Bennett 2005 Factors Associated With Student Plagiarism in a Post 1992 University

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

ISSN: 0260-2938 (Print) 1469-297X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post‐1992 university Roger Bennett To cite this article: Roger Bennett (2005) Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post‐1992 university, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30:2, 137-162, DOI: 10.1080/0260293042000264244 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264244

Published online: 14 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 876

View related articles

Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caeh20 Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC]

Date: 12 April 2016, At: 08:00

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 137–162

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university Roger Bennett* London Metropolitan University, UK Assessment 10.1080/0260293042000264244 CAEH300203.sgm 0260-2938 Original Taylor 202005 30 [email protected] R.Bennett 00000April and & Article Francis (print)/1469-297X Francis &2005 Evaluation Ltd Ltd in Higher (online) Education

A model intended to explain the incidence of plagiarism among undergraduates in the Business Studies department of a post-1992 university was constructed and tested on a sample of 249 students completing Business Studies units at a post-1992 university in Greater London. It was hypothesised that the occurrence of plagiarism could be predicted via three attitudinal considerations (individual perceptions of the ethicality of the practice, fear of penalties if caught and fear of failing a degree); two personal traits (goal orientation and academic integration), and three situational factors (financial, current grades achieved, and how strictly lecturing staff enforced antiplagiarism rules). Proposals concerning possible inter-relations and interactions among these variables were also formulated and assessed.

Introduction Most university teachers discourage students from engaging in plagiarism on the grounds that the practice is fraudulent and deceptive, involves the theft of intellectual property, and ‘conceals and misrepresents the originality of the true author’ (Clough, 2003, p. 2). Allegedly, moreover, plagiarism undermines the moral fibre of the perpetrator (people who admitted to cheating while at university have been found to be more likely to commit dishonest acts in employment—Sims, 1995), and inhibits the student’s intellectual development (Yeung et al., 2002). The habitual plagiarist does not acquire the academic skills of analysis and evaluation, and will not learn how to synthesise ideas or engage in rational argument. Instead the person simply replicates the words of others without adding anything that is new. Nature and incidence of plagiarism in higher education Hannabuss (2001) defined plagiarism as ‘the unauthorised use or close imitation of the ideas and language/expression of someone else’ and then the representation of this *Department of Business and Service Sector Management, London Metropolitan University, 84 Moorgate, London EC2M 6SQ, UK. Email: [email protected]. ISSN 0260-2938 (print)/ISSN 1469-297X (online)/05/020137–26 © 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0260293042000264244

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

138 R. Bennett work as the plagiarist’s own (p. 313). In the context of university education, however, plagiarism does not have a single meaning and can range from the citation of a few sentences without attribution through to the copying out of an entire manuscript. Myers (1998) noted how plagiarism in the academic world ‘exists not in law as copyright does, but as institutional rules and regulations’ (p. 2). Hence, conventions relating to what does and does not constitute plagiarism are formulated and interpreted differently across institutions. Nevertheless, common themes emerge in most expositions of the construct, usually involving the notions of intent, deliberate deception and failure to acknowledge sources (see Larkham & Manns, 2002, p. 340 for details). As plagiarism covers a sizeable continuum ranging from ‘sloppy paraphrasing to verbatim transcription with no crediting of the source’ (Larkham & Manns, 2002, p. 340), a number of authors have sought to distinguish between less and more serious forms of the practice. ‘Minor plagiarism’ has been stated to comprise activities such as cutting and pasting relatively small amounts of material from web pages without acknowledgement (Davis, 2000), the reproduction of a sentence or two without quotation marks and without a citation (Standler, 2000), paraphrasing without references, and inventing fictitious references (Bjorklund & Wenestam (1999). Major plagiarism, according to Standler (2000) occurs when ‘a significant fraction of the entire work was written by someone else’ (p. 2). Standler (2000) noted however that there was no legal distinction between major and minor forms of plagiarism. This was unfortunate, Standler (2000) continued, because differences in the penalties imposed for various levels of plagiarism could be very large, ranging from a mild rebuke to permanent exclusion from an institution. Another explanation for researchers’ interest in the distinction between major and minor plagiarism has been the observation of a substantially greater willingness among students to perpetrate minor as opposed to major plagiarism (see Kuehn et al., 1990; Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Newstead et al., 1996; Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999; Davis, 2000). Possibly, students’ internal rationales for committing serious acts of academic dishonesty differ from those resulting in minor offences (Kuehn et al., 1990). Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999) suggested that minor plagiarism tended to be far more ‘opportunistic in nature than deliberately planned’ (p. 4). Irrespective of how plagiarism is defined, evidence appears to be emerging that its incidence has risen sharply within several western countries. In Australia, for instance, an investigation completed at Monash and Swinburne universities found that nearly 80% of all the undergraduates and half the postgraduates surveyed were willing to confess to having plagiarised in one way or another during their time at college (Maslen, 2003). The most frequent forms of plagiarism were (1) the use of unattributed material, and (2) the sharing of work with other students for assignments that were supposed to be completed individually (see also McCabe & Trevino, 1996). Large increases in the prevalence of plagiarism have been documented in Scandinavia (Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999), the United Kingdom (Larkham & Manns, 2002; Furedi, 2003) and the USA (Allen et al., 1998; McKenzie, 1998). Hammond’s (2002) survey of published estimates of rates of general academic cheating (including plagiarism) in British universities between 1941 and 2001 revealed a

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism

139

systematic upward trend. In the 1940s around 20–25% of all students were routinely reported to have admitted to cheating in some way. By the 1990s the figure was typically 60–65%. Trends of a similar magnitude specifically concerning plagiarism have been observed in other western nations (see Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999, p. 4), though usually in relation to ‘non-serious’ offences (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995). Although the high figures currently cited for plagiarism may be due in part to a greater willingness of students to confess (rather than to an intensification of the practice per se—Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999), the outcomes to a steadily expanding body of research literature suggest strongly that a substantial rise in university student plagiarism has in fact taken place. Some of this literature is explored in the next section. Why students plagiarise A major factor underlying the long-term upward trend in the incidence of plagiarism, according to Larkham and Manns (2002), Maslen (2003) and others (see Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999), has been the introduction across the western academic world of modularisation (and the increased sizes of teaching groups that it necessitates) in conjunction with heavy reliance on written assignments during the academic year (rather than end of unit examinations) as the primary means of student assessment. Furedi (2003) in particular attributed the rise in rates of plagiarism that (supposedly) have occurred in the UK to ‘the prevailing instrumentalist orientation’ that has come to dominate approaches to teaching in British universities (p. 16). Manifestations of the instrumentalist approach included the failure of lecturers to expect students to read textbooks, teachers circulating verbatim lecture notes, and ‘bullet point’ presentations of material in lectures. At the level of the individual student, three categories of variables are often advanced to explain why certain individuals commit non-trivial plagiarism (assuming that the student fully understands the meaning of the term in the first instance). The three categories concern students’ personal circumstances, personal traits, and whether the means and opportunity to plagiarise are readily to hand. Means and opportunity It has been alleged that the widespread availability of access to (1) the Internet, and (2) online academic journals have contributed much to the rising incidence of plagiarism, as they have made it possible for students to find and save large amounts of information from diverse sources with little reading, effort or originality (McKenzie, 1998). Also there now exist numerous Internet sites (some of which are free of charge) that provide complete essay or term papers. Increasingly, the services of paid for sites are customised and thus difficult to detect using conventional anti-plagiarism webcrawling software (see Phillips & Horton, 2000). Maslen (2003) reported research which concluded that each year as many as 500,000 essays submitted by Australian students contained text improperly copied from the Internet. More specifically, a

