plagiarism-a cross-cultural study of internet influences and pedagogical implications

António Bota, Academic Plagiarism- A Cross-Cultural Study of Internet Influences and Pedagogical Implications

1

ACADEMIC PLAGIARISM - A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF INTERNET

INFLUENCES AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

António Bota *

* - Licenciado em Literatura Inglesa; Mestre em Ensinar Inglês como Lingua Segunda, INUAF, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The problem of cheating is not a new issue in the academic context. However, the

recent growth and popularity of the Internet, which has increased over 300% during the

last decade, brought into the academic setting new opportunities for those who

plagiarize to achieve their goals. This study, in order to perceive different cultural views

on “traditional” and “digital” forms of academic dishonesty, explored and compared

students in the U.S. and students in Portugal. It was found that forms of traditional

plagiarism are equally known in both settings and students do indeed plagiarize from

traditional sources. Furthermore, results suggest that the frequency with which students

use the Internet is not associated to a higher plagiarism propensity. There was found,

however, a higher propensity to take others’ ideas from online sources when students

from the U.S setting used the Internet for school purposes, whereas students in Portugal

showed similar propensity for taking papers from the Internet. This propensity was

correlated to the easiness of access and download available information. Moreover, this

work presents the opinions of topic-expert teachers on pedagogical strategies that could

help reducing plagiarism amongst students.

RESUMO (Portuguese)

O problema do plágio não é uma questão nova no contexto acadêmico. No entanto, o

recente crescimento e popularidade da Internet, que aumentou mais de 300% durante a

última década, trouxe para o ambiente acadêmico novas oportunidades para aqueles

que plagiam para atingir os seus objectivos. O presente estudo, a fim de perceber

diferentes pontos de vista culturais em relação ás formas "tradicionais" e "digitais" de

desonestidade acadêmica, explorou e comparou alunos dos E.U. com alunos em

Portugal. Apurou-se que as formas tradicionais de plágio são conhecidas e practicadas

em ambos os contextos e que os alunos de facto plagiam atravês de formas

tradicionais. Além disso, os resultados sugerem que a frequência com que os alunos


2

usam a Internet não está associada a uma maior propensão para o plágio. Verificou-se,

entretanto, uma maior propensão para plagiar idéias dos outros a partir de fontes online

quando os estudantes nos E.U. utilizam a Internet para fins escolares enquanto que os

alunos em Portugal mostram semelhante propensão mas para plagiar trabalhos

existentes na Internet. Existe uma correlacão entre esta propensão e a facilidade de

acesso e de “download” das informações disponiveis. Este trablaho apresenta ainda as

opiniões de professores especializados no assunto de plagio académico numa

perspectiva de encontrar estratégias pedagógicas que possam contribuir para a redução

de plágio entre os estudantes.

Keywords:

Academic dishonesty; Academic plagiarism; Cheating; Internet and Plagiarism; process

oriented assessment; Plagiarism in Portugal; Plagiarism in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION

The Internet is one of the biggest innovations of the last decade and it is influencing the

lives of many around the world. It is very trendy at the moment, and in the last decade,

according to the World Internet Statistics (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), it

has expanded over 380% across the globe. In the US alone, its growth reached 138%

while in Portugal, since the year 2000, the Internet reached 175% of growth. Both in

Portugal and in the U.S., nowadays, almost every school has Internet available for its

students and, it is becoming rare to find one household without an Internet connection.

Thus, the possibilities for academic dishonesty in schools, if a reality before the Internet

era, seem now to have increased substantially due to the facility with which any one can

access online sources. For example, students have free access to study guides, quick

notes, and critical analyzes for almost any academic topic and to any class assignment,

from sites such as www.pinkmonkey.com, http://www.ukessays.co.uk,

www.sparknotes.com, including theses or even dissertations on demand and with

guaranteed of confidentiality and originality.

Even though academic dishonesty has always been around, recent researches seem to

indicate that it is growing dramatically amongst college students. Some researchers

have suggested that the Internet has contributed to this epidemic problem (e.g.,

Rumbought, 2001; Scanlon & Neumann, 2002). The Internet offers resources such as

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/

http://www.ukessays.co.uk/

http://www.sparknotes.com/


3

encyclopedias and a plethora of available works from which students can “copy and

paste” or perform complete downloads about multiple school subjects. There is a large

volume of research examining academic plagiarism in the U.S., but, in sharp contrast,

there is scant work to rely on when it comes to learn about this issue in Portuguese

schools. The present study, far from being exhaustive on plagiarism issues, aims to

explore cross cultural views of Internet influence on academic plagiarism amongst

students in the U.S. and students in Portugal, thus, contributing to the existent data.

Additionally, it examines the opinion of field experienced teachers with regard to

pedagogical strategies to reduce plagiarism.

Research Questions

To gain a better cross-cultural understanding of how students perceive plagiarism and of

their motivations, if any, for plagiarizing in English writing classes, especially from online

sources, the researcher developed and administered a survey to student participants

aiming to explore six research questions, as follows: (1) How does learner knowledge

about plagiarism differ among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English

as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (2) How does

learner awareness of a school honour code and teacher lectures about plagiarism differ

among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second

Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (3) How does learner

awareness of other students’ plagiarism differ among students in colleges in Portugal

versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in

the U.S.? (4) How does learner usage of the Internet differ among students in colleges in

Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in

colleges in the U.S.? (5) How do learner reports of committing plagiarism differ among

students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL)

writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (6) To what extent are learners’ reported

plagiarism practices associated with learner knowledge about plagiarism, perceptions of

other students’ plagiarism, perceptions of teacher and school attitudes about plagiarism,

and usage of the Internet among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? This last

research question generated 8 hypotheses that are discussed in the “findings” section.

