View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Is Plagiarism Really on the Rise? Results from Four 5-Yearly Surveys

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is Plagiarism Really on the Rise? Results from Four 5-Yearly Surveys
Language: English
Authors: Curtis, Guy J. (ORCID 0000-0002-4174-6955), Tremayne, Kell
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2021 46(9):1816-1826.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Plagiarism, Educational Trends, Trend Analysis, Student Attitudes, Undergraduate Students, Integrity, Cheating, Longitudinal Studies, Foreign Countries, Writing (Composition)
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1707792
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: Historical trends in plagiarism are often estimated by comparing survey results from a diverse range of samples, institutions, and measures. However, in multi-institution multi-method comparisons changes over time are difficult to separate from differences in methods. We assessed self-reported engagement in, awareness of, and attitudes toward seven forms of plagiarism in surveys of four comparable groups of students at the same university on four occasions over 15 years, each separated by 5 years (2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019). The new 2019 sample was 1099 students. A downward trend in plagiarism from 2004 to 2014 was not continued in 2019, with similar rates of engagement in, awareness of, and attitudes toward the seven forms of plagiarism in 2019 as in 2014. These results emphasize the need to continue efforts to detect and prevent plagiarism, and to educate academics and students about academic integrity conventions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1305063
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEgkzRt-c7fK_nHpqmb1FHgAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI_PBBba4SIP0cpUpgIBEICBmmCxr8rN0i7f--drzPw2eHqKD29w66uiPaJqlmE9MVappbaxbFDZ1I_iPe5vJ7mY3lCh6NUQk-GWG5UJX_hJ0_JRQjSUmWv1vqIVXislvyYcKmxhamomntHPIQ8lIVVV3eU_bKyns9G0ggCKh9AkcLJvdzWYqZsaeOh_LRhvDq00L1aOqWGdVyuoZwnWJejo4fzThV51f0s88o0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0151912693;she01sep.21;2021Aug17.02:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0151912693-1">Is plagiarism really on the rise? Results from four 5-yearly surveys </title> <p>Historical trends in plagiarism are often estimated by comparing survey results from a diverse range of samples, institutions, and measures. However, in multi-institution multi-method comparisons changes over time are difficult to separate from differences in methods. We assessed self-reported engagement in, awareness of, and attitudes toward seven forms of plagiarism in surveys of four comparable groups of students at the same university on four occasions over 15 years, each separated by 5 years (2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019). The new 2019 sample was 1099 students. A downward trend in plagiarism from 2004 to 2014 was not continued in 2019, with similar rates of engagement in, awareness of, and attitudes toward the seven forms of plagiarism in 2019 as in 2014. These results emphasize the need to continue efforts to detect and prevent plagiarism, and to educate academics and students about academic integrity conventions.</p> <p>Keywords: Plagiarism; academic integrity; cheating; trend; longitudinal</p> <p>Park ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>], 478) observed that 'Longitudinal and time series data on student cheating are thin on the ground, but the evidence suggests that it is becoming more common.' A historical trend of increased cheating may have been true when Park wrote this, based on the available evidence, but is it still the case since? Park's comment on trends in cheating cited two studies that each compared survey results from two points in time. First, McCabe and Bowers ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]) reported higher incidences of some forms of cheating by students in a 1991 survey compared with the same survey in 1963. Interestingly, however, McCabe and Bowers ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>], 5) found 'no overall increase in self-reported cheating.' Second, Diekhoff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]) found that self-reported cheating was higher in a 1994 survey than in a survey taken 10 years earlier at the same institution. Since these studies, however, it is fair to say that longitudinal and time-series data on plagiarism remain scant. Nonetheless, there are some further studies since those just mentioned that add to our understanding of historical and recent trends in plagiarism.</p> <p>Of particular note in studies of trends in cheating, Newton ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]) recently reported the results of a large systematic review of contract cheating (students buying and submitting work completed by others) and other forms of cheating behavior. The research captured in Newton's review includes data from over 50,000 students reported in 65 studies. Newton's analysis found that both contract cheating and other more common cheating behaviors correlated positively with the year in which the data were collected, indicating an upward historical trend in rates of cheating.</p> <p>Although Newton's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]) findings are persuasive, Whitley, Nelson, and Jones ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref7">33</reflink>]) point out that the substantial range of definitions and measure of plagiarism and cheating used within the literature potentially makes the comparisons among studies unreliable. Indeed, just over two thirds of the papers reviewed by Newton used measures of plagiarism and cheating that had not been used in a previous study. The remaining third of papers still used a range of measures, albeit measures that had been used at least once before. Moreover, interpreting trends with a diversity of questions across studies is further complicated by a diversity of samples (Newton [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]) with differing cultures (Bretag [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; Heckler and Forde [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]), institutional policies and histories (McCabe and Trevino [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]), and societal norms (Curtis et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]) all having the potential to influence rates of plagiarism. For example, although the majority of studies reviewed by Newton ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>]) were from developed English-speaking countries, two recent studies that reported very high rates of contract cheating were from Ghana and Georgia respectively (Abukari [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]; Kayaoğlu et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]). And, these studies asked different questions from each other to assess the prevalence of cheating.</p> <p>The problems with interpretation of historical trends that are inherent in comparing studies using a range of measures, methods, and samples can be reduced by surveying students from the same institution with the same measures over time (Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]). Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]) repeated Diekhoff et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]) survey in 2004, which was another 10 years after their second (1994) data collection, using the same measures and at the same institution. Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]) found that at the second 10-year follow-up, rates of cheating had stabilized, after the introduction of an honor code for students in the intervening period. However, there are three key limitations in Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]) research that must be considered. First, students were asked only about three forms of plagiarism/cheating behaviors. Second, the measure they used relied on students' awareness that their behavior constituted cheating or plagiarism, thus making it unlikely to detect inadvertent plagiarism that may be accounted for by students lacking awareness of referencing conventions. Third, their final data collection, 2004, precedes the widespread adoption of text-matching software at higher education institutions, which may discourage plagiarism and result in a downward historical trend.