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

140 R. Bennett study of 1751 assignments from students of 17 subjects in six Australian universities revealed that 400 web sources had been used without acknowledgement, including five known ‘cheat sites’. One in eight students had borrowed at least 25% of their essays from the Internet. It is relevant to note however that while the Internet undoubtedly facilitates plagiarism, it does not, in the words of Furedi (2003), ‘possess the moral power to incite otherwise honest students to cheat’ (p. 16). Lack of enforcement by college lecturers of rules and procedures designed to prevent plagiarism could encourage students to indulge in the practice (Davis et al., 1992; Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), 2003) and apathy among university faculty in this regard might be widespread (Davis et al., 1992; Phillips & Horton, 2000). Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999) cited evidence suggesting that around 20% of tutors ignore cases of obvious plagiarism, often because of the stress and discomfort likely to result from dealing with the matter. Overall detection rates, according to Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999), are typically less than 1.5%. Establishing proof of a particular case can be difficult and time-consuming, the lecturer involved may fear that he or she will not be supported by senior management (Hammond, 2002), and even when miscreants are caught the penalties might be trivial (Davis et al., 1992). Moreover, significant resource implications ensue from the decision to pursue plagiarists diligently, especially during an end-of-semester ‘handing-in period’. Personal traits Internal beliefs that academic cheating is immoral and dishonest are known to discourage plagiarism (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995). Sutton and Huba (1995) found that highly religious students were less likely to behave dishonestly than others. However the strongest motive for cheating by students (according to Bjorklund and Wenestam’s [1999] review of the literature on the subject) is the desire to obtain high grades, which itself may depend on other considerations. Thus, for example, the dishonest pursuit of good marks could be due to a person’s obsessive innate need to prove his or her worth to him or herself and/or to the world at large (Davis et al., 1992; Lipson & MacGraven, 1993; Newstead et al., 1996; Anderman et al., 1998), or to a pathological fear of failure (Baird, 1980; CWPA, 2003). Haines et al. (1986) found that students with lower than average grade point averages were more likely to plagiarise than their better performing classmates. Individuals who receive extensive financial support from their families and/or who are under great parental pressure to succeed might be especially fearful of failure (and hence be more inclined to plagiarise) (Haines et al., 1986). On the other hand, according to Phillips and Horton (2000), parental support for college expenses might have the capacity to ‘reduce the student’s personal involvement and responsibility for the educational process’ (p. 151), leading to less rather than more concern for sound academic performance. Houle (1961) noted how certain students attend university in consequence of their having a heavy ‘goal orientation’, manifest in the desire to achieve specific utilitarian

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism

141

outcomes such as enhanced job prospects and career development (as opposed to wanting to study for the sheer enjoyment of learning). Also, ever-growing rates of participation in higher education have generated a widening earnings gap between those with and without qualifications (Archer, 2002). Possibly, the incentive to take ‘short cuts’ in order to succeed is greater among people with a pronounced goal orientation. In this vein, Davis et al. (1995) reported some (albeit limited) evidence indicating that individuals whose behavioural and emotional styles were characterised by the aggressive struggle to achieve more in less time (often in competition with other students) had a higher propensity to plagiarise than the rest of their contemporaries. An intense fear of the punishment that a person could receive for plagiarism might exert a negative influence on the inclination to engage in the practice (Haines et al., 1986). However, Braumoeller and Gaines (2001) found that even the most dire explicit warnings of punishment failed to discourage plagiarism among a sample of 180 political science students. On the other hand, informing students that their work would be run through plagiarism detection software was a highly effective deterrent. (A commercial plagiarism detection web crawler can trawl through around three billion web pages and two or three thousand journals to check the similarity of a student’s materials with web page sources—see Maslen, 2003). The severity of the disruption to a student’s life caused by his or her losing a grade, by having to repeat a unit or year, or ultimately by being expelled from an institution will be greater perhaps for an individual who has already made heavy personal investments in attending a degree programme. Such investments could include the time and effort previously committed, as well as financial sacrifices. Individual circumstances Students who need to take paid employment to help finance their time at university have less time for study (Larkham & Manns, 2002), and high academic workloads may need to be compressed into their available study periods (Baird, 1980; Lipson & MacGovern, 1993; Newstead et al., 1996). Sanders (2000) cited the results of a MORI survey of 1068 students in 20 UK universities which found that the proportion of students employed part-time during term-time had increased from 30% in 2001 to 43% in 2002 (the proportion was 25% higher than average among students from lower social classes). Arguably the time pressures created by the need for students to take paid employment, in conjunction with the current emphasis on written withincourse assignments as the primary means of assessment, are likely to cause growing numbers of students to resort to plagiarism. Furedi (2003) rejected this argument, however, on the grounds that there was no evidence whatsoever that financially disadvantaged working class students cheated more frequently than people from comfortable middle class backgrounds. Males have been found to be more ready to admit to academic dishonesty than females (Haines et al., 1986; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Ameen et al., 1996; Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999). Also, business studies students are allegedly more likely than

142 R. Bennett

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

others to cheat (Phillips & Horton, 2000). Research completed in a number of countries has revealed heavily instrumental attitudes towards learning and teaching among marketing, business and management students (see Bennett & Kottasz, 2001, p. 473 for details of relevant studies). Manifestations of such attitudes have been said to include the desire for the rapid accumulation of knowledge, for ‘quick-fix’ teaching and learning methods, wanting to ‘learn how to do’, and preferring bullet point approaches to the transmission of information. Orientations of this kind might be compatible with the tendency to engage in plagiarism. Academic integration Caruana et al. (2000) found a connection between an individual’s lack of integration in academic life and his or her propensity to behave dishonestly. Calabrese and Cochran (1990) similarly concluded that students who felt ‘alienated’ from their courses or institutions were more inclined to cheat than students who were better ‘integrated’ (especially in the social sense) with their universities. The absence of social integration (evidenced by substandard academic performance and poor relationships with fellow students and lecturers—see Saenz et al., 1999) was associated with a lack of concern both for the rules of the institution and for its objectives. A non-integrated individual did not feel any sense of cohesion with the institution or a significant attachment to it (Caruana et al., 2000). Boredom with a course and dissatisfaction with the institution frequently arose in these circumstances (Davies, 2000). Consequently, the poorly integrated student might come to view his or her course (and the conventions of academic documentation associated with it) as personally unimportant (Haines et al., 1986; CWPA, 2003). In extreme cases, dissatisfaction could lead to a desire to ‘punish’ the institution for its perceived inadequacies. A plagiarist might even want to punish more able fellow students simply because the latter are capable of superior academic performance. Academic integration implies that the student ‘fits in’ with university life and the overall academic environment. Hence the individual feels that he or she is the undergraduate ‘type’ of person (Kreger & Wrenn, 1990; Michie et al., 2001). Such a student is more likely than others to possess realistic perceptions of the amount of work needed to complete a degree, and to be reasonably self-confident of his or her ability to cope with work overload, examinations, financial pressures, and problems created by lack of time for friends and family (see Michie et al., 2001 for details of the academic literature supporting these propositions). Kreger and Wrenn (1990) found that academic integration was significantly lower among people who had experienced a gap between school and higher education. Michie et al. (2001) similarly concluded that failure to integrate academically was more prevalent among older (i.e., aged 22 or more) people especially those who had entered higher education (HE) in consequence of ‘undesirable conditions’ (e.g., unemployment, divorce, or wanting to ‘get out of the house’ to have a break from caring for young children) (p. 456).

