents in the informal studyindicated that they made a point of warning their students about plagiarism, thereis no information about how this was done, how often or how effectively. Accordingto the literature, this is not always done in a timely or effective manner. Consigningcommunications about plagiarism to traditional forums such as student handbooks,student orientation sessions, first-year classes or once-a-term discussions is unlikelyto make a lasting impression (Wilhoit, 1994; Kibler, 1994). Such methods ignorethe need for an ongoing ethos which makes use of systematic programmes topromote academic integrity and highlight the fact that academic freedom implies acertain amount of individual honesty and responsibility.
One way of promoting such an ethos is to involve not only academic staff butstudents as well in developing honesty policies for institutions (Kibler, 1994).Student awareness of plagiarism and, better still, how to avoid it, can be promotedby methods such as regular reviews of writing conventions, discussion of hypotheti-cal plagiarism cases, and giving students clear guidelines about what is, and what isnot, permitted (Wilhoit, 1994). Since a great deal of student plagiarism may occurout of ignorance, academic staff have a key role to play in dispelling such ignorance(Aaron & Georgia, 1994) through taking a major role in organising and runningworkshops covering such plagiarism-awareness themes.
In the case of overseas students, these measures will need to be augmented in anumber of ways. Newly enrolled students may be invited to attend special work-shops and seminars outlining the culture of the academic environment they areentering and spelling out what is, and what is not, acceptable in terms of studentbehaviour. It may well be that such themes are already part of study skills oracademic writing courses, but course organisers need to ask themselves whether theyare giving them adequate weighting. Students whose first language is not Englishwill also need to be provided with samples of the forms of assignments that areacceptable and those that are not and be given sufficient instruction and practice inproducing the former. Since requirements may vary from faculty to faculty, it islikely that such courses need to be organised on a faculty basis. Overseas studentsmay, likewise, require ongoing academic writing support, at least throughout thefirst year of their study, and the presence of a faculty-specific study skills/writingconsultant could go a long way towards dispelling uncertainties before they becomeproblems.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 101
Controlling Student Plagiarism
Institutions also need to develop systems and procedures for containing anddetecting plagiarism. There are several areas in which academic staff can beproactive.
First, academic staff need to develop tools and methods to deter plagiarism. Forexample, requiring students to turn in multi-drafts of essays can help dissuadestudents from borrowing papers from fellow students to copy, while directing themto submit photocopies of the relevant pages of any source material used for anassignment encourages them to be careful about how they make use of sources(Wilhoit, 1994). Some academic staff now require a student to attach to submittedassignments a signed honesty declaration that the work is indeed his/her own, thatall sources have been acknowledged and that the student is aware of the universitypolicies on, and penalties for, plagiarism. Such a document may not only have apsychological effect in helping to keep the student honest; it could also be used asa legal document in a future disciplinary proceeding. Possible additional tools mightbe: varying assignment topics from semester to semester/year to year; developingmulti-form assignments which vary depending, for example, on the first letter of thestudent's surname; arranging for assignments, such as essays and reports, to bewritten in supervised sessions which permit students to make use of their notes andtext books; personalising assignments and entering into coursework contracts withstudents. Information exchange between departments and the possible developmentof a data base of proven plagiarists would go some way towards monitoring levels ofplagiarism.
Second, academic staff need to be aware that the way their courses are structuredor the way they apply their assessment system may actually be encouraging studentsto plagiarise. According to Graham et al. (1994), students view learning as areciprocal process. Perceived unfairness on the part of the lecturer may lead studentsto see cheating behaviours, such as plagiarism, as acceptable behaviour. Academicstaff would therefore be advised to review the quality of their assessment/markingprocedures to ensure consistency and fairness. In addition, some academic staff mayhave to look carefully at the forms of continuous assessment they use within theircourses and decide whether specific assignments—perhaps even the whole system ofassessment—need to be redesigned with the deterrence of plagiarism in mind.
In the same way, lecturers need to make clear to their students when collaborationis desirable and/or acceptable and when it is not. In some courses where much of thework is collaborative and the assessment team- or group-based, plagiarism may noteven be an issue. But, in others, there may be genuine confusion in students' mindsas to which assignments they are allowed to collaborate on and which shouldrepresent individual effort. It is therefore up to the lecturer to dispel any suchconfusion if it exists.