</p> <p>Park ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]) speculated that plagiarism and cheating in higher education may have increased since the introduction of the internet. The internet may have increased cheating because it allows convenient opportunities for students to find and copy information, as well as collude with other students, and connect with ghostwriters and essay mills (Park [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]). Indeed, in dominant criminological theories the opportunity to do the wrong thing is proposed as a key explanation of why unethical behavior occurs (e.g. Baird and Clare [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]; Cohen and Felson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]). However, Park ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>]) also acknowledged that the internet provides enhanced opportunities for detection of plagiarism and cheating. In the early days of the internet, just as students could find a source online to copy, an academic who was suspicious that something was plagiarized could also find the copied text online using an internet search engine. Subsequently, text-matching software such as <emph>Turnitin, Safeassign, Grammarly</emph>, and, <emph>Urkund</emph> provide more convenient automated checking for copied content. When considering the trend described by Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]), it is important to keep in mind that the stabilization of plagiarism rates they described was observed before text-matching software was in widespread use in higher education.</p> <p>The only study of plagiarism and cheating trends of which we are aware to span the period from partial to nearly ubiquitous use of text-matching software in a single institution over a sustained period is that of Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]). Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref28">15</reflink>]) repeated the same survey of students' engagement in, understanding of, and attitudes toward seven forms of plagiarism and cheating, see Table 1 (Walker [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]), at Western Sydney University (WSU), Australia, over 10 years with surveys conducted in 2004, 2009, and 2014. Over this time, use of the text-matching software Turnitin went from limited, to partial, to nearly universal use at WSU.</p> <p>Table 1. Types of plagiarism.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Type</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sham paraphrasing</td><td>Material copied verbatim from text and source acknowledged in-line but represented as paraphrased</td></tr><tr><td>Illicit paraphrasing</td><td>Material paraphrased from text without in-line acknowledgement of source</td></tr><tr><td>Other plagiarism</td><td>Material copied from another student's assignment with the knowledge of the other student</td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim copying</td><td>Material copied verbatim from text without in-line acknowledgement of the source</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td>Same assignment submitted more than once for different courses</td></tr><tr><td>Ghost writing</td><td>Assignment written by third party and represented as own work</td></tr><tr><td>Purloining</td><td>Assignment copied from another student's assignment or other person's papers without that person's knowledge</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: From 'Student Plagiarism in Universities: What Are We Doing About It?' by J. Walker, 1998, <emph>Higher Education Research and Development</emph>, <emph>17</emph>, p. 103. Copyright © HERDSA, reprinted by permission of Taylor and Francis Ltd.</p> <p>With their 2014 data collection, Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]) were particularly interested in whether contract cheating had increased over time. In their paper, contract cheating was called 'ghostwriting,' based on Walker's ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]) definition, but the operationalization of this concept was via a scenario that involved a student buying a custom-written assignment online and submitting the assignment with their name on it – which clearly meets the conventional definition of contract cheating (Clarke and Lancaster [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]). Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref33">15</reflink>]) argued that the widespread use of text-matching software should reduce copy-and-paste plagiarism and cheating such as verbatim copying and illicit paraphrasing. However, they speculated that shutting off this avenue of cheating may divert students to instead use ghostwriting services, which provide assignments that would not be indicated as 'copied' by text-matching software. As expected, Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]) found a significant trend of reduced verbatim copying and illicit paraphrasing. However, they did not observe a significant increase in the uptake of ghostwriting. In fact, they reported a small, non-significant, decrease in the rate of students reporting that they had used ghostwriters. Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]) attributed the changes in verbatim copying and illicit paraphrasing to both to the increased uptake of text-matching software (Barrett and Malcolm [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]) and to educational interventions implemented at WSU between 2004 and 2014.</p> <p>Curtis and Vardanega's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]) interesting and encouraging finding of no substantial change to rates of contract cheating, via ghostwriting, may be explained from the criminological perspective of displacement theory (Bowers and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Cornish and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]). When people are deterred from engaging in one kind of unethical behavior, they will not necessarily tactically engage in another form of unethical behavior in its place (Bowers and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]). Moreover, from a psychological point of view, Ariely ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]) contends that most people will cheat in small ways (e.g. such as a student leaving a citation off a paraphrased sentence) and still maintain a positive self-image as a 'good person.' However, most people will not cheat in substantial ways where it is hard to rationalize their own actions as those of a good person (e.g. submitting a paid ghostwritten assignment as their own; Ariely [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]). Because of this, even without a technological deterrent to ghostwriting, the psychological deterrent to this kind of cheating remains much as it always has been. Indeed, recent work by Rundle, Curtis, and Clare ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref43">29</reflink>]), indicates that learning goals, morals, and norms are more important reasons for students not engaging in contract cheating than the potential to be caught and punished.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-2">The present study</hd> <p>As mentioned, Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]), reported the results of surveys of plagiarism and cheating at WSU in 2004, 2009, and 2014. These surveys used an anonymous self-report measure where students reported their understanding of the forms of plagiarism defined by Walker ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]), the extent to which they considered these forms of plagiarism to be serious, and the extent of their engagement in these forms of plagiarism. We repeated this survey at the next 5-yearly interval, 2019, at WSU and obtained the raw data from Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]) in order to compare our results with theirs and to examine the contemporary trend in plagiarism and cheating that this comparison allows.