Factors associated with student plagiarism

143

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Other possible influences Research completed by Davis and Ludvigson (1995) and by Anderman et al. (1998) found that plagiarists began their careers early in their educational lives (and long before their entry to university), so that the habit of plagiarism was well embedded prior to their becoming undergraduates. Thus, a student’s experiences of plagiarism (and its disciplinary consequences) at school and/or in Further Education (FE) might affect subsequent behaviour at university (see Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999). Also certain schools or FE colleges inculcate in their students effective study skills (e.g., regularly reviewing lecture notes, underlining passages in textbooks, preparing several drafts of essays, using other students for peer support—see Stoynoff, 1996) that will in the longer term result in better grades and hence less incentive to plagiarise. When a person arrives at university, the example set by fellow students (and perhaps the feeling that ‘everybody else does it, so why shouldn’t I?’) could encourage a person to plagiarise (Newstead et al., 1996). In Australia, foreign students have been found to plagiarise to a greater extent than home students (Maslen, 2003). Often, foreign students will be writing in an alien language and may have been schooled in an intellectual tradition that does not frown on copying (Myers, 1998; see also Larkham & Manns, 2002). Kuehn et al. (1990) found that student attitudes towards academic cheating in general differed significantly with respect to nationality.

The present study Prior research in the plagiarism field has tended to focus on estimating the extents of the practice in various institutions, and an explaining at the theoretical level why plagiarism happens. Empirical work on the causes of plagiarism has been limited, and has usually considered just one or two variables at a time. The investigation reported in the present paper adds to contemporary knowledge about the antecedents of plagiarism through the development of a structured equation model of plagiaristic behaviour, followed by its testing on a sample of 249 students in a post-1992 university located in Greater London. (In 1992 the British government converted all the nation’s polytechnics into universities. Polytechnics were higher education institutions that offered a wide range of vocational and academic courses and accepted students from social backgrounds not traditionally associated with entry to university. Polytechnic students typically possessed matriculation qualifications somewhat lower than those demanded by the pre-1992 university sector.)

The hypothesised model A model suggested by the above mentioned literature is outlined in Figure 1, which explains plagiarism in terms of three attitudinal variables (perceptions regarding the propriety of the practice, fear of punishment, and fear of failing a degree), two personal traits (goal orientation and academic integration), and three situational

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

144 R. Bennett variables (financial circumstances, academic performance, and whether university staff strictly enforce anti-plagiarism regulations). An individual’s attitudes towards plagiarism are posited to depend on past experiences at school or FE college, the example set by other students, whether the student is enjoying his or her degree programme, and whether the person is religious and/or ‘ethical’. The possession of effective study skills is assumed to enhance a student’s academic performance and to reduce the fear of failure. It is hypothesised that students who feel they are under heavy parental pressure to succeed at university are more fearful of failing their degrees than others. Additionally it is suggested that people who have already invested a great deal in becoming a student will be deterred from engaging in plagiarism by the prospect of losing a grade, a semester, a year, or even their entire degree if they are caught cheating. Figure 1 does not show the possible influences of state variables such as gender, age, or whether the person was an overseas student, as these were examined separately. Two moderating variables are proposed: (1) attitudes towards plagiarism, and (2) the intensity with which anti-plagiarism rules are enforced. A moderating variable is one that affects the strength of the relationship between two other variables, hence producing an ‘interaction’ effect1. Accordingly, an independent variable that is moderated by another variable will exert a high or low impact on the dependent variable according to the value of the third (moderating) variable. Hence it is posited in Figure 1 that, for instance, a student who experiences major financial difficulties will be substantially more likely than otherwise would be the case to hand in plagiarised work if it is also true that there is very little enforcement of university rules on plagiarism. Likewise, students who possess casual attitudes towards plagiarism are assumed to be more inclined to plagiarise if their academic grades are poor, if they have little fear of the penalties for being caught plagiarising, and so on, as indicated in Figure 1. Figure 1. The hypothesised model

Measurement of variables Academic integration was measured by six items derived from Bennett’s (2003) application of the construct to the explanation of student drop-out rates in a post1992 university. Examples of the items (see Bennett, 2003 for full details) are ‘I feel I am a “natural” university student’; ‘I often feel lost and bewildered at university’ (negatively scored) and ‘I have found it very easy to make friends at university’. Thereafter the questions involved relations with lecturers, and the person’s level of emotional attachment to his or her course2. The borrowed items were selected and adapted via the application of the framework recommended by Engelland et al. (2001). Thus, candidate items were examined to ensure that they fell well within the scope of the domain of the relevant construct, that they expressed the theoretical construct in an effective manner, were worded at an appropriate level of abstraction and were compatible with the vocabulary of the target respondents, and were likely to generate outcomes similar to those of the original studies from which the modified items were taken. Two senior academics in the researcher’s home university independently assessed the adapted items in terms of these criteria. They also inspected the

Figure 1. The hypothesised model

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Experiences of the sacred in childhood 145