Finally, academic staff need to be able to detect plagiarism when it occurs. Whilepractised markers may be adept at identifying a plagiarised assignment when theysee it, less experienced markers may not. If plagiarism is potentially a problem in acourse, it would be wise on the part of the course controller to ensure markers know
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
102 J. Walker
how to spot a plagiarised script through awareness of classic identifiers. Such asession could be part of normal marker-training activities.
Dealing with Cases of Student Plagiarism
Academic staff face difficulties in assessing how to deal with different levels ofstudent plagiarism and there appear to be inconsistencies in the way that differentacademic staff members handle similar offences. As previously argued, one of theproblems is that plagiarism is really a continuum of behaviours (Hawley, 1984). Asa result, academic staff may find a particular plagiarism behaviour hard to define; beconfused about the gravity of the offence; and be unaware of what the correspondingpenalty should be. If an institution neglects to offer a clear statement of whatbehaviours it considers constitute plagiarism and what penalties can be incurred forthe separate offences, it is not surprising that academic staff across departments andfaculties will respond in an inconsistent manner. Academic staff should, therefore,be given more assistance in learning how to deal with plagiarism. Although individualcases often have to be taken on their own merits, it should be possible to establisha set of consistent guidelines which can be applied across departments, faculties andperhaps the whole university. Such guidelines could include:
• a category of plagiarism types graded according to the seriousness of the offence;• a clear set of procedures for dealing with each type;• a list of penalties, related to the type and gravity of the offence.
Figure 1 is an attempt at such a set of guidelines and represents a PlagiarismContinuum of seven behaviours often considered as coming within a broaddefinition of student plagiarism. This Continuum is offered as a tool to helpacademic staff identify the particular type of plagiarism that they are confronted withand decide on the gravity of that case in relation to others. The behaviours on theContinuum range from what might be seen as the mildest form of plagiarism, thatis, "sham paraphrasing" to the most serious "purloining" of another's work.
While an attempt has been made to provide a gradual progression along theContinuum, it may well be that particulars surrounding individual cases could meansome slight variation. For example, it could be argued that, under certain circum-stances, a case of "verbatim copying" might be regarded as less serious than otherplagiarism. It could also be argued that Plagiarism Types 1-4 differ somewhat fromTypes 5-7 in terms of motivation and degree. While Types 1-4 may be committedout of ignorance of academic convention (Types 1, 2 and 4) or confusion overwhether collaboration is permissible (Type 3), Types 5, 6 and 7 are more likely tobe the product of a deliberate intention to deceive and might therefore be viewedmore seriously. This difference is reflected in the procedures and penalties suggestedbelow.
Figure 2 relates the behaviours on the Continuum to suggested guidelines fordealing with each of these types, and to penalties that could be laid down by aninstitution, assuming that the plagiarism is proven and premeditated. It can be seenthat there is a clear progression from the mildest form of student plagiarism which
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
can be dealt with at the discretion of the academic staff member, through to thosewhich would be dealt with by, first, the HoD, then the Dean or equivalent, and,finally, a disciplinary committee. The penalties in this model range from a 10%penalty deduction through to withdrawal of the course credit, that is, exclusion ofthe student from the course.
The model is unlikely to cover every eventuality, since plagiarism cases will varyin their details. Nor will the model correspond entirely to the contexts within whichall tertiary institutions and their faculties and departments operate. It is merelyoffered as a paradigm of what is possible in terms of a rational approach to the issueof how to deal with plagiarism. Institutions could make use of the basic frameworkto develop guidelines, procedures and penalties which would be appropriate withintheir own cultures and operating environments.
Another advantage of the use of such an approved set of guidelines would be thatit would go some way towards establishing an atmosphere of openness and trustbetween university administrators and academic staff on the issue of student plagia-rism. A common complaint by academic staff who do attempt to take a proactivestance on student plagiarism is that they get little support from university adminis-trations. With clear, open guidelines, both academic staff and administrators—not tomention the students themselves—would be fully aware of the procedures andpenalties attached to each type of plagiarism and academic staff would be assured ofthe support of the administration should action be necessary. In addition, studentsinvolved in plagiarism could at least have a firm expectation of equitable treatment.
