Skip to main content

Exploring the Perceived Spectrum of Plagiarism: a Case Study of Online Learning

Abstract

Scholarship on faculty and student perceptions of plagiarism is plagued by a vast, scattered constellation of perspectives, context, and nuance. Cultural, disciplinary, and institutional subtitles, among others in how plagiarism is defined and perspectives about it tested obfuscate consensus about how students and faculty perceive and understand plagiarism and what can or should be done about those perspectives. However, there is clear consensus that understanding how students and faculty perceive plagiarism is foundational to mitigating and preventing plagiarism. This study takes up the challenge of investigating its own institution’s student and faculty perspectives on plagiarism by testing whether students and instructors differentiate between different kinds or genres of plagiarism, and measuring differences in their perception of seriousness or severity of those genres. Using a device modified from the ‘plagiarism spectrum’ published by Turnitin®, the researchers implemented a campus-wide survey of faculty and student perceptions, and analyzed the data using two different methodologies to ensure results triangulation. This study demonstrates both students and faculty clearly differentiate between kinds of plagiarism, but not on their severity. This study demonstrates both students and faculty clearly differentiate the severity between kinds of plagiarism, but not on the specific rank or order of their severity. Further, this study’s novel methodology is demonstrated as valuable for use by other academic institutions to investigate and understand their cultures of plagiarism.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. iParadigm’s The plagiarism spectrum: Instructor insights into the 10 types of plagiarism (2012) claims to have utilized, “both higher and secondary education instructors to take a measure of how prevalent and problematic these [examples] of plagiarism are among their students” (p. 9) in their rankings. However, no further descriptions or details of the study’s population and sample, data collection methods, datasets, or analysis methods are provided.

References

  • Amiri, F., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2016). On Iranian EFL undergraduate students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouville, M. (2008) Plagiarism: Words and Ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 311-322.

  • Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camara, S. K., Eng-Ziskin, S., Wimberley, L., Dabbour, K. S., & Lee, C. M. (2017). Predicting students’ intention to plagiarize: An ethical theoretical framework. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheema, Z. A., Mahmood, S. T., Mahmood, A., & Shah, M. A. (2011). Conceptual awareness of research scholars about plagiarism at higher education level: Intellectual property right and patent. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(1), 666-671.

  • Childers, D., & Bruton, S. (2016). “Should it be considered plagiarism?” student perceptions of complex citation issues. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, G. J., Cowcher, E., Greene, B. R., Rundle, K., Paull, M., & Davis, M. C. (2018). Self-control, injunctive norms, and descriptive norms predict engagement in plagiarism in a theory of planned behavior model. Journal of Academic Ethics, (16), 1–15.

  • Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L., & Hosp, J. L. (2007). Designing and conducting research in education. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ERAU. (2017). ERAU Worldwide Student Handbook 2018=2019. [pamphlet]. Daytona Beach: ERAU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eret, E., & Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: Tendencies, triggering factors, and reasons among teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 8(39), 1002-1016.

  • Evans, G. W. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for industrial engineering: Methodology and applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students' perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, A., Barky, C., Powell, G., & Frost, J. (2013). A comparison of university efforts to contain academic dishonesty. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 16(1), 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, N., & Intron, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism pets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckler, N. C., & Forde, D. R. (2015). The role of cultural values in plagiarism in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(1), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiman, G. W. (2006). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M. (1992). Plagiarism and the postmodern professor. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “internet plagiarism”. Computers and Composition, 24(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2015). Chinese university students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 25(3), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • iParadigms, LLC. (2012). The plagiarism spectrum: Instructor insights into the 10 types of plagiarism (version 0512). Turnitin. www.turnitin.com

  • Ison, D. (2017). Academic misconduct and the Internet. In D. Velliaris (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Academic Misconduct in Higher Education (pp. 82-111). Hershey, PA.

  • Ison, D. C. (2012). Plagiarism among dissertations: Prevalence at online institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(3), 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josien, L., & Broderick, B. (2013). Cheating in higher education: The case of multi-methods cheaters. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3), 93–105.

  • Khoshsaligheh, M., Mehdizadkhani, M., & Keyvan, S. (2017). Severity of types of violations of research ethics: Perception of Iranian Master’s students of translation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., & Kupila, P. (2013). The instructional challenges of student plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(3), 231–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., Huotari, E., & Kupila, P. (2017). Conceptions of plagiarism and problems in academic writing in a changing landscape of external regulation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(3), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logie, J. (2005). Cut and paste: Remixing composition pedagogy for online workspaces. In K. St. Amant, & P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Internet-Based Workplace Communications: Industry and Academic Applications (pp. 299-316). IGI Global.

  • Louw, H. (2017). Defining plagiarism: Student and staff perceptions of a grey concept. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5), 116–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J.H. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Sparky House Pub.

  • Ramzan, M., Munir, M. A., Siddique, N., et al. (2012). Awareness about plagiarism amongst university students in Pakistan. Higher Education, 64, 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razera, D., Verhagen, H., Pargman, T. C., & Ramberg, R. (2010, June). Plagiarism awareness, perception, and attitudes among students and teachers in Swedish higher education—A case study. In 4th International plagiarism conference–towards an authentic future. Northumbria University in Newcastle Upon Tyne-UK (pp. 21-23).

  • Reyman, J. (2008). Rethinking plagiarism for technical communication. Technical Communication, 55(1), 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezanejad, A., & Rezaei, S. (2013). Academic dishonesty at universities: The case of plagiarism among Iranian language students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(4), 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1978). Modeling unstructured decision problems—The theory of analytical hierarchies. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 20(3), 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). Pandora's box: Academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland-Smith, W. (2014). Legality, quality assurance and learning: Competing discourses of plagiarism management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnitin, LLC. (2017). Plagiarism.org. Retrieved from https://www.plagiarism.org/

  • Vie, S. (2013). A pedagogy of resistance toward plagiarism detection technologies. Computers and Composition, 30(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G., Sottile, J., & Liang, J. G. (2014). What is cheating? Student and faculty perception of what they believe is academically dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Education, 24(1), 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. (2009). Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism and cheating. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, S. (2007). First-year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerie Denney.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey Instrument

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Denney, V., Dixon, Z., Gupta, A. et al. Exploring the Perceived Spectrum of Plagiarism: a Case Study of Online Learning. J Acad Ethics 19, 187–210 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09364-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09364-3

Keywords

  • Academic integrity
  • Plagiarism
  • Cheating
  • Ethics
  • Turnitin
  • Survey