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

146 R. Bennett items that had not been taken from pre-existing scales vis-à-vis their clarity, relevance to the particular issue being investigated and to the population of interest, and their compatibility with the academic literature in the area (Churchill, 1979). Four items were used to assess goal orientation, based on Boshier’s (1991) ‘education participation scale’. Examples of the items are ‘I am only interested in learning things that will help me in my future career’ and ‘I would do this degree for its intrinsic interest, even if it would not lead to a job and eventual financial benefits’ (negatively scored). Unless specified otherwise (see below), all the questionnaire items were quantified on five point scales: 5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree. Responses to the six items for academic integration were factor analysed, a singlefactor solution emerging (λ = 4.24, α = 0.87). This indicated that all the items were measuring the same construct, so the six items were combined into a single academic integration scale for use in subsequent analysis. The procedure was repeated for the four goal orientation items, which again generated a uni-dimensional outcome (λ = 2.98, α = 0.84). Accordingly the four items were consolidated into a single measure. The students were asked how many hours per week they spent in employment; whether their family paid all, some, or none of their tuition fees; and whether their need to work part-time ‘seriously disrupted’ their academic studies. It turned out that 73% of the students in the sample were from families with incomes below the threshold at which they would have to pay any fees whatsoever, and a further 12% paid only partial fees. Thus the sample was relatively homogeneous in that most of its members would have financial problems. Seventy-two per cent of the sample worked in paid employment for more than ten hours a week (25% for more than 15 and 29% for more than 20 hours a week), so again there was relatively little variation vis-à-vis this criterion. There were many disparities, however, in students’ assessments of the extents to which having to work part-time disrupted their studies, and these assessments correlated meaningfully and significantly with many other dimensions of the analysis. Hence this item was used as the ‘financial situation’ independent variable. Three items evaluated the intensity with which college rules on plagiarism were enforced by lecturers, i.e., whether (1) it was ‘easy to get away with’ plagiarism on the student’s degree programme, (2) staff rarely bothered to check whether students’ efforts contained plagiarised materials, and (3) staff did not really care whether work had been plagiarised. Responses to these items were highly intercorrelated (R>0.63), and thus were composited into a single scale. Student attitudes concerning whether plagiarism was or was not a serious misdemeanour were examined via four items implied by the literature review completed by Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999); namely whether the student believed that plagiarism was (1) fundamentally immoral, dishonest and shameful, (2) no more serious than driving a little above the speed limit in a car, (3) a natural and creative way of solving academic problems, and (4) a ‘really major’ offence deserving stiff penalties. A factor analysis of the four items revealed that it was acceptable to combine them into a single measure (λ = 3.1, α = 0.92). Fear of failure was assessed through two highly correlated (R = 0.81), items, namely, (1) ‘the thought of my not obtaining my degree is just too awful for me to

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism

147

contemplate’, and (2) ‘failing my degree would be an absolute catastrophe for me’. The two items were combined into a single scale. A student’s academic performance was measured by a single item which asked the person whether, on average, his or her grades were higher, lower or about the same as those of other students on the individual’s programme. This was of course a self-reported measure, but research previously completed in the same university had recorded a high correlation (R = 0.72) between responses to the same item and the actual performances of a sample of 140 students (Bennett, 2003). It was not feasible to check definitive grades in the present study because of the need to preserve the student’s anonymity. The intensity of a person’s fear of the penalties for being caught plagiarising was evaluated through two items: (1) ‘I am terrified of what would happen to me if I were caught plagiarising’, and (2) ‘the penalties here for plagiarism are so severe that it is simply not worth taking the risk’. As the responses to the two items were significantly correlated (R = 0.81), they were combined into a single scale. ‘Religiosity’ was evaluated by asking the student whether he or she was ‘a very religious person’ (five point scale). The student’s overall ethical stance was measured using four items from various business ethics measures reported by Bruner and Hensel (1994), i.e., ‘stretching the truth can never be justified no matter what the circumstances’, ‘honesty and moral integrity are key principles in my life’; ‘it is absolutely essential that students always follow all university rules and regulations’; and ‘in order to succeed it is sometimes acceptable to behave unethically and to take unfair advantage’. A factor analysis of the four items generated a single factor solution (λ = 2.79, α = 0.81) so the items were consolidated to form a single measure. Peer influences vis-à-vis plagiarism were assessed by two stand alone items: ‘everybody else on my course plagiarises to some extent or other, so why shouldn’t I?’ and ‘I know a lot of students who plagiarise’. A person’s response to the first of these items does not imply any particular pattern of response to the second, so the items were not consolidated. The students were also asked to tick off a category to indicate their opinion of the percentage of all their fellow students that engaged in plagiarism (less than 5%; 6%–10%, etc., through to ‘more than 75%’). The respondent’s satisfaction with his or her degree programme was measured by three (highly intercorrelated, R>0.77) items adapted from Oliver’s (1993) ‘satisfaction with a course’ instrument, i.e., ‘doing this course has been an excellent experience for me’, ‘the teaching and the educational facilities here are excellent’, and ‘this is one of the best courses I could possibly have taken’. The three items were composited into a single scale. A student’s prior experience of plagiarism at school or FE college was evaluated by two (not significantly correlated) items that asked (five point scales) whether plagiarism was ‘commonplace’ at the person’s previous institution, and whether teachers at that institution ‘did not really care’ whether students’ work was plagiarised. The two items were entered separately in the subsequent analysis. Parental pressure was assessed by two stand alone items (which were not significantly correlated): ‘my parents are putting heavy pressure on me to succeed at university’, and ‘my parents would be devastated if I were not to complete my degree’. Four items

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

148 R. Bennett were employed to measure the effectiveness of a student’s study skills, based on the suggestions of Stoynoff (1996); namely whether the person (1) took detailed notes of lectures, (2) read, reread and reviewed course learning materials very regularly, (3) prepared several drafts of essays before handing them in, and (4) believed he or she possessed ‘excellent study habits and skills’. All four items loaded significantly onto the same factor in a factor analysis (λ = 3.01, α = 0.91) and thus were composited into a single scale. The level of an individual’s past investment in his or her university role was assessed through three items suggested by Meyer et al. (1993), i.e., ‘I have invested so much in being a university student that it would be a disaster for me if I were to leave now’; ‘I have had to make huge personal sacrifices in order to become a university student’; and ‘my family has invested a great deal of money in sending me to university and supporting me during my time at university’. The first two of these items were significantly correlated (R = 0.72) with each other, but not with the third item, which was used as a separate entity in subsequent analysis.

The dependent variable Students were asked to indicate on a five point scale (very often, often, occasionally, just once or twice, never) how frequently they had engaged in various activities that might be construed as plagiarism. Specifically (following Caruana et al., 2000) the student was presented with the following statement and options: I have copied and inserted into my own work, without acknowledgement of where the material came from, the following taken from published sources, from the Internet or from the work of other students: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

a couple of sentences; several sentences; a paragraph; a number of paragraphs; an entire piece of work.

Then the person ticked off how frequently each of the above had occurred. Further questions asked whether the person had (1) collaborated with other students on assignments that should have been completed individually, (very often, often, occasionally, etc.), and (2) made up references. The procedure adopted required the self-reporting of misbehaviour, so that a priori the respondents might be expected to understate the extents of their dishonesty. There is evidence to suggest, however, that self-reports of acts of academic dishonesty are reasonably accurate (Allen et al., 1998), and under-reporting does not appear to have presented a major problem in previous investigations (for details see FranklynStokes & Newstead, 1995; Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999). Indeed, Caruana et al. (2000) reported ‘fairly high’ mean scores in response to the ‘serious plagiarism’ section of their questionnaire (p. 28), indicating a substantial willingness to confess to dishonest behaviour.