With the purpose to gather reports of teachers regarding their experience with

pedagogical models of process-oriented assessment and whether such pedagogical


4

models help reduce the amount of plagiarism, a 5 open-ended questionnaire was

designed and answered by experienced teachers in the field of ESL/EFL and across

curriculum. The reports of teachers aim to clarify the last research question: (7) Do

teachers believe that a pedagogical model of process-oriented assessment of writing

lessens the amount of plagiarism in colleges Portugal and in the U.S.?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Academic plagiarism is a big concern in schools and University campuses worldwide. It

might vary amongst different cultures but there is common agreement about what

academic dishonesty means. Kibler (1993) defines academic dishonesty as forms of

“cheating and plagiarism that involve students giving or receiving unauthorized

assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work that is not their own.”

James et al. (2002, p.5), argues that “plagiarism varies in both intent and extent, ranging

from deliberate fraud, to negligent or accidental failure to acknowledge sources of

paraphrased material and misunderstandings about the conventions of authorship.”

Moreover, Burke (1997) defines that plagiarism is “intentionally using or attempting to

use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise.” In

terms of types of plagiarism, many have been mentioned, including when students hand

in someone else's work as their own, copy words or ideas from someone else without

giving credit, use someone else´s words without quotation marks, give incorrect

information about the source of a quotation, copy full paragraphs and change the word

order without giving credit, copy ideas that make up the majority of the work and do not

mention authorship, and copy-and-paste or simply purchase works from online paper-

mills (McCabe and Trevino, 1996; McCabe et al., 2003; McCabe, 2005; Rumbought,

2001; Cabe, 2003; Rocha & Teixeira, 2005, 2006).

Although plagiarism is not a new issue in academia, there has been a proliferation of

published work, in recent years, which might indicate that this issue is on the rise.

Hawley (1984) surveyed 425 students with regards to their behaviors at school and

reported that over 12% admitted asking someone to write a paper for them, and about

25% of these students agreed that plagiarism was common and acceptable. Collinson

(1990, cited in Lawson, 2004) found that 37% of the surveyed students reported acts of

cheating on their high school exams. Moreover, Bunn et al. (1992) researched two

undergraduate courses in the U.S. and found that almost half of the students surveyed


5

admitted to having cheated with 80% considering cheating to be normal and known

amongst them. Additionally, Davis et al. (1992) surveyed more than 6000 students

where about 75% of the respondents admitted cheating in high school and college. To

complete this brief scenario, there are researchers who claim that academic dishonesty

is increasing and, progressively, influencing more followers (e.g., Haines et al., 1987;

Davis et al., 1992; Burke, 1997; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; McCabe, 2005).

A vast majority of the empirical studies exploring plagiarism issues focus on factors that

influence plagiarism in the American context. For instance, “motivation and seeking for

high marks” have been pointed as influencing factors (e.g., Whitley, 1998; Kerkvliet &

Sigmund, 1999; Sheard et al., 2003;). Another factor extensively explored is the

existence of an “honour code” at school (e.g., Kerkvliet & Sigmund, 1999; McCabe et al.,

2003). And, amongst many different factors, the cheating environment or peer influence

in the classroom was also object of research (Bunn et al., 1992; Genereux & McLeod,

1995; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Rocha & Teixeira, 2005, 2006). In the Portuguese

context, even though scant, plagiarism and its motivations have been studied specially

through the work of Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006).

Rocha and Teixeira (2005) surveyed 2675 undergraduate students from main

Portuguese public universities and found that the phenomenon exists and its propensity

increases with the expectation of benefits and varies according to the area of the

country, with a conclusion that an outstanding 92 % of Portuguese students have

embraced cheating at least once. Moreover, undertaking one of the most exhaustive

comparative researches on the topic, Rocha & Teixeira (2006) surveyed a total of 7213

students from 21 different countries, being 2805 subjects from 11 Universities across

Portugal. The Portuguese students, from Economics and Business courses, were found

to have values of cheating around 62%. The only country with higher number of

incidences was Romania where dishonest students reached 94.0% of the inquired.

Until recently, most studies explored traditional contexts where the Internet was not

considered with a role on plagiarism. Some educators and researchers, however, claim

that the rise on plagiarism is related to the spread of the Internet, since everyone relies

on online sources to find information. Rumbought (2001) conducted a 55 item survey

with 985 American college students and found that, amongst many different purposes,

17 % used the Internet to cheat on school assignments, being 19 % identified as

students who “copy and paste” from the Internet without giving credit. McLenann (2003)

reports that Scheidermair, a professor and the head of the German Universities


6

Association, admits that one third of all essays submitted “to German Universities are

plagiarized via the Internet.” Moreover, Scheidermair is quoted to say that “students are

paying to [get] content for their essays from help sites.” Moreover, in the UK, and due to

the rise of academic cheating on different campuses, the author reports that more than

70 Universities have already signed up for software that detects Internet illegal copying.

Lester (2002), however, surveyed four hundred fifty-three students and found that over

80 % had cheated using traditional methods and only about 12% had used the Internet

to plagiarize. Scanlon & Neumann (2002) administered a survey to 698 college students

from nine universities across America and reported that a minority of the surveyed

students were found to have used the Internet to “copy and paste” text into their own

papers without giving credit to sources they used in their writings, which declines the

idea that the Internet is the major reason for the recent rise on academic plagiarism,

taking into consideration these students were considered frequent users (at least 3 or 4

times a week) of the Internet.

If results differ and reasons are various, most researchers agree that to curb down

plagiarism, teachers must take preventive measures. A plethora of published papers is

available with advice to reduce plagiarism ranging from limiting the opportunities for

prospective plagiarizers on exams and assignments to take different approaches on

assessing students writing outcomes. Tribble (1996) refers to a “process-oriented

assessment” when assessing and giving feedback to students' writing skills as the

student progresses through a series of drafts instead of just one moment of evaluation.

Zamel (1987) shares the same opinion and reaffirms that teaching English language

through writing should be teaching the language by using the creativity of the individual

writer and not teaching with existent writing models. There are other authors who also

prefer this type of methodologies and assessment, adding that a series of comments on

different drafts, until the final product is achieved with expected quality, reduces the

motivation students might have to plagiarize (Diffley & Lapp, 1998; Ferris, 2003; Ferris &

Hedgcock, 2005). Then, the opinions of experienced teachers who deal with plagiarism

issues in class should not be left aside and are also included in this paper.