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151912693-4">Participants and sampling procedures</hd> <p>We compared data collected using an identical survey instrument from students at Western Sydney University at four times of testing: 2004 (<emph>N</emph> = 425; from Maxwell, Curtis, and Vardanega [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]); 2009 (<emph>N</emph> = 147; Curtis and Popal [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]), 2014 (<emph>N </emph>= 120; from Curtis and Vardanega [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>]), and 2019 (<emph>N</emph> = 1099, newly collected for this paper). The 2019 data collection received ethical approval from the WSU Human Research Ethics Committee.</p> <p>In each year, the group of students tested had some differences in their demographic characteristics. Because higher-year students have completed more assessment tasks than early-year students, they have had, over the course of their studies, more opportunities to engage in plagiarism. The measure we used to assess prevalence of plagiarism is sensitive to students' year of study because it asks if they have <emph>ever</emph> engaged in cheating behaviors that are described in various scenarios. Thus, differences in the year levels of students between the samples could distort the results. The 2004 and 2019 samples had many more higher-year students (4th-year and postgraduate) than the 2009 and 2014 samples. In addition, a small number of students in 2004 and 2014 were enrolled in majors other than Arts, Psychology, Education, or Business, none of the 2009 students were enrolled in other majors. However, about 21% of 2019 participants were enrolled in other majors. As area of study can be related to academic integrity education and opportunities (e.g. Ledwith, Risquez, and O'Dwyer [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref51">20</reflink>]), we decided to limit the samples for comparison by major. Thus, we created a 2019 sample we have called '2019 matched' that only included students in 1st-3rd year and enrolled in Arts, Psychology, Education, or Business, to compare against students who met these same criteria from 2004, 2009, and 2014. However, the 2019 matched sample removed 34% of students – those in other majors and/or enrolled in 4th-year or post-graduate studies. So as to present a fuller picture of the results, we have also presented the results for the full 2019 sample side-by-side with the matched sample. The demographic composition of our student samples that were analyzed are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Demographics of the student samples analyzed, as percentages, by year of data collection.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Year level, gender</td><td>Year of survey</td></tr><tr><td>2004 <italic>N</italic> = 288</td><td>2009 <italic>N</italic> = 119</td><td>2014 <italic>N</italic> = 106</td><td>2019 matched <italic>N</italic> = 726</td><td>2019 full <italic>N</italic> = 1099</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td /><td char=".">%</td><td char=".">%</td><td char=".">%</td><td char=".">%</td><td char=".">%</td></tr><tr><td>1st year</td><td char=".">43.4</td><td char=".">63.9</td><td char=".">47.1</td><td char=".">50.6</td><td char=".">41.8</td></tr><tr><td>2nd year</td><td char=".">25.3</td><td char=".">31.9</td><td char=".">23.5</td><td char=".">32.2</td><td char=".">26.4</td></tr><tr><td>3rd year</td><td char=".">31.2</td><td char=".">4.2</td><td char=".">29.2</td><td char=".">17.2</td><td char=".">15.2</td></tr><tr><td>4th year+</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">15.5</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td char=".">58.2</td><td char=".">41.1</td><td char=".">18.9</td><td char=".">17.9</td><td char=".">23.4</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">41.8</td><td char=".">58.8</td><td char=".">81.1</td><td char=".">82.1</td><td char=".">76.6</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>M(SD)</italic></td><td><italic>M(SD)</italic></td><td><italic>M(SD)</italic></td><td><italic>M(SD)</italic></td><td><italic>M(SD)</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>21.86 (4.64)</td><td>22.18 (6.25)</td><td>21.61 (6.06)</td><td>21.74<sub>b</sub> (6.53)</td><td>22.64<sub>a</sub> (7.02)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Subscripts indicate <subs>a</subs> > <subs>b</subs>, <emph>p </emph><.05, in the same row based on post-hoc least-significant-differences tests.</p> <p>As can be seen in Table 2, the year-level composition of the four 5-yearly matched samples was similar across the data collections. The proportion of female students increased over time. The four matched samples did not differ significantly in age, but the full 2019 sample was significantly older than the matched 2019 sample.</p> <p>In 2004 and 2009, students completed the survey instrument either on paper or online. In 2014, the survey was administered entirely online. In 2019, the survey was administer entirely online also, however, a large proportion of students (41.8%) attended on-campus group testing sessions. These groups were provided with the URL for the survey and then completed the survey online in a computer lab or classroom. On-campus group participants put their student identification number on a piece of paper into a box at the front of the room if they wanted research participation credit for psychology units.</p> <p>The other 2019 students were recruited online through lecture campaigns, and physical and electronic noticeboards. Again, these students were ensured of anonymity as they provided their student identification number (if they wanted research participation credit for psychology units) in a separate survey, which meant their identification was not stored with their answers.</p> <p>In all years, the surveys were completed anonymously and students were informed of this anonymity before completing the surveys. In each year, the surveys were collected in the late weeks of the first semester and the early weeks of the second semester of the academic year. This timing of testing was to ensure that most students completing the survey had finished some university assessments, thus allowing them to have had opportunities to both learn about and engage in plagiarism.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-5">Survey instrument</hd> <p>The survey instrument used in this research is presented in Appendix A of Maxwell, Curtis, and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref52">23</reflink>]). In the survey, students were presented with seven scenarios that represent the seven categories of plagiarism described by Walker ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]; see Table 1). For each scenario students were asked whether the behavior described represents plagiarism, how often they have done a similar thing themselves, and how serious they believe the action to be. Prevalence of plagiarism was indicated by students' responses for each type of plagiarism, i.e. whether they had engaged in a similar action to that described in the scenario, using a 5-point scale from 1 'never' up through a range of frequencies to 5 'more than 7 times.' Understanding of plagiarism was determined by students indicating whether they consider the actions described in the scenarios to be plagiarism. Responses of 'no' or 'not sure' indicate a lack of understanding, responses of 'yes' indicated that students understood that the scenario described is a form of plagiarism. Perceived seriousness of plagiarism was measured by students indicating the extent to which they considered the actions described in each scenario as serious using a 3-point scale ranging from 1 'not serious at all' to 3 'very serious.'