Factors associated with student plagiarism

149

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

The sample A questionnaire containing the above-mentioned items plus some general queries concerning the individual’s age, gender, programme of study, etc. (though not including anything that might identify the student) was drafted consequent to a review of relevant literature and pre-tested via (1) discussions with three experienced researchers in the educational field, and (2) a trial administration to a class of 41 second year students. (The class was arbitrarily selected as the first of the afternoon in the first lecture theatre on the first floor of the university campus in which the researcher’s office was located.) This pre-test facilitated the refinement of the draft questionnaire and the clarification of ambiguities. The final version of the questionnaire was then distributed to 327 second, third and fourth year students completing business units at a post-1992 university in Greater London. Second year students upwards were selected on the grounds that they would have substantial experience of relevant matters within the university. Documents were completed during class and were collected by students who then shuffled them out of sight of the lecturer in order to ensure total anonymity. All classes taking place over a twoweek period in the business department in one of the university’s main campuses and whose class teacher agreed to participate in the exercise were covered, representing 82% of all students undertaking business units in the building. Two hundred and forty-nine usable responses were obtained, of which 159 were from business majors. Sixty-eight per cent of the respondents classified themselves as non-white; 58% were male and just 13% were from overseas. Sixty per cent were aged 21 years or over; 60% had entered via BTEC, GNVQ or Access Course qualifications. (It was in fact quite difficult to measure entry qualifications as such, because a large number of the students possessed a mix of qualifications, e.g., a GNVQ plus one low grade ‘A’ level, although at least half were known to have used a BTEC certificate or GNVQ to gain entry.) More than 90% of the British (rather than overseas) respondents were living at home with their immediate family or with a partner. All the students in the sample should in principle have been fully aware of the meaning of plagiarism. Unit handbooks carry definitions of the term and cite examples. The topic is covered explicitly in the student’s first year as part of a lecture and in classes on how to reference sources. Thereafter tutors are expected to explain clearly how the concept relates to specific subject areas. Analysis of the data Descriptive results Less than a majority of the students (46%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that plagiarism was ‘fundamentally immoral and shameful’, yet a large number of the respondents engaged in the practice (see Table 1). Forty-six per cent admitted to having copied an entire paragraph into their own work without acknowledgement; 31% to having lifted several paragraphs from an unacknowledged source; and

150 R. Bennett Table 1.

Frequency of plagiarism Percentages

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

5 A couple of sentences Several sentences A single paragraph A number of paragraphs An entire piece of work Has collaborated with other students on work supposed to be completed individually Has made up references

3

2

1

12 14 26 2 14 32 4 2 17 2 4 11 2 9 5 5 5 27

28 23 23 14 9 24

20 29 54 69 75 39

5

4

8 20

20 47

Mean Standard Skewness deviation (Z-value) 2.69 1.29 1.13 2.36 1.10 0.64 1.77 1.03 4.36 1.45 0.82 5.57 1.26 0.69 8.28 2.12 1.04 1.09 2.40

1.02

3.97

Key: 5 = very often, 4 = often, 3 = occasionally, 2 = just once or twice, 1 = never.

25% to having handed in a complete piece of work that had been copied (16% of the sample confessed to having done this more than ‘once or twice’). The figures listed in Table 1 correspond broadly to the findings of previous surveys completed in the field, i.e., that it is likely that up to 80% of students plagiarise to some extent (Hammond, 2002; Maslen, 2003), and that around a quarter copy full paragraphs (Maslen, 2003). Respondents’ opinions concerning the percentage of the total student body that engaged in plagiarism varied substantially. A third thought that less than eleven per cent of all students handed in plagiarised work; 25% believed the true figure exceeded 35%. Most of the students (57%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that lecturers ‘rarely bothered’ to check whether students’ work contained plagiarised materials; 72% did not believe that it was ‘easy to get away with plagiarism’; and 75% disagreed/strongly disagreed with a statement worded ‘the lecturing staff do not really care whether work has been plagiarised’. The latter outcome is in line with Bjorklund and Wenestam’s (1999) suggestion that around a fifth of all lecturers may ignore (or at least not take too seriously) plagiarised submissions, but it fails to support the notion that there is widespread apathy towards the problem among teaching staff (cf. Davis et al., 1992; Phillips & Horton, 2000). Table 2 lists some key statistics that offer an insight into certain key traits and opinions among the students in the sample. Fifteen per cent of the responses fell in the strongly agree/agree categories of the academic integration composite, indicating poor academic integration as the item was scored negatively. A bare majority of the sample was goal orientated. More than a third of the students believed that having to work part time in paid employment seriously disrupted their studies. Overall, the students in the sample did not have particularly ethical stances (Table 2 item [g]), though half felt that plagiarism was unethical (item [d]). Thirty per cent of the students’ responses fell in the bottom two categories of the composite measuring the effectiveness of a person’s study skills (item [i]).

Factors associated with student plagiarism Table 2.

151

Key statistics Percentages

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

SA A (a) Academic integration composite (scored negatively) (b) Goal orientation composite (c) ‘Having to work part-time seriously disrupts my studies’ (d) Composite concerning whether plagiarism is regarded as unethical (e) Fearful of failing a degree (f) Fearful of the penalties resulting from being caught plagiarising (g) Ethical stance composite (h) Satisfaction with course composite (i) Effectiveness of study skills composite

N

D SD Mean Standard Skewness deviation (Z-value) 5 10 21 45 19 2.47 1.70 13.33

12 40 15 25 12 22 27 31

8 8

3.42 2.97

1.04 1.12

0.56 0.76

15 35 32

9

3.60

1.02

3.18

30 40 10 10 10 27 28 30 7 8

3.93 3.67

1.08 1.11

3.92 1.84

6 10 42 29 13 15 30 29 18 8 9 22 39 22 8

2.64 3.20 3.10

1.01 1.18 0.99

0.80 1.05 0.26

9

Key: SA = strongly agree, A = agree, N = neither agree nor disagree, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree

Test of the model It can be seen from Tables 1 and 2 that several of the variables in the hypothesised model depicted in Figure 1 were not normally distributed. Hence the model was estimated using the method of partial least squares (specifically the PLS Graph Package Version 3 (Chin, 2001)), which makes no pre-assumptions about the statistical distributions of variables3. Significant relationships were identified through an experimental procedure whereby all the candidate independent variables were entered in regression equations, firstly in total, thereafter in various combinations. An independent variable was removed if it failed to attain significance at the 0.05 level in any configuration of independent variables. The data was also examined for significant differences with respect to gender, age, programme of study, ethnicity, and whether the student was from overseas. No meaningfully significant differences (p = 0.05 or below) were detected vis-à-vis any of these considerations. This pre-analysis soon revealed that two model estimations were necessary: one for minor plagiarism and another for major plagiarism. Students’ responses regarding the frequency with which they plagiarised ‘a couple of sentences’ were highly correlated (R = 0.77) with their replies vis-à-vis plagiarising several sentences. Hence the two items were combined into a single scale to measure the incidence of minor plagiarism. This scale correlated significantly with the frequencies with which the students in the sample made up fictitious references (R = 0.63) and with the incidence of collaboration with other students on work that should have been completed individually (R = 0.68). Hence the newly constructed minor plagiarism scale represented a reasonable proxy for these other two variables. Major plagiarism was measured as the combination of the