7

METHODOLOGY

Procedures

This study was conducted between the winter and summer 2009. It has two types of

participants: student participants and teacher participants. Students were required to

have at least high school level of English, being enrolled in an English writing class, and

be at least 18 years old. They participated voluntarily and after being explained (by the

researcher) the purposes of the survey, and upon individual permission, they filled in the

surveys keeping anonymity. After surveys were collected, they were marked with a

demographic code for each school, and all survey items were entered into cross-

tabulations with chi-squares that examined differences between students from the U.S.

academic setting and from the Portuguese. Scales were created to better classify the

items. A scale for awareness of plagiarism included items 3 (recoded 0 = not aware, 1 =

aware), 4 (recoded 0 = not aware, 1 = aware), 5a, b, and c; and 18 (recoded 0 = not

aware, 1 = aware). It had an acceptable level of internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha

above .50 for students in the U.S. (alpha = .58) and students in Portugal (alpha = .54). A

scale for knowing peers who plagiarize from the “Internet” (question 13) or from “printed

sources” (question 14) was also constructed; alpha was .81 for students in Portugal and

.67 for students in the U.S. Additionally two scales were constructed for plagiarism

practices. One had to do with using ideas from others’ work as one’s own, and included

items 11a, b, c and d. Cronbach’s alpha was .62 for students in Portugal and .74 for

students in the U.S. Another scale had to do with copying others’ work as one’s own,

and included items 6, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 (use same items). Cronbach’s alpha was .58

for students in Portugal and .79 for students in the U.S.

Teachers participants were randomly invited via e-mail as they listed their e-mail

addresses on their published works. Their reply, as explained, meant their consent to

participate.

Student Participants

Initially, 47 responses from City College of San Francisco (CCSF), 21 from San

Francisco State University (SFSU), 16 from the Universidade de Evora (UE) [University

of Evora, Portugal], and 14 from the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL) [New

University of Lisbon, Portugal], were collected. Participants were informed about the

details of their participation before they anonymously answered the survey. This study,

after eliminating those surveys that were incomplete or whose anonymity was not

completely secure, had a final count of 58 participants attending colleges in the U.S. and


8

28 participants attending colleges in Portugal. There were two subcultures (2 Latino

students and 6 Asian students) in the group of students from the U.S. but since

statistical analysis did not reveal any differences amongst them or comparing them with

the other subjects, all are considered part of the same culture for this purpose. Picture 1

depicts the final participation for analysis.

Teachers Participants

To avoid any type of conflict between teachers and their students, teachers who were

teaching classes from which students participated were not invited or allowed to respond

the 5 open-ended questions survey.

Instruments

There are four methods of collecting data on academic plagiarism (Kerkvliet and

Sigmund, 1999). The method of "inspection via direct questions and answers" was used

in this study. The decision was based on the fact that several studies of academic

dishonesty use this same procedure (e.g., Bunn et al., 1992; Sheard et al., 2003; Rocha

& Teixeira, 2005, 2006).

The student questionnaire was comprised of a 20-item survey questionnaire. There were

several categories of questions such as awareness of plagiarism, social context of

plagiarism (know students who plagiarize, teacher spoke about plagiarism, honour code

at school), frequency and type of Internet usage, motivations for plagiarizing, and types

of plagiarizing behaviors students have performed. Some questions were presented as

binary (yes-no) items, others in a five-point Likert-scale items and some others were

presented in a multiple choice from where participants could choose a single answer or

as many as applied. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, some questions were asked more

than once to verify its accurateness, or were asked in different sections of the survey.


9

Table 1 shows the strategy in which different questions from different groups were

analyzed together.

Table 1 -Research Questions and Most Important Corresponding Questions ______________________________________________________________________Research questions Questions ______________________________________________________________________ 1. Learner knowledge about plagiarism 3, 4, 5a-d, 18 2. Awareness of other students’ plagiarism 13, 14 3. Awareness of school honour code 19, 20 and frequency of teacher lectures on plagiarism 4. Learner use of Internet

For school-related information and chat rooms 7, 8b, d, 10a For English classes 8e, 10b Use ideas found with search engines 12b Use ideas found from on-line resources 8a, c All other items 11, 12c, d

5. Learner reports of committing plagiarism Copy from others, use hidden notes 6b

6. All other items Other questions ______________________________________________________________________ The teachers’ questionnaire was comprised of a five open-ended questions. It aimed to

collect diverse answers from experienced teachers or researchers in the field of English

composition and ESL/EFL. The criterion for formulating the questionnaire was developed

upon concerns regarding teaching practices to lessen students’ plagiarism.

The data collected from the instrument used for students was entered into cross-

tabulations with chi-squares and t-tests to examine differences between cultures and

subcultures (e.g., Asian and Hispanic students in the U.S.). all data was correlated with

items about awareness of plagiarism, social context of plagiarism, Internet usage, and

motivation to plagiarize; Spearman’s one-tailed correlations were used.

The analysis of the data received via teachers responses was done similarly to what

McCabe et al. (1999) previously did. To identify trends, notable insights, and

pedagogically useful opinions, answers were read holistically to find any recurring

trends. Then, those trends were extracted and grouped into topics and sub-topics. Tests

were also performed for significance of frequency of trends and other significant

comments.

PART I – FINDINGS of the STUDENT SURVEY

The results of this study are presented in two parts. The first reports the results of the

survey administered to students attending colleges in the U.S. (hereafter called Group

U) and in Portugal (hereafter called Group P) and links the results with the first six


10

research questions. The second part reports the opinions collected from the open-ended

teacher questionnaire and addresses the seventh research question. To address the first

six research questions of this study, the two sets of data were collected and then

analyzed and compared: one from Group U and one from Group P.