</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-6">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151912693-7">Data screening and analysis approach</hd> <p>Our principal aim was to assess differences between years. Significance of differences between frequencies (e.g. percentages of students engaging in plagiarism) were assessed with non-parametric Chi-square analyses, which do not require normally-distributed data. Significance of differences between continuous scores (e.g. mean ratings of plagiarism seriousness) were assessed using one-way ANOVAs, with least-significant-difference post-hoc tests. Before ANOVA analyses were undertaken the data were screened for normality assumptions. Some variables were significantly skewed (prevalence of engagement in plagiarism was positively skewed for Purloining and Ghostwriting, perceived seriousness was negatively skewed for Purloining, Ghostwriting, Other Plagiarism, and Verbatim Copying). ANOVA is sufficiently robust, given the sample size, for the analyses to be conducted reliably even with skewed data. Nonetheless, for the skewed variables we also ran non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests to confirm that the omnibus results accorded with those of the ANOVAs, which they did. Thus, for convenience, we have limited our reporting here to the ANOVA outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-8">Prevalence of plagiarism</hd> <p>To keep fidelity with Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]), we assessed, and report, prevalence of plagiarism in two ways: 1. The percentage of students who reported engaging in any form of plagiarism at least once (i.e. students responding anything other than 'never' to the question 'Have you ever done a similar thing?' for each scenario; see Table 3), and 2. The average of students' ratings using the 5-point scale indicating the frequency with which they had engaged in the type of plagiarism described in the scenario (see Table 4). See Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>]) for a discussion of the relative advantages of these two methods of conceptualizing the prevalence data.</p> <p>Table 3. Percentage of students reporting engaging in the various forms of plagiarism at least once, by year of testing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Type of plagiarism</td><td>2004 %</td><td>2009 %</td><td>2014 %</td><td>2019 matched %</td><td>2019 full %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Any form at least once</td><td char=".">82.3<sub>ab</sub></td><td char=".">74.7<sub>bc</sub></td><td char=".">64.2<sub>cd</sub></td><td char=".">67.4<sub>cd</sub></td><td char=".">63.5<sub>d</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Sham paraphrasing</td><td char=".">59.4<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">51.3<sub>ab</sub></td><td char=".">47.2<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">53.3 <sub>ab</sub></td><td char=".">49.1<sub>b</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Illicit paraphrasing</td><td char=".">60.8<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">45.4<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">34.0<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">39.6<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">38.2<sub>b</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Other plagiarism</td><td char=".">18.1<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">9.2<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">4.7<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">6.6<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">6.7<sub>b</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim copying</td><td char=".">30.2<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">24.4<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">11.4<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">10.3<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">10.7<sub>b</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td char=".">28.1<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">28.6<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">20.0<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">10.4<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">11.1<sub>b</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Ghost writing</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td char=".">3.4</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td char=".">3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Purloining</td><td char=".">5.9<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">0.9<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">1.8<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">2.2<sub>b</sub></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Subscripts indicate <subs>a</subs> > <subs>b</subs> > <subs>c </subs>> <subs>d</subs><emph>p </emph><.05 in the same row, based on paired Chi-Squared analysis. Frequencies are not significantly different if they share a subscript letter.</p> <p>Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and one-way ANOVA results comparing prevalence of plagiarism as rated on the 5-point scale, by year of testing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Type of plagiarism</td><td>2004 <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2009 <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2014 <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2019 matched <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2019 full <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td><italic>F</italic>(4,2333)</td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total</td><td char="(">1.59<sub>a</sub> (.55)</td><td char="(">1.42<sub>b</sub> (.46)</td><td char="(">1.24<sub>c</sub> (.29)</td><td char="(">1.30<sub>c</sub> (.36)</td><td char="(">1.30<sub>c</sub> (.39)</td><td char=".">35.06</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Sham paraphrasing</td><td char="(">2.28<sub>a</sub> (1.31)</td><td char="(">2.01<sub>b</sub> (1.14)</td><td char="(">1.65<sub>c</sub> (.84)</td><td char="(">1.94<sub>b</sub> (1.04)</td><td char="(">1.89<sub>b</sub> (1.07)</td><td char=".">9.45</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Illicit paraphrasing</td><td char="(">2.38<sub>a</sub> (1.34)</td><td char="(">1.90<sub>b</sub> (1.20)</td><td char="(">1.49<sub>c</sub> (.81)</td><td char="(">1.69<sub>c</sub> (1.02)</td><td char="(">1.69<sub>c</sub> (1.04)</td><td char=".">27.70</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Other plagiarism</td><td char="(">1.29<sub>a</sub> (.71)</td><td char="(">1.13<sub>b</sub> (.47)</td><td char="(">1.05<sub>b</sub> (.21)</td><td char="(">1.10<sub>b</sub> (.41)</td><td char="(">1.10<sub>b</sub> (.42)</td><td char=".">11.63</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim copying</td><td char="(">1.60<sub>a</sub> (1.05)</td><td char="(">1.40<sub>b</sub> (.81)</td><td char="(">1.14<sub>c</sub> (.43)</td><td char="(">1.15<sub>c</sub> (.49)</td><td char="(">1.17<sub>c</sub> (.56)</td><td char=".">32.29</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td char="(">1.45<sub>a</sub> (.84)</td><td char="(">1.37<sub>ab</sub> (.65)</td><td char="(">1.27<sub>b</sub> (.58)</td><td char="(">1.14<sub>c</sub> (.45)</td><td char="(">1.16<sub>c</sub> (.49)</td><td char=".">23.04</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Ghost writing</td><td char="(">1.06 (.35)</td><td char="(">1.06 (.35)</td><td char="(">1.05 (.29)</td><td char="(">1.04 (.30)</td><td char="(">1.05 (.31)</td><td char=".">.19</td><td char=".">.945</td></tr><tr><td>Purloining</td><td char="(">1.09<sub>a</sub> (.40)</td><td char="(">1.03 (.22)</td><td char="(">1.01<sub>b</sub> (.10)</td><td char="(">1.03<sub>b</sub> (.28)</td><td char="(">1.04<sub>b</sub> (30)</td><td char=".">2.10</td><td char=".">.079</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Subscripts indicate <subs>a</subs> > <subs>b</subs> > <subs>c</subs><emph>p </emph><.05, in the same row based on post-hoc least-significant-differences tests. Means are not significantly different if they share a subscript letter.</p> <p>As can be seen in Table 3, the matched sample of 2019 students reported engaging in recycling significantly less frequently than students in 2014. Aside from the difference in the percentage of students who had engaged in recycling, the rates of other forms of plagiarism were not significantly different in the matched 2019 sample as in the 2014 sample, and, the 2019 and 2014 rates were predominantly lower than 2009 and 2004 for most forms of plagiarism. Rates of engagement in ghostwriting were low in all years, and although there were lower rates in the more recent matched samples these differences were too small to be statistically significant. Interestingly, however, the 2019 full sample had the highest rate of engagement in ghostwriting.