Investigating Plagiarism: The Form and The Motivation in Performing Plagiarism in High Education

Abstract

The rapid development of information technology, especially the Internet is pointed out to be factor driving the student to practice plagiarism. Prevention efforts continue to be made both from government policies and stakeholder by creating software anti-plagiarism. However, in the reality the practice of plagiarism remains common and relatively more widespread. This practice continues to be varied, so that we need to update the information and findings through investigations plagiarism practices in student assignments. The method used was a mixed-method approach or mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches. A quantitative approach was done by using software turnitin.com to scan for plagiarism indication of the level of student assignment in common. To study the behavior of plagiarism, the interview process was also done informally to students who commit high plagiarism. The results showed that the pattern of students' plagiarism consists of five forms: sham paraphrasing, illicit paraphrasing, other plagiarism, copying verbatim and purloining. Illicit paraphrasing practices are a form of copy-paste literature review and did not pay attention to the bibliography. Besides, the practice of plagiarism is closely associated with low academic writing knowledge. Therefore, the practice of plagiarism should not only be viewed from the perspective of the academic violations, but also from the other perspectives.

Academic Dishonesty Among Accounting Students: Some Indonesian Evidence

“…Without clear rules, students can have a different perception of how certain acts categorise as academic dishonesty (Hartanto 2012). Moreover, students do not feel guilty in committing academic dishonesty because they do not know about it (Sariffuddin et al 2017). Also, students are found not aware of academic dishonesty (Agustina and Raharjo 2017).…”

Academic faculty conceptualisation and understanding of plagiarism – a Thai university exploratory study

“…These types of plagiarism are related to academic writing and using others' work in academic contexts. Previous studies have stated that "patchwriting"0 1 (Bretag, 2013;Mustafa, 2016;Pecorari, 2019;Pecorari & Petrić, 2014;Sariffuddin et al, 2017), a "copy-and-paste/cut-and-paste" strategy (Bretag, 2013, p. 2) or "word salad" (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017, p. 15) has been most frequently found in written work of international students or those for whom English is an additional language.…”

“…When considering factors that influence students' plagiaristic behaviour, many studies have found that lack of understanding of the concept of plagiarism for both students and academics, is a primary reason for students' plagiarism (Hue et al, 2018;Kavita & Joshi, 2018;Sariffuddin et al, 2017;Sutherland-Smith, 2019). The context of students' learning, or where they develop their beliefs about plagiarism, could be one of the most important factors of the students' behaviour (Al-Shamaa et al, 2017;du Rocher;Hue et al, 2018).…”

“…The literature also suggests that most students plagiarise because they have inadequate skills in a complex task of writing and lack of knowledge in any standard styles of citation and referencing (Kavita & Joshi, 2018;Pecorari & Petrić, 2014;Sariffuddin et al, 2017;Sutherland-Smith, 2019) including lack of confidence in their academic writing (Ballantine et al, 2015) as well as a general lack of research skills (Kavita & Joshi, 2018). Khathayut's (2014) study found that most students copied and pasted sentences from an original text, changed some words and put them into their work without citation.…”

Checking Similarity in Efl Undergraduate Students’ Research Proposal

“…Despite of the availability of plagiarism detection, many studies have found cases of plagiarism. In Indonesian context, Sariffuddin et al, (2017)found some students' papers containing 25% -75% of plagiarism content through Turnitin check. Sulaiman (2018)also identified that from DupliChecker test, 97.54% from 44 papers contains plagiarism.…”