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

152 R. Bennett students’ responses to the two questionnaire items concerning the frequencies with which the person plagiarised ‘a number of paragraphs’ and ‘an entire piece of work’. There was a high correlation between these items (R = 0.81), meaning that individuals who often copied a number of paragraphs without acknowledgement were also extremely likely to copy an entire piece of work. (The pattern of the results from the hypothesis tests were the same when the models were re-estimated using the two items as stand alone variables rather than as a composite. This was also true of the two items in the minor plagiarism composite.) Significant pathways are shown in Figures 2 and 3; associated parameter estimates are listed in Table 3. Minor plagiarism was significantly associated with many but not all of the variables depicted in the initial hypothesised model. However, past experiences at school or in FE and peer group influences failed to exert an impact. The strongest effects on the incidence of minor plagiarism were a person’s attitude towards the practice (i.e., whether it was seen as fundamentally improper), and the degree of an individual’s academic integration. Students whose part time employment interfered with their studies; who were obtaining low grades and/or were under heavy parental pressure to succeed were more likely to plagiarise at the minor level than others. High levels of goal orientation were also a significant determinant of decisions to plagiarise. A person’s attitudes towards plagiarism were significantly influenced by his or her overall moral position (though not by religiosity). As expected, ineffective study skills contributed to low grades and, it turned out, were directly connected with poor academic integration. Two significant interaction terms were identified, indicated as M1 and M2 in Figure 2. Firstly it emerged that students with a lax attitude towards plagiarism and whose part time paid employment was interfering with their studies were especially likely to plagiarise (M1). Secondly, the impact of low grades on the tendency to plagiarise was substantially higher among students with a lax attitude towards plagiarism issues (M2). Figure 3 shows that major plagiarism was explained by a smaller number of variables than was the case for minor plagiarism, and three of these variables did not appear in Figure 2. Fear of failing a course encouraged major plagiarism; fear of the penalties that might be imposed if a person was caught discouraged students from engaging in the practice. As with minor plagiarism, lax attitudes and lack of academic integration exerted significant influences on serious plagiaristic activities, However, when the connections between (1) the extent of major plagiarism, and (2) the individual items of the academic integration composite were examined in detail an unanticipated outcome was discovered. Students who reported that they had excellent relationships with their lecturers confessed to engaging in major plagiarism to a substantially greater extent than others. Hence this item was taken out of the academic integration composite and thereafter regarded as a stand alone variable in its own right. As an independent variable, the item had a highly significant impact on the incidence of major plagiarism. It seems, therefore, that students who enjoyed friendly personal relationships with their lecturers also felt that serious plagiarism would either be overlooked, or not result in serious penalties. Figure 2. Determinants of minor plagiarism

Figure 2. Determinants of minor plagiarism

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Experiences of the sacred in childhood 153

Figure 3. Determinants of major plagiarism

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

154 H-G. Heimbrock

Factors associated with student plagiarism Table 3.

Standardised parameter estimates* Minor plagiarism

Dependent variable Extent of plagiarism

Explanatory variables Goal orientation

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Academic integration Financial situation Academic performance** Parental pressure Attitude towards plagiarism M1 M2

0.23 (2.91) −0.33 (6.55) −0.21 (3.48) −0.22 (3.02) 0.20 (2.77) −0.46 (8.76) 2.90 (6.13) 3.12 (7.07)

Relationships with staff Fear of failure Fear of penalties if caught Academic integration Attitudes towards plagiarism Academic performance

155

Effectiveness of personal study skills Ethical position Effectiveness of personal study skills

0.19 (2.04) 0.52 (11.64) 0.21 (2.98)

Major plagiarism

−0.28 (5.53)

−0.50 (11.66)

0.19 (2.04) 0.39 (4.61) −0.22 (3.99) 0.28 (3.77) 0.67 (12.49)

*T-values in parentheses. These were obtained via the jack-knifing facility available on PLS Graph Version 3. **Excludes the item concerning relationships with members of the academic staff. Figure 3. Determinants of major plagiarism

Conclusion and discussion The students in the sample were drawn mainly from families at the bottom end of the UK distribution of incomes and belonged to ethnic groups that represent minorities within the UK population as a whole. Most of the respondents had entered university on the basis of the minimum academic qualifications permissible under the British matriculation system. It emerged that some of the factors that were significantly associated with the incidence of plagiarism among these students differed according to the level of the plagiarism involved, implying that it is not appropriate to apply a single set of policies when attempting to reduce the occurrence of the practice. Clearly,

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

156 R. Bennett there is little point in tackling an outbreak of plagiarism via the intensification of measures that are not relevant to the level of plagiarism in question. Nevertheless, certain variables were connected with the likelihood that a student would plagiarise at both the major and minor levels, presumably because of the reasons cited in the prior literature in the field as previously outlined. Individuals possessing innately ‘ethical’ moral positions disapproved of plagiarism to a greater extent than others, and were substantially less likely to hand in plagiarised work (cf. Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995). Perhaps therefore there is a need for university staff to address forcefully the issue of academic integrity during introductory programmes and to explain clearly and sympathetically the objective need for honesty in academic life. Concomitantly, the second common factor underlying both major and minor plagiarism, i.e., lack of academic integration, must be confronted at the earliest possible opportunity (see Calabrese & Cochran, 1990; Caruana et al., 2000). A significant minority of the respondents reported that they felt ‘lost and bewildered’ at university, implying that academic integration was a major issue so far as these individuals were concerned. Academic integration is strongly associated with a person’s perception that it is somehow ‘natural’ and fundamentally ‘right and proper’ for the individual to be a university undergraduate. Such perceptions are less common perhaps among ‘non-traditional’ students. It follows that first year (preferably first semester) courses should aim to make ‘non-traditional’ students feel ‘at home’ in an academic environment and to believe that a university education is a natural experience for people from all sorts of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. Poor study skills comprised the third common factor applicable to both major and minor plagiarism (see Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999). Ineffective study skills were associated with substandard academic performance, lack of academic integration, and the tendency to plagiarise. Again, this suggests the desirability of concentrating resources on the development of study skills at the very start of a degree programme. The level of a student’s satisfaction with his or her degree course did not impact significantly on either major or minor plagiarism. Individuals who were highly satisfied with the education they were receiving were just as likely to plagiarise as people who were dissatisfied. This finding might be explained, perhaps, by the fact that dissatisfied students can be just as able, hard-working, and ‘ethical’ as individuals who are highly satisfied with their course. Thus, academic ability and personal ethical integrity might have exerted influences that outweighed the potential effects of the satisfaction variable on the propensity to plagiarise. For instance, a dissatisfied student could have held deep moral principles that prevented the person from cheating, even if he or she inwardly wished to ‘punish’ the university (through plagiarising) for having been the cause of the student’s dissatisfaction. Equally, a student’s age, extent of past investment in getting to and attending university, and prior experiences at school or FE college did not appear to be connected with the decision to plagiarise. As regards the non-significance of a student’s age in the present analysis, it should be noted that a substantial majority of the students in the sample (60%) were over 21 years of age. It is likely therefore that the average age of the individuals in this particular sample was considerably higher than the average ages of the students included in