</p> <p>As can be seen in Table 4, the amount of plagiarism reported by students in 2019 was mostly similar to the rates in 2014, which were lower than the rates in 2004. The only differences between 2019 and 2014 is that sham paraphrasing was more frequent among the 2019 students (both matched and full samples) and recycling was less frequent.</p> <p>Taken together, across Tables 3 and 4, the two measures of plagiarism prevalence show little differences between the 2019 and 2014 students, and these students engaged in the various forms of plagiarism less than the 2009 and 2004 students. Importantly, although the full 2019 sample had the highest percentage of students who engaged in contract cheating (ghostwriting), overall these students' frequency of contract cheating was not significantly higher than that of students in previous years.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-9">Understanding of plagiarism</hd> <p>Table 5 shows the percentage of students who indicated that each scenario represented a form of plagiarism, as well as the percentage of students who indicated that all seven scenarios were forms of plagiarism. As can be seen in Table 5, the percentage of students indicating that each scenario represented a form of plagiarism was very similar for the 2019 and 2014 students, and these figures were mostly higher than for the 2004 students. For the matched 2019 students, understanding that sham paraphrasing is a form of plagiarism was lower than for the 2014 student, but understanding that recycling is a form of plagiarism was higher than for the 2014 students. These results are consistent with the results for prevalence of plagiarism, where the matched 2019 students engaged in sham paraphrasing more, and recycling less, than the 2014 students. These results re-emphasize the well-established relationship between understanding of academic integrity rules and academic integrity breaches (e.g. Owens and White [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref56">27</reflink>]) – 2019 students did comparatively more of what they understood less well than the 2014 students and less of what they understood better.</p> <p>Table 5. Percentage of students who understand that the scenario represents a form of cheating or plagiarism, by year of testing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Type of Plagiarism</td><td>2004 %</td><td>2009 %</td><td>2014 %</td><td>2019 matched %</td><td>2019 full %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Understand all</td><td char=".">4.2<sub>c</sub></td><td char=".">14.3<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">29.2<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">28.4<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">28.5<sub>a</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Sham paraphrasing</td><td char=".">29.9<sub>d</sub></td><td char=".">58.0<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">55.7<sub>ab</sub></td><td char=".">44.5<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">45.5<sub>ab</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Illicit paraphrasing</td><td char=".">62.5<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">78.0<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">84.0<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">79.7<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">78.7<sub>a</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Other plagiarism</td><td char=".">86.1<sub>c</sub></td><td char=".">95.8<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">100<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">96.1<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">95.9<sub>b</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim copying</td><td char=".">94.1</td><td char=".">95.0</td><td char=".">92.5</td><td char=".">96.7</td><td char=".">95.7</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td char=".">15.6<sub>d</sub></td><td char=".">26.9<sub>c</sub></td><td char=".">51.9<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">62.4<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">62.4<sub>a</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Ghost writing</td><td char=".">71.5<sub>b</sub></td><td char=".">91.6<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">91.5<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">87.3<sub>a</sub></td><td char=".">85.7<sub>a</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Purloining</td><td char=".">95.8</td><td char=".">99.2</td><td char=".">98.1</td><td char=".">97.5</td><td char=".">96.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Subscripts indicate <subs>a</subs> > <subs>b</subs> > <subs>c </subs>> <subs>d</subs><emph>p </emph><.05, in the same row based on paired Chi-Squared analysis. Frequencies are not significantly different if they share a subscript letter.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-10">Perceived seriousness of plagiarism</hd> <p>The perception of plagiarism as a serious issue was higher in 2014 than in 2019 overall, and for three of the seven forms of plagiarism: sham paraphrasing, illicit paraphrasing, and other plagiarism. Nonetheless, all forms of plagiarism were perceived as more serious by the 2019 students as compared with the 2004 students (Table 6).</p> <p>Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and one-way ANOVA results comparing perceived seriousness of plagiarism, by year of testing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Type of plagiarism</td><td>2004 <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2009 <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2014 <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2019 matched <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>2019 full <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td><italic>F</italic>(4,2333)</td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mean of all</td><td char="(">2.20<sub>e</sub> (.34)</td><td char="(">2.45<sub>d</sub> (.28)</td><td char="(">2.68<sub>a</sub> (.24)</td><td char="(">2.51<sub>bc</sub> (.30)</td><td char="(">2.49<sub>cd</sub> (.30)</td><td char=".">74.81</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Sham paraphrasing</td><td char="(">1.58<sub>d</sub> (.64)</td><td char="(">1.95<sub>b</sub> (.69)</td><td char="(">2.22<sub>a</sub> (.65)</td><td char="(">1.80<sub>c</sub> (.62)</td><td char="(">1.81<sub>c</sub> (.63)</td><td char=".">22.65</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Illicit paraphrasing</td><td char="(">1.90<sub>c</sub> (.66)</td><td char="(">2.12<sub>b</sub> (.67)</td><td char="(">2.62<sub>a</sub> (.51)</td><td char="(">2.14<sub>b</sub> (.61)</td><td char="(">2.12<sub>b</sub> (.62)</td><td char=".">26.32</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Other plagiarism</td><td char="(">2.55<sub>c</sub> (.60)</td><td char="(">2.85<sub>ab</sub> (.42)</td><td char="(">2.97<sub>a</sub> (.17)</td><td char="(">2.88<sub>b</sub> (.36)</td><td char="(">2.86<sub>b</sub> (.38)</td><td char=".">42.33</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim copying</td><td char="(">2.57<sub>b</sub> (.60)</td><td char="(">2.76<sub>a</sub> (.48)</td><td char="(">2.85<sub>a</sub> (.38)</td><td char="(">2.84<sub>a</sub> (.41)</td><td char="(">2.81<sub>a</sub> (.44)</td><td char=".">20.67</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td char="(">1.45<sub>c</sub> (.64)</td><td char="(">1.66<sub>b</sub> (.72)</td><td char="(">2.25<sub>a</sub> (.70)</td><td char="(">2.15<sub>a</sub> (.71)</td><td char="(">2.14<sub>a</sub> (.71)</td><td char=".">70.26</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Ghost writing</td><td char="(">2.50<sub>b</sub> (.62)</td><td char="(">2.86<sub>a</sub> (.42)</td><td char="(">2.88<sub>a</sub> (.38)</td><td char="(">2.83<sub>a</sub> (.43)</td><td char="(">2.82<sub>a</sub> (.44)</td><td char=".">37.74</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Purloining</td><td char="(">2.87<sub>b</sub> (.36)</td><td char="(">2.94<sub>a</sub> (.24)</td><td char="(">2.95<sub>a</sub> (.29)</td><td char="(">2.93<sub>a</sub> (.28)</td><td char="(">2.93<sub>a</sub> (.30)</td><td char=".">2.77</td><td char=".">.026</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Subscripts indicate <subs>a</subs> > <subs>b</subs> > <subs>c </subs>> <subs>d </subs>><subs> e</subs><emph>p </emph><.05, in the same row based on post-hoc least significant differences tests. Means are not significantly different if they share a subscript letter.