Despite that there are 22 questions in the survey this paper will depict only those

questions which are significant for the cross cultural understanding of Internet influences

on academic plagiarism or to understand the dimension of this academic concern.

Research Question 1 (Survey questions 3, 4, 5 and 18) asked how learner

knowledge about plagiarism differs among students in both settings.

Question 3 asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement that “to plagiarize

is to take and turn in another’s person ideas, writing, or inventions as one’s own.” From

observing the results, it is clear that the majority of students self-reported being aware of

the definition of plagiarism stated in the dictionary. There is a marginally significant

difference between students in Group U and in Group P, with students in Portugal being

slightly more aware of the definition.

Question 4 asked whether participants agreed or disagreed that plagiarism also includes

cheating from “hidden notes” and the use of other’s works as one’s own. Results from a

cross-tabulation with chi-squares indicate that most students understand that cheating

from hidden notes is also a form of plagiarism, with no difference between the two

groups.

Question 5 asked participants whether they confirm being considered plagiarists if

engaging in different forms of plagiarism. This question showed that most students are

aware what is considered plagiarism. It is also clear that there was no significant

difference in plagiarism awareness between students in the two settings.

Question 18 asked students if they believed that they could copy works from the Internet

without citation because that work is in the public domain. Cross-tabulations with chi

squares, depicted in table 2, indicate that about 60% of all participants understood that it

was wrong to copy from the Internet without citation. Overall, about 20% each of

participants were not sure or agreed that copying from the Internet without citing was

acceptable because the work is in the public domain.


11

Table 2 - Copy from Internet without citation because work is in public domain: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Copy from Internet without citation because work is in public domain

Disagree 44 60% 26 57% 18 64% 1.46 2 .48

Don’t know 13 18% 10 22% 3 11%

Agree 17 23% 10 22% 7 25%

______________________________________________________________________

Research Question 2 (survey question 19 and 20) asked how does learner

awareness of a school honour code and teacher lectures about plagiarism differs

among students in both settings.

Question 19 asked if the college the student was attending had a code of honour,

meaning the school had rules regarding consequences for acts of plagiarism. Answers

showed that few students reported that they knew the school had an honour code

regarding plagiarism, and the majority didn’t know or said “no.” Students from Group P

were significantly more likely not to know than students in Group U.

Question 20 asked whether or not the participants had received academic instruction

regarding plagiarism practices and its consequences. Results from t-tests comparing

both groups showed that Group U was more likely to report that their teachers more

often told them about plagiarism and its academic consequences.

Research Question 3 (Survey question 13 and 14) asked how learner awareness of

other students’ plagiarism differs among students in both settings.

Question 13 asked if participants knew any other student who had copied from the

Internet and used works as his/her own, and question 14 asked if participants knew any

other students who had copied from printed sources and used the work as his/her own.

Table 3 depicts results from t-tests that show that compared to students from Group U,

students of group P were significantly more likely to know other students who had

plagiarized for classes using printed sources and were marginally more likely to know

other students who had used the Internet to plagiarize for English classes. Half of

students in Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized from the Internet for


12

an English class compared to 32% of students in the U.S. Regarding traditional sources

of plagiarism, 61% of students in Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized

from books for any class compared to 33% of students in the U.S.

Table 3 - Social context for plagiarism: T-tests ______________________________________________________________________ _______Setting______ Social context for plagiarism N M (S.D.) t df p ______________________________________________________________________ Know students who plagiarized from books for any class

U.S. setting 49 1.41 (.64)-2.79 44.54.008

Portugal 28 1.93 (.86)

Know students who plagiarized from Internet for English classes

U.S. setting 48 1.42 (.68)-1.95 40.89.06

Portugal 26 1.81 (.90)

______________________________________________________________________

Items coded 1 = Don’t know any students who plagiarized, 2 = Know one student who plagiarized, 3 = Know some or many students who plagiarized

Research Question 4 (Survey question 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12) asked how learner

usage of the Internet differs among students in both settings.

Question 7 asked students to self-report their frequency of usage of Internet resources.

Table 4 depicts their answers showing that in both groups, more than half of the

students used the Internet at least once a day, with no significant difference in frequency

of usage between the groups.

Table 4 - Students’ frequency of the Internet usage: Cross-tabulation with chi

squares

______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Frequency of Internet usage N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ A few times a week or less 32 38% 19 34% 13 46% 2.43 2 .30

Once a day 9 11% 5 9% 4 14%

Several times a day 43 51% 32 57% 11 39%

______________________________________________________________________


13

Question 8 asked students their main reason(s) to use the Internet. Table 5 shows that

students in both settings reported they were most likely to use the Internet to check e-

mail, followed by finding information related to their studies. Finding non-school-related

information and chatting on-line appeared to be less popular ways to use the Internet.

Compared to students in the U.S. setting, students in Portugal were more likely to report

using the Internet to find school-related information and to chat on-line, and were less

likely to report using the Internet to find information for their English classes.

Table 5 - Students’ usage of the Internet: Cross-tabulation with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Usage of the Internet N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Type of Internet usage

Check e-mail 77 92% 51 91% 26 93% .08 1 .78

Find school-related information 57 68% 34 61% 23 82% 3.93 1 .05

Find non-school-related information 44 52% 28 50% 16 57% .38 1 .54

Chat on-line 42 50% 23 41% 19 68% 5.36 1 .03

Find information for English classes 37 44% 31 55% 6 21% 8.72 1.003

Question 10 asked students for which classes they would use works from the Internet.

Table 6 shows that the majority of students self-reported not using works from the

Internet for their college classes. About one-fifth of the participants said they would use

the Internet for a variety of classes, and fewer reported using works from the Internet for

English classes or both English and other classes.