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism

157

earlier investigations in the plagiarism field. (Unfortunately few of these other studies provided precise details of the age structures of their samples.) Hence it is possible that there was insufficient variation in the data to enable all potential associations between age and the two dependent variables to be uncovered. The same consideration might explain the statistical insignificance of the variable measuring the extent of a person’s past investment in getting into university. In financial and most other socio-economic terms the sample was substantially homogeneous, so that the students’ past experiences and levels of effort devoted to gaining matriculation qualifications were likely to have been very similar, again resulting in a paucity of meaningful variation in the data relating to this variable. Likewise, the great majority of the students in the sample would have attended the same kinds of schools in geographical areas with similar characteristics and thus would have had comparable experiences of school or FE college prior to entering university. Another variable that failed to attain significance was the intensity with which lecturers enforced university rules on plagiarism. As previously stated, most students believed that their lecturers were quite strict on enforcement, although there was little evidence of this affecting students’ behaviour. One possible reason for the lack of significance of the enforcement variable could be that because the students were taught in large groups in a generally impersonal manner, many of them might not have believed that their lecturers were key players in the disciplinary (rather than administrative) process. Lecturers ‘enforce’ rules in that they report alleged cases of plagiarism, but the rules themselves, investigative procedures, and the penalties for engaging in plagiarism are determined by the institution. The documentation distributed to students about plagiarism come from the university, not from individual lecturers. Therefore, institutional considerations might have been at the forefront of students’ minds when deciding whether and how seriously to plagiarise. Major plagiarism appeared to be driven more by fear of failure (cf. Baird, 1980; CWPA, 2003) mitigated by fear of punishment (confirming the findings of Haines et al., 1986 but refuting the suggestions of Braumoeller & Gaines, 2001) than by the desire to succeed (see Bjorklund & Wenestam, 1999). This result was due presumably to the large difference in the probable consequences of major and minor plagiarism; which can range from a reprimand and having to redo a piece of work in the latter case, to the loss of a full year or to expulsion following a serious offence. A student’s fear of failure might be confronted by explaining to the person at an early point in his or her academic career that doing badly in an assignment or examination can be a positive and useful experience that identifies areas of weakness to which the person needs to direct his or her attention. Whereas the degree of the strictness with which faculty enforced university rules on plagiarism did not generally affect respondents’ behaviour, the existence of severe penalties did seem to deter major plagiarism (cf. Larkham & Manns, 2002). An unexpected result concerning major plagiarism was that students who reported that they had excellent relationships with their lecturers were more likely to plagiarise than others. This contradicts the conclusion of Saenz et al. (1999), who alleged that students with poor relationships with academic staff were more inclined to plagiarise. Accordingly, it may be that lecturers need to be

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

158 R. Bennett extremely careful to ensure that their overt attempts at being close to and friendly towards students do not induce the latter to believe that acts of plagiarism will be ignored or automatically forgiven. Possibly staff who ‘court popularity’ with students are prone to attract the attentions of major, though seemingly not minor, plagiarists. It is not entirely clear why this should be the case. The results clearly indicated however that a dishonest student’s expectation of being able to get away with a serious act of plagiarism increased as the person’s relationship with a lecturer deepened. Additional research is needed into this matter. Minor plagiarism was associated with a wider range of variables than major plagiarism, including poor academic performance, parental pressure, financial situation (in terms of whether having to undertake paid employment interfered with the student’s academic work), and goal orientation. The strength of the link between low grades and minor plagiarism could be reduced, perhaps, by explaining to incoming students that the results of assessments offer valuable information visà-vis how the student is progressing and the areas in which more work is necessary. The fact that accurate grades (i.e., those that have not been distorted by plagiarism) indicate a person’s progress in a particular subject relative to (1) other people in his or her year, and (2) the individual’s own expectations, must be clearly elucidated. Students need to be made to understand the fundamental purposes of incourse assessment at the outsets of their academic careers. Equally, lecturers must emphasise to students that the (reasonable) desire to attain utilitarian employmentrelated objectives must not compromise academic integrity. The fact that acts of dishonesty committed in employment situations lead to dire consequences must be pointed out. In contrast to the situation pertaining to minor plagiarism, the incidence of more serious forms of the practice was not affected by goal orientation. Possibly, therefore, students’ desires to improve their job and career prospects by obtaining a better degree might in some cases impel them to engage in minor acts of plagiarism, where the probability of detection and the consequent penalties are small. However, students with high levels of goal orientation may be extremely averse to the risk of disrupting their career plans through being caught in major acts of plagiarism that are likely to result in the loss of an entire grade, a semester, or in expulsion. Similarly, the non-significance of parental pressure in relation to major plagiarism could be due to the fact that a student’s parents would almost certainly find out if the individual were suspended or expelled from university, yet would be unlikely to learn about a small penalty imposed for a minor offence. Hence the desire to please parents through obtaining higher grades via major plagiarism might be offset by fear of the consequences of discovery. Students whose academic grades were poor were inclined to indulge in minor but not in major plagiarism. It seems plausible to suppose that the academically weak are sometimes more prone to take ‘short cuts’ by plagiarising in order to improve their performances. Nevertheless, the willingness to take these dishonest shortcuts did not apply when the danger of incurring severe penalties consequent to major acts of cheating was present. Financial hardship was another variable associated only with minor plagiarism. It is

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism

159

appropriate to note in this connection that students with financial difficulties typically spend more hours in paid employment than better-off individuals, and thus may experience greater temptations to take short-cuts in their academic work via minor plagiarism. At the same time, the prospect of losing a semester or year through being caught consequent to an act of major plagiarism may be considerably more daunting to an indigent student than to others. A-priori, therefore, the absence of a positive and significant link between financial hardship and major plagiarism is not entirely surprising. Parental pressure on a student to succeed at university is an exogenous factor beyond institutional control. Further research is needed into the antecedents and consequences of this variable, particularly in situations where, as in the university in which the research was completed, the majority of undergraduate students are from ethnic minorities and usually comprise the first generation of their families to attend university (parental pressure to do well might be intense in these circumstances). Financial pressures on students represent another exogenous situation that a university cannot regulate. Nevertheless, the significance of the link between financial hardship and minor plagiarism is disturbing, and confirms the findings of numerous previous studies (see above) that have alleged the existence of a connection between students having to spend many hours in paid employment and their tendency to plagiarise. Students from families that offer them enough financial support to enable them to avoid having to spend many hours in paid employment will have more time available to devote to their studies. In the present investigation however there were no significant correlations between the number of hours worked and (1) academic performance, or (2) academic integration. Interestingly, there was a significant negative connection (R = −0.39) between hours worked and satisfaction with a course: dissatisfied students allocated more of their available time to paid employment. The relationship between time spent in employment and satisfaction with a course is a further area that is worthy of additional investigation. Notes 1.

2. 3.

If Y = bX where b = a + cZ, then Y = (a + cZ) X, i.e., Y = aX + c(ZX). Hence a significant regression coefficient on the new variable formed by multiplying Z and X indicates the presence of an interaction effect. As is conventional, the interaction variables were mean centred to reduce possible problems caused by multicollinearity. A copy of the full questionnaire is available from the author. PLS Graph 3 calculates the standard errors on parameter estimates using a bootstrapping procedure. Although most of the variables involved five-point categorical data, it is assumed (in line with most other research using attitudinal data—see Allison, 1999, p.10) that the difference in the strength of agreement between, for example, points one and two on a scale is comparable to the difference between points four and five. This is regarded as a reasonable approximation in the present circumstances. Allison (1999) described the effects of employing ordinal scales in linear regression as ‘innocuous’ in the absence of a priori grounds for believing that non-linear responses should apply within particular divisions of a scale.