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-11">Summary of the results</hd> <p>As reported above, recycling was lower in the 2019 sample than in 2014. One explanation for this result that should be considered is that there was a slightly higher percentage of 1st-year students in the 2019 sample and recycling should be more prevalent among higher-year students than among 1st-year students because of increased opportunities to use previous classes' work in new classes. However, this explanation does not account for the better understanding that recycling is a form of plagiarism among the 2019 students than the 2014 students.</p> <p>As noted earlier, the proportion of female students has increased in our samples over time. There is some evidence that male students engage in plagiarism and cheating more than do female students (e.g. Bretag et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]), although gender differences are not universally found in studies of plagiarism (Tindall and Curtis, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). The prevalence results suggests that plagiarism has trended down and stabilized, but, there is the potential that this trend over time could be accounted for by gender differences in the samples. To examine this, we calculated the two plagiarism prevalence measures (percentage and mean ratings) for male and female students separately. Although these data show that male students generally reported higher rates of plagiarism and cheating, these data also shows that the same historical patterns were evident in the male and in the female students separately. In other words, both male and female students' reported rates of plagiarism fell from 2004 to 2014, and stabilized in 2019 (these data are available in the supplemental online materials). Because of this, the trends we observed cannot be fully explained by the difference in gender composition of the samples.</p> <p>Notwithstanding differences between 2014 students and 2019 students regarding their understanding of, and engagement in, sham paraphrasing and recycling, overall the 2019 and 2014 students were mostly similar in their plagiarism rates and perceptions. In sum, these results suggest that the observed changes from 2004 to 2014 by Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]) have been maintained, now 15 years on from the first survey, including: declines in plagiarism prevalence, increased plagiarism understanding, and increased perception of plagiarism as serious. A further important overall observation from the results is that there were no significant differences between the matched 2019 sample and full 2019 sample on any measure of plagiarism prevalence, understanding, or perceived seriousness.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study has added a further 5-yearly snapshot of plagiarism at a single university to the previous three 5-yearly surveys reported by Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]), Curtis and Popal ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref61">14</reflink>]), and Maxwell, Curtis, and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]). This survey allows us to examine trends in plagiarism over 15 years from 2004 to 2019. Overall, the results of the 2019 survey show a stabilization of the downward trend in plagiarism rates, and the upward trend in plagiarism understanding and perceived seriousness among students reported by Curtis and Vardanega from 2004 to 2014. Importantly also, the results of the present study did not provide compelling evidence to suggest that contract cheating might be on the rise.</p> <p>As noted earlier, Park ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref64">28</reflink>]) had speculated that plagiarism and cheating were historically trending upward. This speculation seemed to be confirmed by Newton's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]) systematic review of contract cheating and other forms of cheating. However, as we argued, surveys with widely varying measures and cohorts have the potential to distort perceptions of historical trends, where differences in plagiarism rates in newer vs. older samples may be attributable to different cultures, measures, or institutional policies and practices. Thus, repeating Curtis and Vardanega's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>]) survey at the same institution with the same measure provides an increased element of control over extraneous factors. With the control accorded by repeated use of the same measure in the same context, our results showed little evidence of increasing plagiarism rates. Our results can be taken as a cause of optimism that plagiarism and cheating may not be rising, but our results cannot be taken as a cause for celebration.</p> <p>The reason we feel that our results are not a cause for celebration is that they still indicate significant scope for improvement that was evident in the previous 5-yearly surveys. Despite wide-spread uptake of <emph>Turnitin</emph> at WSU, and the implementation of several effective educational strategies (e.g. competency-based referencing training in introductory psychology courses, Curtis et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]), over 60% of students had engaged in at least one form of plagiarism behavior, including over 30% engaging in sham paraphrasing, which <emph>Turnitin</emph> should detect. Moreover, less than 30% of students understood that all seven forms of plagiarism examined by the survey were forms of cheating. Additionally, although some forms of plagiarism were rated, on average, near the top of the 3-point seriousness scale, others, such as sham paraphrasing were considered, on average, less than 'moderately serious.' Finally, although the 2019 full sample's contract cheating rate of 3.5% is in line with some other studies (e.g. Curtis and Clare [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]; Newton [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]),[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>] were this figure extended to the entire national sample of around one-million higher education students in Australia, it would mean that 35,000 current students had engaged in contract cheating. In addition, the 3.5% contract cheating figure in our survey is higher than the 2.2% of students who reported buying assignments online and submitting them in a larger-scale survey of Australian students (Bretag et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because some of the results of our survey can be seen as no cause for celebration, an important conclusion from our results is that there is no cause for complacency in efforts to reduce breaches of academic integrity. The results of the 2019 survey indicate that little has changed, on average, in students' plagiarism knowledge, attitudes, and behavior at WSU in the past 5 years. Therefore, business as usual may not be sufficient to address the gaps in students' knowledge (e.g. less than 30% awareness of the 7 forms of plagiarism), and attenuate students' engagement in some forms of plagiarism. We recommend that further educational interventions should be implemented to ensure that both students and staff are aware of the various forms of academic integrity breaches that may occur, their seriousness, and how these can be avoided. Staff education may be particularly important because of the rise in sham paraphrasing. As we have stated, <emph>Turnitin</emph> should detect sham paraphrasing, but staff need to be aware of plagiarism in order to act on Turnitin reports of matched text. Additionally, recent evidence suggests that academic integrity policies and procedures may be seen as a barrier by staff to reporting incidences of plagiarism (de Maio, Dixon, and Yeo, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref72">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-13">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>The present study is the first that we are aware of to report four consecutive surveys of a range of plagiarism behavior, awareness, and attitudes, at a single institution over a period of more than 10 years. In addition, this study builds on Curtis and Vardanega's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref73">15</reflink>]) study, as the only continuing research program to survey data from the same institution with the same measure and specific courses over a period from partial to full uptake of text-matching software, and now through a period of increasing academic and public concern over contract cheating (Bretag et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]). Because of this, the present study makes a unique contribution to the exiting empirical literature on academic integrity. Nevertheless, the present study has several limitations that must be acknowledged.