Student Plagiarism in Universities 103
1. SHAM PARAPHRASING
2. ILLICIT PARAPHRASING
3. OTHER PLAGIARISM
4. VERBATIM COPYING
5. RECYCLING
6. GHOSTWRITING
7. PURLOINING
material copied verbatim from text and sourceacknowledged in-line but represented as paraphrased
material paraphrased from text without in-lineacknowledgement of source
material copied from another student's assignment with theknowledge of the other student
material copied verbatim from text without in-lineacknowledgement of the source
same assignment submitted more than once for differentcourses
assignment written by third party and represented bystudent as own work
assignment copied from another student's assignment orother person's paper without that person's knowledge
MINOR INFRINGEMENT = less than 50% of assignment plagiarisedMAJOR INFRINGEMENT = more than 50% of/entire assignment plagiarised
FIG. I. The plagiarism continuum.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
104 J. Walker
PlagiarismType
SHAMPARA-PHRASING
ILLICITPARA-PHRASING
OTHERPLAGIARISMTYPE ONE:BOTHSTUDENTSCURRENTLYIN COURSE
OTHERPLAGIARISMTYPE TWO:1 STUDENTCOMPLETEDCOURSEPREVIOUSLY
VERBATIMCOPYING
RECYCLING
GHOSTWRITING
PURLOINING
Procedure
Academic staff member brings toattention of student.
Academic staff member officiallycensures student, copy of letter toHoD and dean of faculty.
Students interviewed by HoD andofficially censured in writing. Copyof letter to dean of faculty.
Students interviewed by HoD andofficially censured in writing. Copyof letter to dean of faculty.
Student interviewed by HoD andofficially censured in writing.Copy of letter to dean of faculty.
Student brought beforedean/disciplinary committeeEntry in official record.
Student brought beforedean/disciplinary committeeEntry in official record.
Student brought beforedean/disciplinary committeeEntry in official record.
Penalty
MINORMarks deducted equal to 10%-50%of assignment value depending onamount, no resubmission permitted
MAJORMarks deducted equal to 10%-100%of assignment value depending onamount, no resubmission permitted
MINORMarks deducted equal to 10%-50%of assignment value depending onamount, no resubmission permitted
MAJORMarks deducted equal to 51%-100%of assignment value depending onamount, no resubmission permitted
MINOROriginal assignment marked andassessed at no more than 50%, copyassignment marked and assessed atno more than 25%
MAJOROriginal assignment marked andassessed at no more than 50%, copyassignment rated 0%.
MINORCopy assignment marked andassessed at no more than 25%.Course credit of colluding studentreviewed.
MAJORCopy assignment rated 0%. Coursecredit of colluding studentreviewed.
MINORAssignment marked and assessed atno more than 25% of total marks
MAJORAssignment assessed at 0%, noresubmission permitted
Assignment rated 0%, studentplaced on probation for rest ofperiod of study
Assignment rated 0%, studentplaced on probation for rest ofperiod of study.
Assignment rated 0% and/or coursecredit withdrawn depending onseriousness of offence
FIG. 2. Suggested procedures and penalties for types of plagiarism.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
Student Plagiarism in Universities 105
Any framework, however, is unlikely to be effective unless the policy on plagiarismis applied with some firmness. Specific cases and the penalties imposed need to bewidely publicised to help spread the word that the institution is going to take studentplagiarism seriously.
Further Research into Student Plagiarism
This article reviewed some of the recent literature on student plagiarism, describedan informal study into academic staff perceptions of, experiences with, and re-sponses to, student plagiarism and offered a number of recommendations for settingup programmes to deal with student plagiarism. There is, however, a clear need forfurther research into the issue at a local, New Zealand level. In particular, there isa need for accurate data on the actual extent of student plagiarism, academic staffattitudes towards, and perceptions of, student plagiarism, as well as on the reasonswhy students become involved in it. Such a study would enable tertiary institutionsto gain a clearer understanding of plagiarism as a phenomenon and assist indeveloping more comprehensive measures to deal with it.