Table 6 - Use of works from the Internet for English classes and other classes: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Use of works from the Internet N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Types of classes for which works are used

None 48 60% 29 56% 19 68% 3.24 3 .36

A variety of classes 16 20% 10 19% 6 21%

English classes only 10 13% 9 17% 1 4%

English classes and other classes 6 8% 4 8% 2 7%

______________________________________________________________________

Question 11 asked how students have copied from Internet resources for their

schoolwork. Table 7 shows that slightly more than half of the students in Group U said


14

they copy ideas from the Internet and develop them as their own, compared to about

one-third of Group P students who reported doing the same. Slightly more than half of

the students in Portugal reported that they had never copied works from the Internet.

Only about 5% of students reported copying whole sentences, and only about 1%

reported copying whole paragraphs or papers.

Table 7 - How students have used the Internet for schoolwork: Cross-tabulation with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Usage of the Internet N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Copy ideas and develop them 41 49% 31 55% 10 36% 2.88 1 .09

Never done it 37 44% 22 39% 15 54% 1.55 1 .21

Copy whole sentences 4 5% 2 4% 2 7% .53 1 .47

Copy and pasted whole paragraphs 1 1% 0 0% 1 4% 2.02 1 .33

Copy whole papers 1 1% 0 0% 1 4% 2.02 1 .33

Question 12 asked students which on-line sources they used when searching for articles

for their schoolwork. Table 8 shows that the most commonly reported source used on

the Internet was ideas found with search engines, followed by the use of academic on-

line resources such as Wikipedia. Overall, about one-third of students reported reading

essays on free web-sites. Very few students reported buying papers from on-line paper-

mill resources. Compared to Group U students, group P self-reported much higher

usage of the Internet for finding ideas with search engines and using on-line resources.

Table 8 - Students’ usage of Internet resources: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Usage of Internet resources N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Use ideas found with search engines 50 60% 25 45% 25 89%15.44 1.0001

Use on-line resources (Wikipedia) 33 39% 14 25% 19 68%14.37 1.0001

Read essays on free web-sites 24 29% 14 25% 10 36% 1.05 1 .31

Buy papers from paper-mills 3 4% 3 5% 0 0% 1.56 1 .55

______________________________________________________________________


15

Research Question 5 (Survey questions 6, 9, 15, 16 and 17) asked how learner

reports of committing plagiarism differ among students in colleges in both

settings.

Question 6 asked participants to describe the type of students they see themselves as

being with regards to academic plagiarism. Table 9 shows that, overall, students from

both settings were more likely to report using the Internet for writing compositions than

turning in homework done by others or cheating with electronic devices, with no

significant differences across settings. Students in Group P were more likely to report

traditional methods of cheating, such as copying from their peers or using hidden notes

than students in Group U.

Table 9 - Reports of plagiarism practices: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Reports of plagiarism practices N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Use texts from the Internet when 22 27% 17 31% 5 18% 1.62 1 .20

writing compositions

Copy from others, use hidden notes 11 13% 1 2% 10 36%18.54 1.0001

Turn in homework done by others 9 11% 6 11% 3 11% .00 1 .98

Cheat with electronic devices 3 4% 3 6% 0 0% 1.59 1 .55

None of the above 47 57% 33 60% 14 50% .76 1 .39

______________________________________________________________________

Question 9 asked students about their frequency of taking someone’s ideas from the

Internet and using them as their own. Table 10 below shows that about half of students

in both settings self-reported not taking ideas from the Internet and using them as their

own. About a quarter in each setting self-reported engaging in this practice at least once,

and the same percentages reported engaging in this practice a few times. Only two

students in the U.S. setting admitted doing so very often, which imply that there was no

significant difference between settings.


16

Table 10 - Frequency of taking others’ ideas from the Internet: Cross-tabulation with chi-squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Frequency of taking others’ ideas N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Never 43 51% 28 50% 15 54%1.10 3 .78

At least once 20 24% 13 23% 7 25%

A few times 19 23% 13 23% 6 21%

Very often 2 2% 2 4% 0 0%

______________________________________________________________________

Question 15 asked participants if they had bought papers from other students who had

taken the course before and turned them in as their own, and question 16 asked if

participants had bought papers from paper mill web-sites and turned them in as their

own. Table 11, depicting results from cross-tabulations with chi-squares, shows that

almost 90% of students in both settings reported that they never bought and turned in

papers from other students, and a slightly higher percentage reported that they never

bought and turned in papers from on-line paper mills.

Table 11 - Frequency of buying work from others or from the Internet: Cross-tabulation with chi-squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Frequency of buying work N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Buy papers from other students who have taken the course before

Never 68 87% 45 88% 23 85% .15 1 .70

At least once or several times 10 15% 6 12% 4 15%

Buy papers from paper mills

Never 75 93% 50 94% 25 89% .68 1 .41

At least once or several times 6 7% 3 6% 3 11%

______________________________________________________________________

Next, question 17 asked students the reasons to use works downloaded from the

Internet. When participants were asked to self-report their reasons for using works from

the Internet for their English classes, the majority reported never using works from the

Internet for those classes. The most common reason for using works from the Internet


17

for English classes had to do with the difficulty of writing in English. There were no

significant differences in these items for the two settings.

Research Question 6 explores to what extent are learners’ reported plagiarism

practices associated with learner knowledge about plagiarism, perceptions of

other students’ plagiarism, perceptions of teacher and school attitudes about

plagiarism, and how usage of the Internet differ in colleges in both settings.

To check for correlated significant values across questions, several tests were run,

including ANOVA, t-tests and chi squares. The results that were significant across

questions are reported below in Table 12. The two categories in which results correlate

across settings are “taking ideas” from the internet and “taking works” from the Internet.

Table 12 depicts the correlations of the two categories with the items that presented

significant values and serve to prove right or wrong the five hypotheses formulated in

this study. Overall, correlations between taking ideas from the Internet and taking works

are more highly correlated for Group P than for Group U.