</p> <p>First, it is likely that self-report measures of academic integrity breaches will underestimate engagement rates, no matter how well response anonymity is guaranteed for students (MacDonald and Nail [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]). Second, without a control group over the same period that did not experience the same educational changes, such as the uptake of text-matching software, we can only speculate as to the cause of historical changes in our results. Third, although the relative control afforded by a single institution study limited to specific courses is a strength, it also means that caution is needed in generalizing our results to the wider higher education sector nationally or internationally. Studies suggest that some technical disciplines, especially engineering and information technology (Bretag et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]), account for some of the highest rates of cheating. Thus, the mean level of plagiarism may be higher at a technical university, and the trends at such universities may also be different than those we observed.</p> <p>A final limitation to acknowledge is the span of historical trend analysis afforded by our study. Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]) examined results of three like surveys from 1984 to 2004 and Newton ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref78">26</reflink>]) reviewed papers from 1978 to 2016, whereas our data cover the period 2004–2019. Although our study suggests that the recent trend in plagiarism is not upward, it is notable from previous studies that the trend, at least through to the early 2000s, suggested an historical upward trajectory. Therefore, readers should keep in mind that our results potentially demonstrate the contemporary trend of the past 15 years only.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-14">Summary and conclusion</hd> <p>This paper reports the results of the fourth 5-yearly survey of a range of plagiarism behaviors, awareness, and attitudes among WSU students, thus allowing us to examine trends over a total period of 15 years. The results of the previous three 5-yearly surveys, reported by Curtis and Vardanega ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref79">15</reflink>]), indicated that students' rates of engagement in various forms of plagiarism and cheating were lower in 2014 than 2009 and 2004, while understanding of plagiarism and perception of it as serious were higher in 2014. The present survey suggests that rates of plagiarism, understanding of it, and perception of it as serious are mostly similar in the 2019 sample of students as in the 2014 sample. These results, therefore, do not suggest either an upward or downward trend in plagiarism in the most recent 5-yearly survey.</p> <p>The results of our study provide cause for optimism that plagiarism may not be trending upward, as has been reported, for example, by Newton ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref80">26</reflink>]); albeit over a longer timeframe. Nevertheless, our study still indicates some substantial gaps in students' knowledge and causes for concern in rates of several forms of plagiarism including sham paraphrasing, illicit paraphrasing, and contract cheating. Finally, although our study adds to the small pool of data on historical trends in plagiarism, this pool is only a little less shallow for this study's contribution. Because of this, we would encourage researchers who have conducted surveys of student plagiarism and cheating, or have such data available at their institutions, to repeat their surveys at regular intervals and report their findings in the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-15">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank everyone who assisted us with data collection over the years.</p> <hd id="AN0151912693-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0151912693-17"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The 2019 full sample rate of ghostwriting of 3.5% is exactly the same as the prevalence of contract cheating determined by Curtis and Clare's ([11]) meta-analysis and Newton's ([26]) systematic review and momentarily led the authors to reconsider our scepticism of numerology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1707792.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0151912693-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abukari, Zakaria. 2016. " Awareness and Incidence of Plagiarism among Students of Higher Education: A Case Study of Narh-Bita College." PhD diss., University of Ghana.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ariely, Dan. 2012. The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. New York, NY : Harper Collins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baird, M., and J. Clare. 2017. " Removing The Opportunity For Contract Cheating in Business Capstones: A Crime Prevention Case Study." International Journal for Educational Integrity 13 (1): 6. doi: 10.1007/s40979-017-0018-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, R., and J. Malcolm. 2006. " Embedding Plagiarism Education in the Assessment Process." International Journal for Educational Integrity 2 (1): 38 – 45. doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v2i1.23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bowers, K. J., and S. D. Johnson. 2003. " Measuring the Geographical Displacement and Diffusion of Benefit Effects of Crime Prevention Activity." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19 (3): 275 – 301. doi: 10.1023/A:1024909009240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bretag, T. 2015. " Defining Academic Integrity – International Perspectives: Introduction." In Handbook of Academic Integrity, edited by T. Bretag, 3 – 5. Singapore : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref57" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bretag, T., R. Harper, M. Burton, C. Ellis, P. Newton, P. Rozenberg, S. Saddiqui, and K. van Haeringen. 2019. " Contract Cheating: A Survey of Australian University Students." Studies in Higher Education 44 (1): 1837 – 56. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clarke, R., and T. Lancaster. 2006. " Eliminating the Successor to Plagiarism: Identifying the Usage of Contract Cheating Sites." Paper presented at the Second International Plagiarism Conference, Gateshead.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, L. E., and M. Felson. 1979. " Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach." American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588 – 605. doi: 10.2307/2094589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornish, D. B., and R. V. Clarke. 1987. " Understanding Crime Displacement: An Application of Rational Choice Theory." Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal 25 (4): 933 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis, G. J., and J. Clare. 2017. " How Prevalent is Contract Cheating and to What Extent are Students Repeat Offenders? " Journal of Academic Ethics 15 (2): 115 – 24. doi: 10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis, G. J., E. Cowcher, B. R. Greene, K. Rundle, M. Paull, and M. C. Davis. 