Address for correspondence: John Walker, Department of Management Systems,Faculty of Business Studies, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
ReferencesAARON, R.M. & GEORGIA, R.T. (1994). Administrator perceptions of student academic dishonesty
in collegiate institutions. NASPA Journal, 31(2), 83-91.BAKER, I. (1993). Lessons from the introduction of fees for overseas students. Journal of Tertiary
Education Administration, 15(1), 95-98.BARKER, M., CHILD, C , GALLOIS, C , JONES, E. & CALLAN, V.J. (1991). Difficulties of overseas
students in social and academic situations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 79-84.BOOTH, W.C., COLOMB, G.G. & WILLIAMS, J.M. (1995). The craft of research. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.BROWN, B.S. (1995, January/February). The academic ethics of graduate business students:
A survey. Journal of Education for Business, 151-156.BURNS, R.B. (1991). Study and stress among first year overseas students in an Australian
university. Higher Education Research & Development, 10(1), 61-77.BURTON, B.K. & NEAR, J.P. (1995). Estimating the incidence of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing:
Results of a study using randomised response technique. Journal of Business Ethics, 14,17-30.
CORDEIRO, W.P. (1995, September/October). Should a school of business change its ethics toconform to the cultural diversity of its students? Journal of Education for Business, 27-29.
DAVIS, S.F. & LUDVIGSON, H.W. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposalfor remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 119-121.
DIEKHOFF, G.M., LABEFF, E.E., CLARK, R.E., WILLIAMS, L.E., FRANCIS, B. & HAINES, V.J. (1996).College cheating—ten years later. Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 487-502.
FERRELL, C.M. & DANIEL, L.G. (1995). A frame of reference for understanding behaviours relatedto the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students. Research inHigher Education, 36(3), 345-375.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
106 J. Walker
FRANKLYN-STOKES, A. & NEWSTEAD, S.E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: Who does what andwhy? Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 159-172.
Graduates sue varsity for $345,000 over course. (1996, November 28). The Dominion, p. 2.GRAHAM, M.A., MONDAY, J., O'BRIEN, K. & STEFFEN, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges:
An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviours. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 35, 255-260.
HARP, J. &TAIETZ, P. (1966). Academic integrity and social structure: A study of cheating amongcollege students. Social Problems, 13, 365-373.
HAWLEY, C.S. (1984). The thieves of academe. Improving College and University Teaching, 52(1),35-39.
KENNEDY, K.J. (1995). Developing a curriculum guarantee for overseas students. Higher EducationResearch & Development, 14(1), 35-46.
KERKVLIET, J. (1994, Spring). Cheating by economics students: A comparison of survey results.Journal of Economic Education, 121-133.
KIBLER, W.L. (1992, November 11). Cheating: Institutions need a comprehensive plan forpromoting academic integrity. Chronicle of Higher Education, B1-B2.
KIBLER, W.L. (1993). A framework for addressing academic dishonesty from a studentdevelopment perspective. NASPA Journal, 31(1), 8-18.
KIBLER, W.L. (1994). Addressing academic dishonesty: What are institutions of higher educationdoing and not doing? NASPA Journal, 31(2), 93-101.
LIVOSKY, M. & TAUBER, R.T. (1994). Views of cheating among college students and faculty.Psychology in the Schools, 31, 72-82.
NEWSTEAD, S.E., FRANKLYN-STOKES, A. & ARMSTEAD, P. (1996). Individual differences in studentcheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229-241.
QUINTRELL, N. & WESTWOOD, M. (1994). The influence of a peer-pairing program on inter-national students' first year experience and use of student services. Higher EducationResearch & Development, 13(1), 49-57.
ROIG, M. & DETOMASSO, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academicprocrastination? Psychological Reports, 77, 691-698.
SAMUELOWICZ, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of the story.Research and Development in Higher Education, 62, 121-133.
SCHEERS, N.J. & DAYTON, C.M. (1987). Improved estimation of academic cheating usingrandomised response techniques. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 61-69.
SPILLER, S. & CROWN, D.F. (1995). Changes over time in academic dishonesty at the collegiatelevel. Psychological Reports, 76, 763-768.
WILHOIT, S. (1994). Helping students avoid plagiarism. College Teaching, 42(4), 161-164.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
LIU
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
4:21
21
Apr
il 20
14