Table 12 - Significant correlations of plagiarism practices with other survey items

_____________________________________________________________________ Take ideas Take work U.S. Portugal U.S. Portugal

r p r p r p r p ______________________________________________________________________ Awareness scale -.22 .05a -.34 .04a -.34 .007a -.12 .27

Use quotation marks.00 .49 -.31 .06 -.25 .04a -.09 .33

Honour code .26 .04a .19 .17 -.35 .008a .33 .05a

Teacher lecture .11 .23 .02 .46 -.26 .04a -.08 .35

See others plagiarize.22 .06 .02 .46 .25 .04a .21 .14

Find school information.03.40 .27 .08 -.14 .16 -.14 .23

Find information .32 .008a .07 .36 -.08 .28 -.30 .06

for English classes

Frequency Internet-.18 .10 -.38 .03a .10 .24 .08 .35

Search engines .46 .001a .19 .17 -.12 .20 -.09 .33

Online sources .28 .02a -.15 .23 -.15 .14 -.28 .08

Paper-mills ---- ---- -.07 .31 ---- ---- .38 .003a

Easy download essays -.09 .26 -.07 .37 .03 .41 .31

.06

Lack English skills .18 .10 .03 .45 .28 .03a .18 .18

______________________________________________________________________

a- Significant findings.


18

The findings shown above clarified the hypotheses proposed under research question 6,

as follows:

Hypothesis A

It proposed that students who have a higher degree of plagiarism awareness would be

less likely to plagiarize in both settings. Table 12 shows that in both settings, if students

knew more about plagiarism they were in fact less likely to report taking ideas from

others’ work. Also, if students in Group U knew more about plagiarism and also

understood how to use quotation marks, they were less likely to self-report taking other

people’s work; however the correlation of these items for Group P students was not

significant.

Hypothesis B

It proposed that students who knew that the school had an “honour code” and heard

teachers lecture about plagiarism more often would be less prone to plagiarize in any

form. Results showed that students in Group U who knew about the school “honour

code” were less likely to plagiarize by taking ideas or work, and students from group U

who self-reported hearing teachers lecture about plagiarism more often were also less

likely to report taking others’ work. In contrast, Group P students who thought the school

had an “honour code” were more likely to report taking other people’s work.

Hypothesis C

Hypothesis C proposed that students who knew other students who plagiarized would be

more prone to plagiarize in any form. Results showed that students in the U.S. who

knew other students who plagiarized were somewhat more likely to report taking other

people’s ideas and significantly more likely to report taking other people’s work.

Hypothesis D

It proposed that students who were more likely to report using the Internet to find school-

related information and to find information for their English classes would be more likely

to report plagiarizing in any form. Results show that students in Portugal who were more

likely to report using the Internet for school-related purposes were somewhat more likely

to report taking other people’s ideas, whereas in the U.S. setting, students who were

more likely to report using the Internet for English classes were more likely to report

taking other people’s ideas.


19

Hypothesis E

It proposed that students who reported using the Internet more often in general would

have more chances to download information and would be more likely to report

plagiarizing. The hypothesis was not confirmed since results show that the more

frequently students reported using the Internet, the less likely they were to report taking

ideas from others; the findings were significant for students in Portugal and marginally

significant for students in the U.S.

Hypothesis F

It proposed that students who were more likely to report that they regularly used on-line

sources and search engines to search for information would be more likely to report

plagiarizing in any form. Results show that if students in the U.S. reported that they

regularly used on-line sources and search engines to search for information, they were

more likely to report taking other people’s ideas, but less likely to report taking their

work. The findings for students in Portugal were not significant.

Hypothesis G

It proposed that students who were more likely to report that they used paper mills would

be more likely to report plagiarizing in any form. The hypothesis was confirmed in the

Portuguese setting, where students who reported using paper mills were more likely to

report taking other people’s work. Findings also showed that if students in Portugal

thought it was easy to download information from the Internet, they were somewhat

more likely to report taking others’ work.

Hypothesis H

Hypothesis H proposed that students who were less confident of their English skills

would be more likely to report plagiarizing in any form. The results show that for students

in the U.S. setting, perceived lack of English skills was associated with reporting that the

students took others’ work. The findings for Portuguese students were not significant.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study have some shortcomings. One of the most obvious is related to

the topic itself. Being dishonest is something that most societies refute. Despite the fact

that in this research some strategies were used to overcome the problem, the topic itself

might have created a certain unwillingness to admit it and report it accurately. As so, the

results of this report must be seen according to the above stated and also with the

limitations of the number of respondents. However, many studies of this kind survey


20

students in the same context, whereas, this study gathered data to explore different

cultural views on a topic that is concerning most professors and school administrators

worldwide. The results, then, must be considered within this perspective and the data,

even though not extensive, could serve the purpose of adding to the existent studies that

share the same goal.

One of the conclusions that must be highlighted is the fact that the majority of students

self-reported being aware of the definition of plagiarism and its many forms. In all

questions that were made to verify whether students were aware of the meanings and

different forms of plagiarism, either traditional or Internet related, respondents, in both

settings, reported complete knowledge about this topic. This fact alone might suggest

that, regardless cultures or school settings, as seen in other works (e.g., Hawley, 1984;

Rocha & Teixeira, 2006), plagiarism is part of the world’s academic life.

The presence of an honour code in the school was somewhat deterrent for plagiarism

acts. To my best knowledge, the schools where students in Group U were enrolled have

honour code and teachers lecture on it, whereas schools where students from Group P

were enrolled do not highlight their honour code, if existent. There is no surprise then

that Group U and Group P, proved that honour code was influential for plagiarism

propensity, corroborating with the results reported on Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999), and

Rocha & Teixeira (2005), in which the propensity for cheating lowered by the existence

of an honour code at school. It is probably a measure to promote in the Portuguese

school system taking into consideration the results elsewhere and in this study.