160 R. Bennett Notes on contributor

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Roger Bennett is a Professor in the Department of Business and Service Sector Management at London Metropolitan University. His main research interests are in the fields of marketing and business management, particularly in relation to non-profit organisations. Additionally Roger has completed a number of investigations in the area of educational research, focusing on issues concerning student retention and motivation. Roger is the author of many books and a large number of journal articles on various aspects of business studies.

References Allen, J., Fuller, D. & Luckett, M. (1998) Academic integrity: behaviours, rates and attitudes of business students towards cheating, Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1), 41–53. Allison, P. (1999) Multiple regression: a primer (London, Sage). Ameen, E., Guffey, D. & McMillan, J. (1996) Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals, Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 591–597. Anderman, E., Griesinger, T. & Westinger, G. (1998) Motivating and cheating during early adolescence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 84–93. Archer, L. (2002, May 31) A question of motives, Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 14. Baird, J. (1980) Current trends in college cheating, Psychology in the Schools, 17(3), 515–522. Bennett, R. (2003) Determinants of undergraduate student drop-out rates in a university business studies department, Journal of Further & Higher Education, 27(2), 123–141. Bennett, R. & Kottasz, R. (2001) Marketing undergraduates’ attitudes towards query-based instructional machines as a possible learning medium, British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 471–482. Bjorklund, M. & Wenestam, C. (1999) Academic cheating: frequency, methods and causes, Proceedings of the 1999 European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland. Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001364.htm Boshier, R. (1991) Psychometric properties of the alternative form of the education participation scale, Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 150–167. Braumoeller, B. & Gaines, B. (2001) Actions do speak louder than words: deterring plagiarism with the use of plagiarism detection software (Washington DC, American Political Science Association). Available online at: www.apsanet.org/PS/dec01/braumoeller.cfm Bruner, G. & Hensel, P. (1994) Marketing scales handbook: a compilation of multi-item measures (Chicago, IL, American Marketing Association). Calabrese, R. & Cochran, J. (1990) The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample of American adolescents, Journal of Research & Development in Education, 23(2), 65–72. Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B. & Ewing, M. (2000) The effect of anomie on academic dishonesty among university students, International Journal of Educational Management, 14(1), 23–30. Chin, W. (2001) PLS graph user’s guide version 3 (Houston, TX, Soft Modeling Inc). Churchill, G. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 64–73. Clough, P. (2003) Old and new challenges in automatic plagiarism detection (Sheffield, Plagiarism Advisory Service, University of Sheffield). Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA) (2003) Defining and avoiding plagiarism: the WPA statement on best practice (New York, CWPA). Davies, P. (2000) Computerised peer assessment, Education & Training International, 37(4), 346–355.

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Factors associated with student plagiarism

161

Davis, S. & Ludvigson, H. (1995) Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation, Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 119–121. Davis, S., Grover, C., Becker, A. & McGregor, L. (1992) Academic dishonesty: prevalence, determinants, techniques and punishments, Teaching of Psychology, 19(1), 16–20. Davis, S., Pierce, M., Yandell, L. & Arnow, P. (1995) Cheating in college and the Type A personality, College Student Journal, 29(4), 493–497. Engelland, B., Alford, B. & Taylor, R. (2001) Cautions and precautions on the use of ‘borrowed’ scales in marketing research, in: T. Sutor (Ed.) Marketing advances in pedagogy, process & philosophy, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Marketing Advances (New Orleans, Society for Marketing Advances), 152–156. Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Newstead, S. (1995) Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 159–172. Furedi, F. (2003, July 25) Shortcut to success, Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 16. Haines, V., Diekhoff, G., LaBeff, E. & Clark, R. (1986) College cheating: immaturity, lack of commitment and the neutralising attitude, Research in Higher Education, 25(4), 342–354. Hammond, M. (2002) Cyber-plagiarism: are FE students getting away with words? (Leeds, University of Leeds). Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002055.htm Hannabuss, S. (2001) Contested texts: issues of plagiarism, Library Management, 26(6), 311–318. Houle, C. (1961) The inquiring mind (Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press). Kreger, L. & Wrenn, R. (1990) Perspectives and differences, New Directions for Student Services, 51(1), 37–47. Kuehn, P., Stanwyck, D. & Holland, C. (1990) Attitudes toward cheating behaviours in the ESL classroom, TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 313–317. Larkham, P. & Manns, S. (2002) Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education, Journal of Further & Higher Education, 26(4), 339–349. Lipson, A. & McGraven, N. (1993) Undergraduate academic dishonesty at MIT: results from a study of attitudes and behaviour of undergraduates, faculty and graduate teaching assistants (Boston, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Maslen, G. (2003, July 10) Dirty marks, The Bulletin, 3–4. McCabe, D. & Trevino, K. (1996) What we know about cheating in college, Change, 28(1), 28–33. McKenzie, J. (1998) The new plagiarism: seven antidotes to prevent highway robbery in an electronic age, Educational Technology Journal, 7(8), 1–11. Meyer, J., Allen, N. & Smith, C. (1993) Commitment to organisations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualisation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551. Michie, F., Glachan, M. & Bray, D. (2001) An evaluation of factors influencing the self-concept, self-esteem and academic stress for direct and re-entry students in higher education, Educational Psychology, 21(40), 455–472. Myers, S. (1998) Questioning author(ity): ESL/EFL, science and teaching about plagiarism, TESL-EJ, 3(2), 11–20. Newstead, S., Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Armstead, P. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229–241. Oliver, R. (1993) Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response, Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 418–430. Philips, M. & Horton, V. (2000) Cybercheating: has morality evaporated in business education? International Journal of Educational Management, 14(4), 150–155. Saenz, T., Marcouldes, G., Junn, E. & Young, R. (1999) The relationship between college experience and academic performance among minority students, International Journal of Educational Management, 13(4), 199–207. Sanders, C. (2002, February 1) Debt grows ever bigger and even more painful, Times Higher Education Supplement, pp. 6–7.

162 R. Bennett

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] at 08:00 12 April 2016

Sims, R. (1995) The severity of academic dishonesty: a comparison of faculty and student views, Psychology in Schools, 32(3), 233–238. Standler, R. (2000) Plagiarism in colleges in the USA. Available online at: www.rbs2.com/plag.htm Stoynoff, S. (1996) Self-regulated learning strategies of international students: a study of high and low achievers, College Student Journal, 30(2), 329–336. Sutton, E. & Huba, M. (1995) Undergraduate student perceptions of academic dishonesty as a function of ethnicity and religious participation, NASPA Journal, 33(1), 19–34. Yeung, S., Wong, S. & Chan, B. (2002) Ethical beliefs of hospitality and tourism students toward their school life, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(4), 183–192.