2018. " Self-Control, Injunctive Norms, and Descriptive Norms Predict Engagement in Plagiarism in a Theory of Planned Behavior Model." Journal of Academic Ethics 16 (1): 225 – 39. doi: 10.1007/s10805-018-9309-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis, G. J., B. Gouldthorp, E. F. Thomas, G. M. O'Brien, and H. M. Correia. 2013. " Online Academic-Integrity Mastery Training May Improve Students' Awareness of, and Attitudes Toward, Plagiarism." Psychology: Learning and Teaching 12 (3): 282 – 89. doi: 10.2304/plat2013.12.3.282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis, G. J., and R. Popal. 2011. " An Examination of Factors Related to Plagiarism and a Five Year Follow-up of Plagiarism at an Australian University." International Journal for Educational Integrity 7 (1): 30 – 42. doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v7i1.742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis, G. J., and L. Vardanega. 2016. " Is Plagiarism Changing Over Time? A 10-Year Time-lag Study with Three Points of Measurement." Higher Education Research and Development 35 (6): 1167 – 79. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1161602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Maio, C., K. Dixon, and S. Yeo. Forthcoming. " Responding to Student Plagiarism in Western Australian Universities: The Disconnect Between Policy and Academic Staff." Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2019.1662927.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diekhoff, G. M., E. E. LaBeff, R. E. Clark, L. E. Williams, B. Francis, and V. J. Haines. 1996. " College Cheating: Ten Years Later." Research in Higher Education 37 (4): 487 – 502. doi: 10.1007/BF01730111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckler, N. C., and D. R. Forde. 2015. " The Role of Cultural Values in Plagiarism in Higher Education." Journal of Academic Ethics 13 (1): 61 – 75. doi: 10.1007/s10805-014-9221-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kayaoğlu, M. N., Ş. Erbay, C. Flitner, and D. Saltaş. 2016. " Examining Students' Perceptions of Plagiarism: A Cross-Cultural Study at Tertiary Level." Journal of Further and Higher Education 40 (5): 682 – 705. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledwith, A., A. Risquez, and M. O'Dwyer. 2010. " The Role of the Internet in Academic Honesty: A Comparison of Engineering and Business Students." 3rd International Symposium for Engineering Education, Cork.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDonald, G., and P. R. Nail. 2005. " Attitude Change and The Public–Private Attitude Distinction." British Journal of Social Psychology 44 (1): 15 – 28. doi: 10.1348/014466604X23437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, A., G. J. Curtis, and L. Vardanega. 2006. " Plagiarism among Local and Asian Students in Australia." Guidance and Counselling 21 (4): 210 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, A. J., G. J. Curtis, and L. Vardanega. 2008. " Does Culture Influence Understanding and Perceived Seriousness of Plagiarism? " International Journal for Educational Integrity 4 (2): 25 – 40. doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v4i2.412.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe, D. L., and W. J. Bowers. 1994. " Academic Dishonesty among Males in College: A Thirty Year Perspective." Journal of College Student Development 35 (1): 5 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe, D. L., and K. L. Trevino. 1993. " Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences." Journal of Higher Education 64 (5): 522 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newton, P. M. 2018. " How Common is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and is it Increasing? A Systematic Review." Frontiers in Education 3 (August): 1 – 18. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens, C., and F. A. White. 2013. " A 5-Year Systematic Strategy to Reduce Plagiarism among First-Year Psychology University Students." Australian Journal of Psychology 65 (1): 14 – 21. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, C. 2003. " In Other (People's) Words: Plagiarism by University Students -Literature and Lessons." Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (5): 471 – 88. doi: 10.1080/02602930301677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rundle, K., G. J. Curtis, and J. Clare. 2019. " Why Students Do Not Engage in Contract Cheating." Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2229), doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tindall, I., and G. J. Curtis. Forthcoming. " Negative Emotionality Predicts Attitudes Toward Plagiarism." Journal of Academic Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10805-019-09343-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandehey, M., G. Diekhoff, and E. LaBeff. 2007. " College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-up and the Addition of an Honor Code." Journal of College Student Development 48 (4): 468 – 80. doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, J. 1998. " Student Plagiarism in Universities: What Are We Doing About It? " Higher Education Research and Development 17 (1): 89 – 106. doi: 10.1080/0729436980170105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley, B. E., A. B. Nelson, and C. J. Jones. 1999. " Gender Differences in Cheating Attitudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior: A Meta-Analysis." Sex Roles 41 (9): 657 – 80. doi: 10.1023/A:1018863909149</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Guy J. Curtis and Kell Tremayne</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1305063
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Is Plagiarism Really on the Rise? Results from Four 5-Yearly Surveys
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Curtis%2C+Guy+J%2E%22">Curtis, Guy J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4174-6955">0000-0002-4174-6955</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tremayne%2C+Kell%22">Tremayne, Kell</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2021 46(9):1816-1826.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Plagiarism%22">Plagiarism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrity%22">Integrity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cheating%22">Cheating</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1707792
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Historical trends in plagiarism are often estimated by comparing survey results from a diverse range of samples, institutions, and measures. However, in multi-institution multi-method comparisons changes over time are difficult to separate from differences in methods. We assessed self-reported engagement in, awareness of, and attitudes toward seven forms of plagiarism in surveys of four comparable groups of students at the same university on four occasions over 15 years, each separated by 5 years (2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019). The new 2019 sample was 1099 students. A downward trend in plagiarism from 2004 to 2014 was not continued in 2019, with similar rates of engagement in, awareness of, and attitudes toward the seven forms of plagiarism in 2019 as in 2014. These results emphasize the need to continue efforts to detect and prevent plagiarism, and to educate academics and students about academic integrity conventions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1305063
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1305063
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1707792
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 1816
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Plagiarism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cheating
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Is Plagiarism Really on the Rise? Results from Four 5-Yearly Surveys
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Curtis, Guy J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tremayne, Kell
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 46
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1