The influence of peers has been related to cheating propensity in many studies (Bunn et

al., 1992; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; McCabe et al. 2003; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

With regards to the influence of peers and its consequences on plagiarism, the results

showed that in Portugal and in the U.S. setting students had different levels of

knowledge about other students’ plagiarism. Half of students in Portugal knew at least

one student who had plagiarized from the Internet for an English class compared to 32%

of students in the U.S. Regarding traditional sources of plagiarism, 61% of students in

Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized from books for any class

compared to 33% of students in the U.S. According to McCabe and Trevino (1997) peer-

related contextual factors are very influential in terms of academic dishonesty. In fact,

results corroborated those findings with subjects reporting higher propensity for

plagiarism if they knew colleagues who did it. Similarly, Genereux and McLeod (1995)

reported that the prevalence of cheating among peers significantly increased cheating


21

behaviors in the classroom. This is concerning for the Portuguese context since, not only

from this work but also from the work of Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006), percentages

indicate that academic dishonesty in Portuguese classrooms is very common.

As mentioned before, with the popularity of the Internet amongst students (e.g.,

Rumbought, 2001; Lester 2002), it would be expected that the more students reported

using online sources the higher propensity for “digital” plagiarism. For instance, 18% of

the subjects on Scanlon & Neumann (2002) self-reported having used the Internet for

cheating on class assignments. But only 12 % reported using Internet for cheating on the

research of Lester (2002). In the present study, both settings reported using the Internet

with the same frequency, yet, results showed that compared to students in the U.S.,

students in Portugal were less likely to use the Internet to get information for English

classes and more likely to use the Internet to get other school-related information. As an

average, this study found that about 5% of the surveyed students used the Internet to

plagiarize, which, even though is concerning, it is not as high as first expected. The

students in this study self-reported that they would plagiarize if the information was easy

to download. This could be explained by the fact that students in Portugal have less

English language practice or even that these students are not under the pressure of

writing in English for all the subjects in school, whereas in the U.S., where English is the

school’s official language, students have to write everything in English, gaining thus

more comfort with the language and with the Internet itself where most is printed in

English. These results, however, are conclusive to affirm that the Internet is not a main

motivator for academic plagiarism, at least within the limitations of this study, which

corroborates with the findings of Scanlon & Neumann (2002) where only a minority, out

of 698 subjects, reported using the Internet for cheating. Also, the findings of Lester

(2002) seem to prove this study accurate as only 1,2 % of the 12 % self-reported

Internet plagiarizers actually did use solely the Internet for their academic dishonesty.

Conclusive is also the fact that there is plagiarism being committed in the settings

explored by this research. Results here show that 38 % of students in Portugal were

more likely to cheat from hidden notes on exams (traditional forms), but the students did

not differ on other items across settings. Similar results were reported by Rocha &

Teixeira (2005, 2006). In the U.S., Bunn et al. (1992) and McCabe and Trevino (1997)

reported numbers of academic dishonest students that reached 40% also regarding

exam cheating. Once again, despite the percentages and the differences and similarities

between this study and many others, the numbers collected do not impede us to see that


22

cheating is a reality, even though the Internet appears to have nothing to do with

plagiarism’s dramatic growth.

PART II – INTERPRETING the TEACHER SURVEY

Teacher Feedback

For this portion of the research, a number of teachers were contacted for participation.

Some of these individuals were those who were cited as having written prior research

regarding the issue of academic dishonest, while others were associated with a

participating class or learning institute. Unfortunately, of the many teaching individuals

solicited (92), only 7 responded to the questionnaire sent. However, though small in

number, the knowledge and insights of these individuals will be of great importance as

they mirror their knowledge from experience.

The teacher responses were analyzed and compared for consistency in their findings

with those of this study, effective means of controlling for plagiarism (both in a

preventative capacity and in a disciplinary capacity), their reporting of cases, and, finally,

their input regarding the practicality and effectiveness of using process-oriented model of

assessment. Due to the small sample of responses, these insights cannot, probably, be

reliably applicable to a larger population. However, interesting findings did emerge and

are reported below. All answers were organized by recurring themes using the

Grounded theory method, following what McCabe et al. (1999) previously did with similar

type of questionnaires.

This analysis was mainly qualitative. No attempt was made to quantify teachers’

opinions or views on assessment procedures that are effective in reducing plagiarism.

The main goal was to gather reports from teachers regarding their experiences with

pedagogical models of process-oriented assessment in writing regarding the

effectiveness of a model of process-oriented assessment in lessening the amount of

plagiarism.

Major Trends from teachers’ responses

After grouping the teachers´ opinions, the first trend emerging was that

dishonest academic behavior existed and seemed to occur at all levels of

coursework, not just at lower classes (where the students may be in need of

extra help already);


23

Another trend that appeared relevant was the issue of time consuming,

where teachers recognized that in order to identify plagiarized works they would

need to spend time which was precious for other needed activities. In addition, if

a student was caught plagiarizing, then, taking punitive actions would become

even worse due to bureaucracy. Similar conclusions were reached by Bunn et al.

(1992) and Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999) where the time consuming was much

higher than the consequences of reporting such behavior;

Last, a common trend was the recognition of a better and personalized

assessment to curb down plagiarism. However, when teachers were asked to

exemplify in detail how such dishonesty or plagiarism could be prevented, some

gave a disciplinary response (attending to the issue after it has occurred), while

others offered preventative advice in the form of lectures to students to raise

their awareness.

Nevertheless, it seemed that even those teachers, who reported being users of such

tools as “turnitin.com”, commented that it was simply a time-consuming process that

was not always feasible.

CONCLUSION

In sum, much is known about plagiarism and many deterrent forms to prevent it but all

that we know is not enough to stop students from engaging in academic dishonesty. It is

a reality in our schools, whether in the U.S. culture or in any other country, including

Portugal as seen on the work of Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006) and on this present

work, and might become even worse as the traditional type of students enrolling in

colleges are changing status from teenagers-full-time students to adults-with-busy-lives

students, but very motivated to complete their degrees. Also, very interesting to highlight

here is the fact that the Internet became part integral of the lives of millions of students

around the world, and yet, these same students show more propensity to be dishonest

through traditional methods rather than through the Internet. Nevertheless, what seems

to be emerging from previous work and this present is that plagiarism is present in our

schools, and might be necessary that administrators, and specially professors in

Portugal, adopt some strategies that have been mentioned as effective for lessening

plagiarism propensity by several different researchers. Those strategies include raising

students’ awareness about plagiarism and its consequences, the existence of a school

honour code, alternative versions of tests, exams that do not ask for definitions but


24

personal interpretations, more individualized projects related to the student’s present

reality, student portfolios instead of exams, and a constant effort to maintain an

environment of trust and proper academic integrity in the classroom (Burke, 1997;

Kerkvliet & Sigmund, 1999; McCabe & Trevino, 1996, 1997; Whitley, 1998; Sheard et al.,

2003). These strategies should prevent plagiarism to reach undesirable values that

could jeopardize the quality of the degrees awarded by institutions worldwide.

With regards to teachers’ opinions in this work, what their opinions further suggest is

that, again, prevention is the “key” and a process-oriented approach, even though time

consuming itself, may be a possible methodology to utilize in deterring academic

dishonesty and, simultaneously, help students to enhance their language skills, which

after all is the teachers’ main duty.

REFERENCES

Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B. and Gropper, D. M., 1992, “Crime in the classroom: an economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior,” in Journal of Economic Education Nº 23, pp. 197-207. Burke, J. L., 1997, “Faculty perceptions of and attitudes toward academic dishonesty at a two- year college,” Unpublished dissertation. (ED 431 486). Cabe, P., 2003, “Examples of plagiarism – a taxonomy,” in About Plagiarism (from TIPSters, Teaching in Psychological Science). in http://psych.skidmore.edu/plagiarism.htm. Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N., 1992, “Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants techniques, and punishments,” in Teaching Psychology Nº 19,pp. 16-20. Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K. and Yasukawa, H., 1999, “College Cheating in Japan and the United States”, in RESEARCH IN Research in Higher Education Nº 40 (3), pp.343-353. Diffley, F., and Lapp, R.,1988, “Responding to student writing: teacher feedback for extensive revision” - a workshop presented at TESOL, Chicago. Ferris, D. R., 2003, Response to student writing: Implications for second language students, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferris, D. R. and Hedgcock, J. S., 2005, Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A., 1995, “Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students,” in Research in Higher Education Nº 36, pp. 687-704. Harris, R.A., 2001, The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism, California, Pyrczak Publishing. Haines, V, LaBeff, E., Clark, R., and Diekhoff, G. M., 1987, “A factor analysis of variables related to college cheating,” in Social Sciences Perspectives Nº 1, pp. 1-29. Hawley, C. S., 1984, “The thieves of academe: Plagiarism in the university system,” in Improving College & University Teaching Nº 32(1), pp. 35-39. Howard, R.M., 1995, “Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty,” in College English Nº 57(7), pp. 788-806. James, R., McInnes, C. & Devlin, M., 2002, “Assessing learning in Australian universities,” in http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD1618.pdf Kerkvliet, J. and Sigmund, C. L., 1999, “Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom?,” in Journal of Economic Education Nº 30(4), pp. 331-351.

http://psych.skidmore.edu/plagiarism.htm

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD1618.pdf


25

Lawson, R., 2004, “Is Classroom Cheating Related to Business Students’ Propensity to Cheat in the “Real World?,” in Journal of Business Ethics Nº 49, pp. 189–199. Lester, M. C., 2002, “A comparison of traditional and internet cheaters," in Journal of College Student Development, retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200211/ai_n9166002/. Kibler, W., 1993, “Academic Dishonesty: A Student Development Dilemma,” in NASPA Journal Nº 30, pp. 253. McCabe, D., 2005, “Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective,” in International Journal for Educational Integrity Nº 1(1). McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K., 1993, “Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences,” in Journal of Higher Education Nº 64, pp. 522–538. McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K., 1997, “Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation,” in Research in Higher Education Nº 38 (3), pp. 379-396. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D. and Trevino, L. K., 2003, “Faculty and Academic Integrity: The Influence of Current Honor Codes and Past Honor Code Experiences,” in Research in Higher Education Nº 44 (3), pp. 367-385. McCabe, D.L. and Trevino, L.K., 1996, “What we know about cheating in college,” in Change, pp. 29-33. McLenann, L., 2003, “Briefing: Plagiarism at Universities,” in http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/article809537.ece. Rocha, M. F. and Teixeira, A. A. C., 2005, “College cheating in Portugal: results from a large scale survey,” in FEP Working Papers Nº 197. Rocha, M. F. and Teixeira, A. A. C., 2006, “A Country Evaluation of Cheating in Academia: is it related to business world ethics?,” in FEP Working Papers Nº 214. Rumbough, T.B., 2001, “Controversial Uses of the Internet by College Students,” in http://www.fluxcard.com/fake-id-info/fake-id reports/Fluxcard_Fake_ID_Documents_and_Articles_Controversial_Uses_of_the_Interne t_Timothy_B_Rumbough.pdf. Scanlon, P. and Neumann, D., 2002, “Internet Plagiarism among College Students,” in Journal of College Student Development Nº 43, pp. 374–85. Sheard, J., Markham, S. and Dick, M., 2003, “Investigating Differences in Cheating Behaviours of IT Undergraduate and Graduate Students: the maturity and motivation factors,” in Higher Education Research & Development Nº 22 (1), pp. 91-108. Tribble, C., 1996, Writing, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Whitley, B. E., 1998, “Factors associated with cheating among college students: A Review,” in Research in Higher Education Nº 39(3), pp. 235–274. Zamel, V., “Recent research in writing pedagogy,” in TESOL Quarterly Nº 21(4), pp. 697- 715.

Citing this work:

Bota, A. (2011). Academic Plagiarism - A Cross-Cultural Study of Internet

Influences and Pedagogical Implications. Studia (14), Loule.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200211/ai_n9166002/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200211/ai_n9166002/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/article809537.ece